Skip to comments.278th Tennessee N.G. Reponse on Questions to Secretary Rumsfeld
Posted on 12/09/2004 2:05:26 PM PST by mrsmith
click here to read article
That has been gnawing on me too. It's like the military is supposed to be full of people riding around in tanks, that there is no infantry any more, because if one single person gets shot, God help us, the U.S. will have to withdraw.
I'm sick of the MSM acting like any casualty makes the action a wasted one. Typical of the MSM to act as if 'just one life being saved' is worth thousands of dollars of armor and airbags and seatbelts and crash tests, dollars that people will be forced to work years to produce, but when it comes to freeing the Iraqi and Afghani peoples, well, heck, freedom isn't worth a damn.
We had a "localized policy at the discretion of our CO" because our CO voluntarily put himself in that situation.
Likewise, at that open question and answer session, there was a "localized policy at the discretion of SECDEF" because SECDEF Rumsfeld voluntarily put himself in that situation.
If our CO or Rumsfeld had wanted to have easy pitches to knock out of the ball park, they could have answered pre-selected written questions.
To publicly subject yourself to the risk of tough questions takes courage. Rumsfeld showed courage instead of taking the safe and easy route.
No guts, no glory.
I'll admit that's a long drive from Kuwait, but that is an area that they least need the armor. "Up north" is where they need it.
Gruff - lets consider that Clinton had 8 years to deplete the military by using it, and not replacing items.
Let's also consider that for the first two years of Bush's term, he had a Democrat controlled Senate that was very obstructionist (and the Democrats still try to filibuster most things in the Senate.)
Let's consider how the Democrat Senate dragged on confirmation hearings; Dr. Rice, the NSA head, had to wait until July 2001 for several of the assistants to be confirmed by the Senate. (How did that delay reduce the efficiency of the NSA?)
Let's also consider that Clinton left the nation so weak in intel that 9/11 happened, early on Bush's watch, and he had to tackle some bigger problems first.
Let's also consider that you goofed big time - Bush's second term starts Jan 20, 2005 .... which, when I check my calendar, is still in the future.
lol -yup, he was short lived interloper...
It is almost never heard of.
That state NG general knows that he's politically protected in his state. Until he's activated he answers to the governor and not to DoD. He must feel protected.
There's not a snowball's chance they're going to activate this guy.
A civil service attitude is a good way to put it. I've seen guys that joined the reserves for the college money and only having to do their job one weekend a month. Then they cry and try to get out of service when a national emergency happens and (gasp!) they're activated. It's unacceptable behavior and these disgruntled people go do stupid things like blindsiding their bosses in public and "accidentally" get caught taking pictures of prisoners with panties on their heads.
FWIW, when I was in the Navy, we would have "Captain's Call" where the entire crew could address any concerns or questions directly to the C.O. Of course 98% of it was whiny crying Bravo Sierra of the worst order. I quit going, since my request for a jacuzzi on the fantail was never fulfilled.
It's always been like that in a combat zpne.Our soldiers & sailors can never be assured of 100 % safety.
My brother beefed up a jeep with metal from a scrap yard in Vietnam in 1971.
Rode in choppers sitting on his amored vest.
You are never prepared for a war.
Exactly! Our soldier's have been making due in a McGiveresque fashion for some time now. Before my husband went into Kosovo he had to scurrage for scrap metal to beef up his Humvees. There have always been problems getting supplies to the troops. This is not a problem unique to the Bush administration. I do feel confident that these issues are being taken care of. Honestly, there is so much red tape involved I am shocked anything gets done in the government.
Who cares if the media planted questions. It was a good question that Rumsfeld opened himself up to by have a Q & A session. Had the soldier known that his question was going to make national headlines he would have thought differently about asking it. It only takes a quick search of the Army Times archives to see that supply issues have been reported on for years and years. Why the heck this is "news" - I have no clue.
Sounds like we agree. I would only add that before the media broadcasts such a Q&A session they should announce all questions have been screened for controversy and security content.
I think the first rule of leadership is to take care of your troops. If one soldier's life is saved by the attention this problem has received as a result of the question, then all the embarassment of the administration and the deviation from proper etiquette is worth it, in my view.
I was never good at the proper etiquette part of the job, it is probably a good thing I got out early. I could not have serverd under Clinton, anyway.
Yankee ingenuity has always been a major component in America's military success. We differ from the military of despots and tyrants in that our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen have always been encouraged to understand the intent of the orders and adapt for success. We often used the phrase "Semper Gumby" (Always Flexible) in response to an order phrased in terms of an objective instead of a step-by-step direct order.
..and was not immediately broadcast to the whole world, including our enemies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At another duty station, an open question forum was held with the press and a Congressman in attendance.
The bottom line is that an open question forum is an open question forum.
If a superior wants to avoid the risks of an open question forum, the solution is extremely simple: Don't have one!
It distorts the information.
Look at this case: there is no need for any armor for these guys.
They are not going to be in unarmored vehicles in the convoy north- they are going to be in armored vehicles, or on a plane.
When they get to their duty station they will not be in unarmored vehicles- they will use the armored vehicles left by the old unit.
Thanks to the reporter's interference the debate has been distorted beyond any usefulness.
Thanks for that detail, explains some of the slowness in getting production ramped up!
The haters of GW appear to be doing two things after the election:
1. They apparently are now having their moles who enlisted in the military the past year going public with stuff like this or running to Canada to "avoid war Crimes"!
2. We will see more Breaking BS news about the above. They will become the next Wilson/Plame/Yellowcake/ANG Records phoney baloney story to try get GW to resign, condemned as a war criminal in Germany or Belgium or as a reason to tout impeachment after GW is sworn in.
Thanks for your service!
..and was not immediately broadcast to the whole world, including our enemies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey Waspman, we have both been topped!
Speaking of the usage of the "!!!!"
Guenevere excellent statement ..by the way...
Hardcover - (September 2004) - $27.95
In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the Great Satan with Americas radical Islamic enemies.
.....WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTION DO SO WITH CIVILITY, RESPECT AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF PROTOCOL AND RULES!
Which...by the way.....is moot, since the 'soldier' had no intention of following protocol or rules, because he knew he was 'setting up' the Chief!
That he did this knowingly and willingly negates your answer, as far as I'm concerned!
See post #71.
And listen to Rush......
This is the MSM looking for a way to cause problems for Rumsfeld and Bush!!!
And our fighting ability.....very selective reporting....
Presser from Iraq yesterday.
I wonder how many of the Left Wing Unholy Alliance have joined the military in the last year and ready to become human sacrifices for the left wing cause?
Great post, maybe people should think before accusing the administration of "doing nothing".
Excellent....needs a separate thread.....I can do that.
I actually appreciate the fact that people in the administration are going in front of crowds to answer questions.
Rumsfeld's press conferences used to be highlights, but he has basically disappeared(for good reason) since Abu Grahib.
I think that more forums are needed like the 2nd presidential debate because while there are bomb throwers on both sides waiting to lambast Democrats and Republicans, there are people who simply are uniformed about what in fact is going on.
Those National Guard guys (or anyone for that matter)don't always have the same access to information that hardcore internet reporters or in the media.
What "protocol and rules"?
Following the chain of command?
The entire purpose of an open question forum is to bypass the chain of command.
They are "Permission to Speak Freely" events.
How, exactly, was the soldier "uncivil"? By asking a difficult question?
Open question forums, be they "Captain's Calls" aboard ship or other open question forums where the press are invited are not mandatory. Superiors voluntarily put themselves in such situations and, once they do, they deal with the consequences.
It seems that you are advocating phony events that are advertised as "open question forums" but, in reality, are merely staged skits that are the leadership equivalents of lip synching performances by Ashlee Simpson or Milli Vanilli.
The bottom line is that "open question" forums are either real or fake.
If they are real, a true leader risks and accepts the consequences.
If they are going to be fake, then a true leader would want no part of them and would refuse to stage the event in the first place.
I would say having a reporter 'set up' a soldier to ask questions is the epitome in phony events!!
The shame falls on the reporter that hid behind a soldier and not on Rumsfeld who had the leadership courage to have an open question forum or on the soldier that was manipulated by that reporter.
The U.S. military showed moral courage and the news media showed moral cowardice.
It is far better to have such a situation than having the U.S. military and the news media competing with each other to see who displays and most cowardice and deceit.
Good question. I had assumed everyone was flying in these days until this guy spoke up. A thought about "this guy" - is it possible that he was a Kerry voter and thus easy for this reporter to cull out to ask this controversial question? I am NOT denigrating his service to our country by posing this thought - he sounded intelligent enough to know the answer to his question already.