Army Times: Rumsfeld Must Go

[Lemur]

That known bastion of liberal elite quisling fifth-column ... oh, no wait, it's the Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php). Anyway, they're publicly calling on Rumsfeld to go, a position I agree with wholeheartedly. Full text under spoil tag.
Time for Rumsfeld to go

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

[ajaxfetish]

Is there anyone who still doesn't agree with this . . . ?

Ajax

[Lemur]

Does no-one want to defend Rummy? Come on, where's DevDave?

[rory_20_uk]

The problem is that it is the Army wanting rid of Rumsfeld. So, to disagree with the article is to in effect disagree with the Army. Dave's loyalties are prpbaby more with the Army core than a politician.

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

Does no-one want to defend Rummy? Come on, where's DevDave?

Just for grins, I'll put on my Devil's Advocate hat:

-Invade Afghanistan. Check.
-Defeat Taliban. Check.
-Ivade Iraq. Check.
-Defeat Republican Guard. Check.
-Run a 2-theatre war with existing resources. Check.
-Insure security during elections in both countries. Check.

He's done all the major tasks assigned. Bush values loyalty over almost any other trait. Why should he fire his loyal lieutenant?

---------(Removes Devil's Advocate Hat)---------------

Kukr's opinion: the entire chain of command, Rumsfield down to Private England's squad leader, should have offered their resignation after Abu Ghraib.

[Prince of the Poodles]

I am not defending him, but a lot of the military do not like him for reasons other than Iraq I think.

If I remember correctly, Rumsfeld's goal since before 9/11 was to change the military into a lighter, faster response type institution. This, I believe, meant not as much emphasis on the heavy tank and artillery divisions, and more resources directed towards new stuff like wheeled vehicles and light artillery.

I remember there was a big fight over a certain piece of extremely heavy artillery in development that Rummy axed and it pissed off a great many people.

Maybe the Army Times is comprised of a lot of old school Cold War guys who dont want to see the huge, cumbersome army yield to a quick response force, and they smell blood. :shrug:

On the other hand, he may have accomplished a lot in the initial invasions of both countries, but he does not seem to be able to handle an occupation. (I suspect he had very little to do with the actual invasions besides saying "go for it")

We need to find someone who can handle the job that we have now, which is not to defeat a standing army, but a large, unorganized, guerilla force.

[Divinus Arma]

Rummy has some good qualities:

(a) Transforming the military from the cold-war era to respond to modern threats was long overdue. The lessons of the 'Stan and the 'Roq have taught us how much of the military must transform and what is necessary to retain.

(b) Performing a private-sector style overhaul of the federal employment system to base wages on performance rather than longevity. This will increase productivity and accountability. This overhaul is still ongoing and some of it faces very strong opposition in the courts. (Note: This is despised by most of the federal employee population for obvious reasons. I personally believe that federal law enforcement and emergency services cannot be measured in such a way and thus are an inappropriate candidate for this program. Nevertheless, I commend his efforts at reducing inefficieny and waste in bureacracy.)


Despite this, the governance of the Iraqi Campaign falls squarely on the shoulders of the President and his closest advisors. While not as awful as it could be, the Iraqi Campaign has faced a number of obstacles which could have otherwise been avoided with a more pessimistic attitude towards the outcome. I believe that this is what many of the "neocons" have found frustrating about the Defense Secretary's policies within the conflict zone.


As an interesting and related aside: President George W. Bush has taken the most flak for being too far left. His allowance of gross overspending and expansion of federal meddling has greatly discouraged the true conservatives of this nation. Secondly and as importantly, the Bush orientation towards the border is closer to that of Teddy Kennedy than the mainstream GOP. And lastly, the Iraqi Campaign has been fought with "kid gloves", where an eye towards media criticism and potential political fallout have allowed the perceived politically safe decision to be made instead of the right decision.

[Del Arroyo]

The Army Times is an over-priced weekly newspaper sold on military posts, which runs positive little human-interest pieces and an occasional "investigation" of a scandal that is already really hot in the civilian press, and prints alot of information about pay grades and promotion points and uniforms and stuff like that. It is written and edited by a bunch of soldiers from one of those pogue MOS's like Public Affairs or something like that, and the quality is usually a little bit higher than those free "journals" that get thrown on your front lawn. They're never ahead of the curve-- if they are printing an editorial like this, that means there's a strong general consensus. My incidental experiences would confirm this.

[Major Robert Dump]

yeah my bad

[KukriKhan]

Public Affairs Officer (Press Relations MOS 46A) is different from Civil Affairs (gov't-builders, MOS 38A).

[Ares]

I have no idea why Bush keeps Rumsfeld. The guy did infact offer to resign twice already and Bush denied it.

Obviously Rumsfeld is no good at his job since he doesn't like to listen to the generals and commanders who actually know what they're talking about.

It makes me wonder if the war would have been going better if this administration would have actually listened to the generals and commanders.

"Sir, these tactics are not working. We must change our strategy."

"Nonsense. Stay the course."

:inquisitive:

[Scurvy]

Obviously Rumsfeld is no good at his job since he doesn't like to listen to the generals and commanders who actually know what they're talking about.

It makes me wonder if the war would have been going better if this administration would have actually listened to the generals and commanders.


:inquisitive:

i don;t know very much about this, but to quote Prince of Poodles,



If I remember correctly, Rumsfeld's goal since before 9/11 was to change the military into a lighter, faster response type institution. This, I believe, meant not as much emphasis on the heavy tank and artillery divisions, and more resources directed towards new stuff like wheeled vehicles and light artillery.

I remember there was a big fight over a certain piece of extremely heavy artillery in development that Rummy axed and it pissed off a great many people.

Maybe the Army Times is comprised of a lot of old school Cold War guys who dont want to see the huge, cumbersome army yield to a quick response force, and they smell blood.

It seems to me that some of the generals and commanders were against change, and he did that - naturaly they then make a fuss when he messes up... although i agree he isnt exactly doing a good job now :wall:



I have no idea why Bush keeps Rumsfeld. The guy did infact offer to resign twice already and Bush denied it.


to quote Kukri...


ust for grins, I'll put on my Devil's Advocate hat:

-Invade Afghanistan. Check.
-Defeat Taliban. Check.
-Ivade Iraq. Check.
-Defeat Republican Guard. Check.
-Run a 2-theatre war with existing resources. Check.
-Insure security during elections in both countries. Check.

He's done all the major tasks assigned. Bush values loyalty over almost any other trait. Why should he fire his loyal lieutenant?

:beam:

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think its the change thing. That Crusader Artillery thingy was not divided pro/con strictly along young/old leadership in the military. It had a hell of a lot more to do with people in leadership roles having personal and financial interests in seeing the thing manufactured.


I don't think Rumsfield needs to go, remember guys the mission is accomplished and the insurgency is in its last throes!!!!1111

[Lemur]

Yet another interesting post (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGQ1MjczMjJiYWJhYWU0YTlkMDgwY2I5M2VmYzgxNGM=) from the NRO. Did you know that Rumsfeld is hugely popular within the armed forces? Well, now you do.


The hard truth — and I know people don't want to hear it — is that Rumsfeld is hugely popular among the military, as is obvious in any of his Town Halls and speeches to them. It will be interesting to see how the military reacts to the Army Times editorial. I wouldn't be surprised by a fairly serious blowback.

[Major Robert Dump]

Did anyone ever read the quotes from the German Squash player that played Rummy in an exhibition match? He basically said the old man was way too aggressive, tried to push the line on fouls every chance he gets. Basically, Rumsfield is too competitive. In a lot of ways he has the good qualities that Nixon possessed.

[Vladimir]

Well the man is butting heads with the old school military establishment and therefore is bound to be hugely unpopular with them. This is why civilian control of the military is so important; it promotes radical reformation. It doesn't matter how many generals speak out against him and how much the press loves it. He is modernizing the military without using the limp wristed Shinseki methodology (you know, the guy who pushed for and got the black beret and wanted to get rid of ALL tracked vehicles, especially tanks). We’re not the Soviets: occupation isn’t our thing, winning battles is.

[yesdachi]

Rummy’s biggest mistake is not having a scapegoat; as soon as Iraq started bogging down he should have (very publicly) put someone he doesn’t like in charge of the Iraq operation. Best case, it works out, worst case, scapegoat!

[ajaxfetish]

Ah, my little Machiavelli. You have learned well.

Ajax

[Lemur]

Rummy’s biggest mistake is not having a scapegoat; as soon as Iraq started bogging down he should have (very publicly) put someone he doesn’t like in charge of the Iraq operation. Best case, it works out, worst case, scapegoat!
Not entirely true -- read State of Denial, which documents every little backbiting move made by every player in the Iraqi reconstruction game. Rummy went from blocking State on every front to blaming them on every front in the blink of an eye. He's read his Machiavelli.

It didn't play for the public, but it worked for his primary audience, the President and Vice President. He dodged all blame for the failure of reconstruction within the Admin.

[yesdachi]

Not entirely true -- read State of Denial, which documents every little backbiting move made by every player in the Iraqi reconstruction game. Rummy went from blocking State on every front to blaming them on every front in the blink of an eye. He's read his Machiavelli.

It didn't play for the public, but it worked for his primary audience, the President and Vice President. He dodged all blame for the failure of reconstruction within the Admin.
That’s the important part now.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He's going to step down today, I hear.

[vizigothe]

He just did!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who is Robert Gates?

[Lemur]

Here's Gates' wikipedia bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates). I haven't caught the news, is he the new SecDef?

[KukriKhan]

Here's Gates' wikipedia bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates). I haven't caught the news, is he the new SecDef?

Rumor so far. However, all but locked-in. Former Chief Spook.

[Ice]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/rumsfeld.ap/index.html

It's offical.

[KukriKhan]

Watching El Presidente's press conference right now... maybe it's the camera angle, but Bush looks like he feels all alone up there. He's tripping over himself to explain (3 times so far) why he changed his mind on Rummy.

[KafirChobee]

Gates will probably be accepted unanimously. He is pretty much a shoo in. His CIA credentials give some respectability to the intelliegence and military communities (since the CIA was running Afghanistan for so long), and his being the Prez of a noted University don't hurt.

Why it took so long to lose Rummy is still a major curiousity - most Presidents would have tossed such an albatros overboard many moons ago.

Now, about Chenney!

[Redleg]

Gates will probably be accepted unanimously. He is pretty much a shoo in. His CIA credentials give some respectability to the intelliegence and military communities (since the CIA was running Afghanistan for so long), and his being the Prez of a noted University don't hurt.

Why it took so long to lose Rummy is still a major curiousity - most Presidents would have tossed such an albatros overboard many moons ago.

Now, about Chenney!

Chenney will have to tender his resignation as the Vice President. I don't believe that a President has ever "fired" their Vice President, and I don't even know if it is technically possible.

[KukriKhan]

The talking heads on cable news channels are spreading the rumor that Bush made the Rumsfeld decision without the consent of VP Cheney, and whispering that Dick C's influence is waning dramatically.

On the other hand, during his press conference, Bush was definitive to the point of curtness, on Cheney staying around for the remainder of the term.

Maybe GW will send his VP out on hunting trips with the new Demo leaders, to improve relations. :)

[ajaxfetish]

Cheney was not appointed to his position by Bush; he was elected by the American people. It's not Bush's place to fire him, nor does he have the authority. That responsibility is entirely in the hands of you and me (you being our other American citizen posters).

Ajax

[sharrukin]

Why didn't Bush get rid of Rumsfeld BEFORE the election? It might have helped then. This doesn't make sense.

[Strike For The South]

Ah the eternal question. Should we Hump or Gig the terrorist scum to death.

Many of you wont understand but this is funny

very funny

[IRONxMortlock]

Cheney was not appointed to his position by Bush; he was elected by the American people. It's not Bush's place to fire him, nor does he have the authority. That responsibility is entirely in the hands of you and me (you being our other American citizen posters).

Ajax

Wow, I was always under the impression that the VP was appointed by the President in the US. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that back in the day the VP would be the guy who opposed him in the eleciton.

Guess not. Learn something new everyday.

[vizigothe]

Cheney won't leave and this isnt the first time Rumsfeld has given Bush a resignation letter. It happened because the democrats took the house and Rumsfeld knew what was going to happen. So he did the gracious thing and bowed out and Bush let him this time.

[AntiochusIII]

Wow, I was always under the impression that the VP was appointed by the President in the US. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that back in the day the VP would be the guy who opposed him in the eleciton.In 1796, among the first elections ever for the young United States, John Adams became President; Thomas Jefferson, his direct political opponent (in modern terms, we would consider him the leader of the opposition party -- though they did not have clear parties back then), became Vice President.

The ballot was only for the Presidency and the winner got the big chair; the one who got the second place, however, got the VP.

It made quite a terrible gridlock to have the President and his most important lieutenant, so to speak, opposing each other.

The election of 1800 (4 years later) was also equally problematic, though a little different: Thomas Jefferson and his "running mate" Aaron Burr got an equal vote. They were kind of fed up with the problems so they separated the Presidency and the Vice Presidency ever since.

[Hurin_Rules]

I guess this means you go to congress with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you want.

Thank God that all those insurgents are just 'dead enders', or we'd be in deep crap.

Just one question remains: does the Secretary of Defense's resignation make Rummy a 'known unknown' or an 'unknown known'?

[rory_20_uk]

Rumsfeld jumped about 2 seconds before he was pushed. He can now go into the sidelines and get the rewards from all those large defence companies that will doubtless need some Director input at the golf club.

By not bieng there, there's far less chance that the Democrats will actively try and politically lynch him. When a fairer wind blows, he'd be back given half a chance.

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

Rumsfeld, a tribute (https://youtube.com/watch?v=7sR0n_oYoHA).