Agreed we could use more troops and Congress should fund them. Futher, we need to be thinking about weapons system development (why it takes so long to develop new combat systems) and make sure our inventories are where they need to be. That said, stop piling on Rumsfeld. My sense of this is he feels he won't get the support he needs and is working to get by with what he believes he can get. We won't win this on the cheap. More importantly, we need to get serious about "Homeland" Defense (god, I hate that name). What we have done so far helps protect the government. What we need to do is help the people protect themselves (from the enemy and from the government). Throwing out our victim disarmament (aka "gun-control") laws is one place to start. Changing our building codes to require basement shelters would be another (I recall the Swiss do this now). Repealing a number of environmental laws and regulations would reduce our defense industrial base dependency on foreign parts. etc.
Just another think tank Monday morning QB. Trying to build a name for himself. The CS wrote this only when he felt safe to pile on. Traitor in war time.
donnelly is an idiot, as are most of the weekly standard types.
Rummy's efforts for transformation have certainly made him enemies that have jumped on the issue of the fake "the question" to revile him.
Isn't the Striker, which everyone in Iraq seems to want more than armored humvees, one of the fruits of Rummy's transformation?
Training soldiers and small units almost seems to be an afterthought or a distraction from units racing to complete the myriad of administrative and largely finger-drilled, check-the-block requirements that are piled upon them by their higher echelon of command. And, add the mundane post support details that should not take priority over training, but do, because that is the way that it has always been. I think it is this way because for most of the time since Vietnam, we have not been at war, so post support has always been highly emphasized and the people now in higher positions were raised that way and know no other way to do things.
There is no substitute for a large force of highly trained soldiers, well-equipped, and well-led. This was best demonstrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom, when technology failed to live up to the hype surrounding it and the United States won the old fashioned way - it crushed a numerically superior enemy with the application of overwhelming firepower and audacity, applied by superior soldiers who were better led than their enemies. Specifically, I am speaking of the actions at Objective Peach.
While I agree with Donnelly's analysis of the problems that the Army is having, I think he goes too far in blaming Rumsfeld and not far enough in pointing out the failure of the Army's transformation efforts. Yes, a leader is responsible for everything that his unit/department does or fails to do - but show me a man who could have been more effective than Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has managed to scrap plans that were eating up a fair amount of money, so as to free that money up for other endeavors and the Army's force manning has increased under Rumsfeld - not by much, but it has increased. If you want a scapegoat, then I would suggest looking to congress. The congress determines how money is spent and they do not have national security in mind when they decide - they have their re-election in mind. It is all about creating jobs, to bribe their constituents into voting for the incumbent.
Does McCain really want Rummy's job this badly???? and if McCain does not want Rummy's job who is after it???