Posted on 09/20/2010 9:14:28 AM PDT by STARWISE
If there was any doubt that Donald Rumsfeld's book would be frank-and-candid narrative of what, in his telling, really happened, here are a few details about what promises to be a tell-all in the tradition of the Washington memoir.
First, see above: The dust jacket depicts a fleece-wearing Rummy at his get-away in Taos, a signal that he's detached from the Beltway and has nothing to lose. Then there is the title, "Known and Unknown," a play on his famous formulation about "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns."
That's shorthand for suggesting he's going to reveal more than a few new nuggets. But that's all a bit of fun Kremlinology.
Here is some hard evidence:
When he publishes his book next year, the 78-year-old former Defense Secretary, White House Chief of Staff and Illinois congressman is also going to create a concurrent website with a slew of previously undisclosed documents from his decades of government service.
The release of information surrounding the Iraq war, in particular, is plainly an attempt to bolster his standing in history.
"The memoir follows the historical arc of Rumsfeld’s career, from his childhood experience of Pearl Harbor to the aftermath of 9/11," Keith Urbahn, his top aide, tells me.
"This remarkable story will be supported and amplified by the release of thousands of pages of never before seen memos and previously classified documents that put the reader in the moment.
The availability of the documents on a website will let skeptics make their own judgments based on the contemporary information Rumsfeld had at his disposal.”
Urbahn adds: "This book will tell readers things that they didn't know, and it may well unsettle a few people who think the history of certain events has already been written."
And here's a bit of a tease about what is widely seen as one of the most unfortunate parts of Rumsfeld's career:
“The book starts with a scene from Baghdad in December 1983 when Don Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein. It describes what really happened in that meeting.”
The book will be published in January.
One of our best. I love him!
This is a book that I will definitely buy!
What man on the frontlines, making tough decisions
and in the spotlight doesn’t have his enemies ?
Not meaning you, but it’s comical how some still
expect perfection.
I have my grave reseervations about his management and his obstanancy being grave liabilities to Bush.
But nothing can take away the satisfaction of his press conferences. In fact, most of his popularity on the site was due to nothing more than his ability to make journalistic heads spin in circles and explode.
The Truth About Clinton’s Military
american daily ^ | Jonathan Clark
Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:25:30 AM by contributor
###
After three weeks of conflict, Baghdad fell to United States Marine forces. People in every corner of the world watched live as the Iraqi people aided by US Marines toppled the statue of Saddam and rode the head through the streets.
Years of pent up frustration and fear were released for the whole world to see. It left the Arab Street in shock, it left ‘Old Europe’ looking very stupid, but as always the American left was out as soon as it happened attempting to spin the event.
It started on Wednesday with a column from Tribune Media Services writer, Matthew Miller. Miller, who it should be noted, served as Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1995 – the Clinton years part I. In his April 9th column he attempts to credit Bill Clinton with the effectiveness of today’s military.
“The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton’s military. This should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology or partisanship. We’ve been told repeatedly how much more lethal and accurate our forces are in 2003 than they were in 1991 - so much so that we needed only 250,000 troops to drive to Baghdad and change the regime, as opposed to the 500,000 we sent merely to oust Saddam from Kuwait in Gulf War I.
Something like 90 percent of the bombs and missiles we use are “precision guided” today, versus roughly 10 percent back in 1991. The catalogue of how today’s military is smarter, faster and better than it was back during Desert Storm is a credit to U.S. ingenuity and a source of national pride.”
Miller then had the audacity to attempt a re-write of history to paint Clinton as a supporter of the military and sustained defense budgets.
“But politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War, to protect his party’s right flank.”
I hate to confuse the situation with the facts Mr. Miller, but quite the opposite is true. The Clinton/Gore Administration stretched our military forces very thin from 1993 to 1999. In addition, they increased spending on social experiments while cutting defense spending.
* Between 1960 and 1991, the United States Army conducted 10 “operational events.” From 1991 through 1999, the Army conducted 26 operational events -— 2 1/2 times that number in 1/3 the time span.
* As of 1999, there were 265,000 American troops in 135 countries.
* Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10. The Army has reduced its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians and closed over 700 installations at home and overseas.
* Since 1990, the Air Force has shrunk from 36 fighter wings (active and reserve) to 20. The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent while simultaneously experiencing a fourfold increase in operational commitments.
* At the height of the Reagan Administration build-up, the Navy had 586 ships. As of 1999, it had only 324. The Clinton Administration’s blueprint called for that number to further drop to 305. If the rate of ship construction and retirement by this administration is continued, that number could fall to only 200 ships by 2020.
* Since 1987, active duty military personnel have been reduced by more than 800,000. To illustrate that problem:
1. In June 1998, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group deployed with 770 fewer personnel than it did on its previous deployment three years before.
2. At about the same time, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, another carrier, began a 6-month deployment 464 people short of its 2,963 authorized billets.
3. In late 1998, the USS Enterprise deployed for the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf short 400 personnel.
* In 1999, the Navy had a total of 22,000 empty slots in a 324-ship fleet.
* In addition, the armed services suffered a severe ammunition shortfall going into the Kosovo engagement. According to the Service Chiefs, the FY99 ammunition shortfall for the Marine Corps is $193 million. For the Army in FY00, it is a shocking $3.5 billion.
The equipment we have is aging:
* The average age of the B-52H bombers— put to use in the Balkans—is 40 years old.
* The average age of the Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) is 29 years old.
* The design of the CH-46 helicopter—a Marine mainstay—is approximately 43 years old.
* A-10 pilots flying over Kosovo were forced to spend their own money to buy inferior, off-the-shelf GPS receivers at local stores and attach them with Velcro to their planes to use in conjunction with their outdated survival radios should their planes crash.
* At a congressional hearing held in February 1999 at the Navy’s Strike and Air Warfare Center in Fallen, NV – the world-renowned “Top Gun” fighter pilot school – Members were told that mechanical problems had grounded 14 of the center’s 23 aircraft.
* In 1999, more than half of the B1-Bs at Ellsworth AFB were not mission capable because they lack critical parts.
And I can tell you that speaking with pilots first hand as of August 2001, they were complaining about the lack of flight time due to the age of the aircraft and the need for servicing and lack of replacement parts.
On Friday, the leading House Democrat, Nancy Pelosi chimed in with her two cents.
She said, “I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war. The cost in human lives, the cost to our budget - probably $100 billion - we could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we’re toward the end of it is, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?”
Pelosi talked of the toppling of Saddam’s regime as if were some sort of public works project. And as Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed “in large measure” to former President Bill Clinton.
Pelosi continued with the left’s defense of Clinton saying “This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years.
This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years,” she said.
The problem with this line of reasoning besides it being factually incorrect is that if this is ‘Clinton’s Military’, then this is also ‘Clinton’s Economy’. As always they want to have it both ways.
Funny how just last week, the pundits were blaming Bush for basically what amounted to their own impatience with how they thought the war should have progressed. Now that the success is so overwhelmingly apparent, they attempt to re-write history.
The one thing that folks like Pelosi and Miller overlook is the intangibles.
The biggest is the military’s adoration of President Bush.
From top to bottom, the U. S. military loathed his predecessor, Bill Clinton. They genuinely adore Bush. And it is a mutual adoration. This intangible piece provides motivation not seen during the Clinton years.
From 1993 through 2000, our military had no clear focus. It was used primarily in diversionary tactics by Clinton when the heat of attention to his many scandals became more than he wanted to bear. Have we forgotten Clinton’s military escapades into Haiti, Kosovo, Mogadishu and Waco?
And don’t forget that the Franco-German wing of the Democratic Party put themselves in to a position in which America had to suffer a loss in this conflict in order for them to come out on top. They have done the same thing with domestic issues.
They are continuing this failed strategy by attempting to ‘raise the bar’ on what defines success in Iraq. The problem is that it’s not ‘playing well in Peoria’ anymore. More and more people are getting their news from reliable sources like Fox News. And after finding out how CNN withheld the truth about Saddam’s brutality, more will follow.
The cold hard truth of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Franks put together a well motivated military force in short order that executed a well designed plan in which they overwhelmed the enemy and shocked the world.
Sermons over, pass the plate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/894350/posts
~~~
Truth and perspective sure mean a lot.
** #27 Ping!
You were doing so well until that line.
The only person I saw in those years 76-80 with some sense enough to fix it was likely Carter's second Sec of Navy who did order needed corrections. I just remember sudden policy changes happening definately by mid 1978 or possibly early 1979. Included in them was an end to the walk away military. That correction would have been a Sec of Defense order most likely. The rest of the changes I saw SECNAV could order.
Things did turn around by 1980 but stillweren't great. In two short years though Reagan took advantage of the recession of 1982 and filled the military ranks. Reagan took us to a 590 plus ship Navy. By the time Poppy, Clinton, and Junior, along the GOP and DEM congress was done in 2008 we were well under 300 ships. Not a one of them in the Oval Office tried to stop it nor did their Sec of Defense. WHY? Actually we had 316 ships when W took office and went down further to 279 in 2007. The End Troops Strengths for the most part have remained unchanged since 1996. WHY? September 11, 2001 and weeks to follow was the golden oppertunity to rebuild our military strength wise. It didn't happen and no one tried. Different names different parties same policies. That's why.
Now as bad as things were in the late 1970's the ships were battle ready. I can not think of any aircraft carrier that flunked INSURV or failed Lite Odds. Those readiness issues began under Poppy Cheney. Maintenance was curtailed and missed. Things were so bad by spring 1993 a Command E-9 on a certain carrier wrote a letter to his congressman on the deplorable material and readiness conditions the ship was in. Clinton deployed it anyway. It came home and went BOOM in the boiler rooms sitting at Pier 12. You won't read about it though. Why was it in that condition? Budget cuts and over deployments without needed yard times.
Since the early 1990's as in Poppy's term our military began a policy of over extension and over deployments which continues today. Cheney as well cost us our best ever carrier based Naval Fighter.
In 1976 we had four ship builders capable of producing an aircraft carrier. Today we have one and it sits across the river from where the majority of Atlantic carriers berth. We are in deep Doody Defense wise and it was both DEMs and GOP who took us there. Some of the blame falls of the Sec of Defenses DEM and GOP, some on both houses both parties {Clinton could not have continued gutting without GOP help the 6 of his 8 years in office, and the presidents themselves.
In my 53 years or rather at least in my voting years which began in 1976 only one POTUS stands out as the true National Defense POTUS who put the troops and the nation before contracts for political favors. He wasn't named Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, or Obama.
We have troops on their 5th deployments into Iraq and Afghanistan. THIS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE! Raise the End Troop Strength Levels Dammit! Where is the real support for our troops from our elected leaders in both parties? It ended in Janurary 1989.
If we had to fight a true two hemisphere defense today ground, air, or naval, we would be in the same sad place we were prior to WW1 & WW2 only this time we might not have time to catch up. The DEMs I know full well love gutting our military. I expect more from the GOP and I expect the GOP to at least put up a good fight to stop the DEMs.
My first statement stands .. and in light of
my last comment, I honestly did not want you
to think I meant it for you .. it’s a natural
followup.
Sorry you chose to take it the wrong way.
Yea that much he could get right. My venting isn't so much directed at Rummy as it is the whole national leadership since about 1990. I'm realistic enough to understand some cuts had to come post Cold War. I also can see we went way too far downsizing starting at about 15 years ago and no one is correcting it.
I think we would do better if we had a retired senior enlisted as Sec of Defense. The position needs someone who's been there done that military wise recently and knows the issues from a military standpoint. One of the first things I learned after I got to my ship. E-7's could get things done while the rest of the COC sat their trying to cover their hides. Some E-6's had the ability as well.
As long as the Secretary was not active duty I see no problem with it. USMC E-7 would be my choice. That is not slighting other services that is the service which experiences a little bit of the Navy, Army, and Air Force functions. Our military needs a rebuild and it's going to take someone who understands actual needs to do it.
Well, you see, only perfectionists hang out here at FR. Oh, they do let a few of us flawed mortals in*, but mostly FReepers are above human falibility, don't ya know. :)
*Folks who don't march in lockstep with their group-think.
The ones I want to read above all the others are the memoirs of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. I’m waiting for them before reading any books by others in the GWB administration.
Here he was, a new President, just handed one of the biggest traumas to our Country in it's history. On of my best memories of him is when, a few days after 9/11, he stood at Ground Zero and said "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!", followed by the chant USA, USA.
His standing in history is just fine in my eyes! I look forward to reading his book, as I do GW's book this fall.
That's because Rumsfeld upset the status quo. He was to the military hierarchy what the tea party is the the GOP.
“Both of them are ex-military, one Army and one Navy. One of them cannot stand him and one loves him. Go figure”
Let me guess the Navy guy loves him?
It’s a military culture thing......Rummy’s has a Navy way of doing things....
great post ma’am
Not being trained in the military, I can’t personally
quote the weapons systems, armament and fleet numbers,
etc. that you seem to have at your fingertips .. and
about which you apparently bear what seems to be
personal resentment for whatever your reasons.
My point was to illustrate the skeleton .. the
shadow that our purposely depleted military was
by Clinton’s design, and what Bush/Rumsfeld were
left and faced with and had to rebuild and reconfigure
immediately after 9/11,
(a mere 8 months after they took office .. less
than that to get up to speed after the Clinton
admin’s adolescent WH equipment damage, etc., all
the while being short-staffed in some critical admin
positions due to Congress’s vindictiveness in getting
officials confirmed),
all this while preparing the strategy and the force
to go after the monsters behind this catastrophic
attack.
Bush gave Rummy the obviously vital directive to
upgrade and modernize the much weakened force .. while
also engineering, implementing and manning the war plan
.. for this totally new kind of asymmetrical warfare,
beginning from scratch.
It was all being done simultaneously, under great
pressure .. not knowing for certain if/when another
attack was to follow.
“How quickly they forget.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.