Our military should never be placed in a nation-building role, they should be warriors. Leave peace-keeping, nation-building, etc. to someone else.
Who's supposed to do that in a country where any viable leadership has already been murdered by the previous dictator? When there is a vacuum, something will try to fill it, if there is not a force in the way to resist it.
The military NEEDS to remain to support that nascent leadership and hold down those elements which would try to stop the growth of a new more just society. In this case, it is the radical Islamists who are coming from all over the world to answer the call of bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi, NONE of whom are Iraqi, but all know that a representative republic right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East will play havoc with their ideas of Islamic world domination.
Pucky of horse. Rumsfield is right on. He was there to change the military from a world war two nation fighting force to one of combating terrorists groups. this is a major change to the way things were being done.
When it comes to a culture change within an organization, 15% of the people are quick adopters, 15 to 45% are average adopters, 20 to 30$ are slow adopters and the rest will never change. You've got to get rid of them.
Rumsfield is on of the greatest, no non sense SOD. To affect change you got to be tough and persisitant. He will do it.
"Our military should never be placed in a nation-building role, they should be warriors. Leave peace-keeping, nation-building, etc. to someone else."
Copy that! Moreover I am disgusted to see "freepers" trashing our retired generals...I doubt not one of these stupid trashers would even qualify to shine their friggin boots.
Nation building was a major flip flop by GWB.