Rumsfeld gets Bashed

**KafirChobee** · 04-15-2006, 06:56

Yep, Rummy is history. He may stay to the end of the Bush term, but his effectiveness with anything involving the military is mute. By some (military personell) accounts as many as 75% of the senior officers serving think Rummy is incompetent, arrogant (without cause), and is incapable of leadership (except through or by coercive means) - and these are the ones that like him. The other 25% think he's a dick.

**Lemur** · 04-15-2006, 07:00

It's gonna be a lot of work, Swift-boating six generals. Better get the Five Star Veterans for Truth fired up.

**JAG** · 04-15-2006, 10:26

Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 04-15-2006, 15:10

Originally Posted by JAG

Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

Oh, oh I know...

**BigTex** · 04-15-2006, 18:39

Originally Posted by JAG

Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.

**doc_bean** · 04-15-2006, 18:48

Originally Posted by BigTex

Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.

Maybe, but it might be wise to not have the guy responsible for the US being there in a position of power anymore.

**Hurin_Rules** · 04-15-2006, 20:02

Can anyone with more knowledge of the US military comment on Rumsfeld's statements that there are 'thousand and thousands' of generals and admirals in the US military? That seems very high to me. He made the comment to minimize the criticism of him. He said:

"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," he said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."

Now, he certainly minimized the number of people criticizing him-- it wasn't two or three or four but at least six senior figures publically denounced him (those in uniform, of course, can't speak out against him very forcefully). But did he exaggerate the number of generals/admirals too? Just curious.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 04-15-2006, 21:30

If the figure includes retired generals and admirals, it probably isn't too far off of thousands, maybe even ten thousand.

Literally thousands of thousands (millions) is quite high.

**KafirChobee** · 04-17-2006, 04:52

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Can anyone with more knowledge of the US military comment on Rumsfeld's statements that there are 'thousand and thousands' of generals and admirals in the US military? That seems very high to me. He made the comment to minimize the criticism of him. He said:

"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," he said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."

Now, he certainly minimized the number of people criticizing him-- it wasn't two or three or four but at least six senior figures publically denounced him (those in uniform, of course, can't speak out against him very forcefully). But did he exaggerate the number of generals/admirals too? Just curious.

By one report I read, there are 16 Field rank officers for every hundred troops (or maybe that is just officers in general). The report denoted that most officers are just sorta hanging out and playing politics - and that the ratio of officers (today) serving in a combat situation is minimal (especially for Westys - they go there get the ticket punched for having been and get reassigned to a safe area to play politico). It seems about right though. In 'nam the Westy's that got put on the line served about 4 months on average, the Annapolis boys (marines) spent 6 months and the OCS guys spent their tours there (or died there).

Still, if the arguement is if 6 qualified generals have a beef about the military versus the war? Well, consider that one Lt. Gen. (3 stars) gave it up - the youngest Lt. Gen. in 50 years - to protest the handeling of the war.

Don't you get it? It ain't about them - these are men of the highest honor - it is about the way the war was, is and has been conducted. It is about a return to the Vietnam style of warfare where the civilians blame the military for not being able to carry out their brilliant plans. It is, "Sure there have been thousands of tactical errors (those of the troops and their commanders), but the strategy (Bushy's) is still sound". Condi Rice.

What amazes me is that we haven't had a coup d'etat. I mean, it's the military that botched Rummy's, Wolfowitz's, Cheney's, and Bushy's (well, actually I doubt he had a clue ... was to busy praying that he was right) plan. It is fortunate for Bush that officers take an oath to the presidency - where as enlisted men take an oath to the country. Were it reversed, maybe they would act .... though I doubt it, after all the only ones with balls quit or retired.

**Shaka_Khan** · 05-05-2006, 07:11

Originally Posted by BigTex

Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.

I don't know what your position on this was. If you had agreed with the invasion of Iraq before, do you now agree with France, Germany, Russia and everyone else who were against the war?