Posted on 09/25/2006 5:33:32 AM PDT by TexKat
Then maybe some posters shouldn't be so quick to condemn them?
About the only people I've ever known who thought that Rumsfeld was a genius are on FR and have never been deployed to support OIF/OEF.
Does that tell you something?
I suppose the Administration and Pubs are just going to sit on their hands and take this crap in the name of "taking the high road". Enough of this B.S.
No, it really doesn't tell me a thing. Being the SecDef involves a whole lot more than trying to micro-manage particular theaters. In fact the complaints don't seem to be that he micromanaged. If thousands died on the beach at Normandy (which they did), I wouldn't expect Roosevelt's Secretaries of the Army and Navy to take the heat but instead Eisenhour.
Ah, but this isn't a "real" committee hearing, but a session conducted by "the Senate Democratic Policy Committee."
LOL...it was easy to see Rumsfelds mistakes in planning and policy early on.
And if it is true that Rumsfeld refused to allow occupation planning, then he should be fired for that.
Personally, I believe he made those threats.
I guess I don't drink enough FR koolaid!
How many of these LEFTY generals are there? The military, at any one time, has about 1000 admirals and generals on active duty. Every year many of these retire, and more are appointed.
Therefore, I'd bet there are at least 5000 generals and admirals who served under Bush and who are now retired.
I'd bet that better than 4500 of these 5000 support the President.
It also has to do with it being an outright stupid vehicle to try a long-range invasion in. It is overly heavy, sinks in the sand, wears out relatively quickly, and does 0-50 in over 17 seconds - among other issues. They have very particular uses, in which they are nice to have, but they are not very good for their mission during the invasion. That said, any chance congress would fund a whole second fleet of vehicles for the soldiers to exchange out?
They are disgraceful.
Do you have comments that cite your "early on" certainty?
And if it is true that Rumsfeld refused to allow occupation planning, then he should be fired for that. Personally, I believe he made those threats. I guess I don't drink enough FR koolaid!
Now THAT sounds like koolaid drinking. Koolaid comes in many flavors, this flavor is lemon.
Right, what was I thinking - this is just a game or movie, isn't it? Or at least that is how the left continues to treat it.
You have your opinions; I have mine.
I'll bet yours are formed from reading lots of news articles and FR postings.
I'll compare my first hand observations in Iraq against yours any day. I was in theater before the shooting started.
Buffoon Billy denied, in the Wallace interview, that he had ever criticized President Bush. That is now settled. We must have just imagined that Billy is a scum-sucking liar and pervert.
General Jones, the NATO commander in Iraq just said that there are abour 5000 Taliban in Afghanistan while describing how 1000-1500 of them just met the 72 virgins.
Why do these guys always want to fight the last battle?
Unfortunately Rumsfeld was the right Sec of Def at the wrong time. He was selected to transform the military for the 21st Century. During the Clinton admin, the Airforce and Navy made the cuts and consolidations, the Army resisted the process. Rumsfeld intended to carry out the transition programs and the Army was dragged along screaming and kicking. Rumsfeld felt the Army generals were too old fashion. The war comes along and the relationship between the Army generals were bad. So when the Army generals tell Rumsfeld that we need atleast 500,000 troops for the war, need time to ramp up production of spares and ammo, need time to stockpile for a major expedition to fight and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld felt that this was another episode of Army generals being too cautious, considering the fact the SOF/Aiforce teams just won the war in Afghanistan with small high tech, command and control tactics envisioned by the Army transformation plan he envisioned for the 21st Century. Rumsfeld keeps forgetting that occupying a country requires lots of boots on the ground, and many of the old fashion collaries on logistics, Murphy's law, better to have it and not need it vs. oops I needed it and I did not bring it still applies. After three years of war, DoD just asked Congress for funds to expand the production lines for tactical vehicles to produce replacements for the ones that were lost to IED and accidents. All this time we stripped the nondeployed units, and garrison of vehicles to replace the ones lost in Iraq. Right now, we have plenty of manpower to expand the forces in Iraq or fight in any new trouble spots, but those units cannot deploy because their equipment of been drawndown and used as replacements for the losses in the war.
These kind of statements by those who occupied leadership positions in the US Military while islamfasicsm went unanswered causes me to doubt any thing else they have to say. They were there, they either did not see the danger or ignored it and then criticise those who are moving proactively against it for creating islamofascists?
One word, BS.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Retired Army Major General John Batiste says there is "no coordinated effort" to get Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fired.
Sorry, General Batiste, I'm not buying it
Retired flag officers are a prototypical "good old boy" (and girl) network; they communicate frequently, share ideas, and they certainly know how the game in Washington is played, right down to a well-timed media offensive.
retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, is expected to assess Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."
General Eaton faced a tough assignment, but as Big Lizards reminds us, his tenure was characterized by uneven training efforts and some embarassing moments--notably, Iraqi units breaking under fire. Eaton was eventually replaced by Lieutenant General David Paetraeus, who turned the program around
Finally, officers like Shinseki, Riggs, Eaton (and others) are, in Rumsfeld's view, symbolic of an ossified Army leadership corps, that he has been fighting for the past five years. When Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon, he discovered that the Army was well behind the other services in "transforming" itself for the 21st century.
He also found Army leadership was reluctant to accept change--so much so, that when he was looking for a new Army Chief of Staff, he recalled an officer (General Peter Schoomaker) from retirement for the job. Rumsfeld's selection was viewed as a slap at the current generation of Army three and four-star generals. Now, three years after the invasion of Iraq, some of those generals are having their revenge, using criticism of the war as convenient cover.
formerspook.blogspot.
On C-SPAN3 at 1330 ET:
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
Meeting
War in Iraq
Senate Democratic Policy Committee
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 194439 - 09/25/2006 - 1:30 - No Sale
Reid, Harry U.S. Senator, D-NV
Dorgan, Byron L. U.S. Senator, D-ND
Durbin, Richard J. U.S. Senator, D-IL
Schumer, Charles E. U.S. Senator, D-NY
Clinton, Hillary Rodham U.S. Senator, D-NY
Dayton, Mark U.S. Senator, D-MN
Eaton, Paul D. Major General (Ret.), U.S. Army
Batiste, John R. S. Major General (Ret.), U.S. Army
Hammes, Thomas X. Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Marine Corps
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee held an oversight hearing on the planning and execution of the war in Iraq.
Witnesses include: Major General John R.S. Batiste, U.S. Army (Ret.), who was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and commander of the 1st Infantry Division, serving in Iraq in 2004 and 2005; Major General Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army (Ret.), who was responsible for training the Iraqi military from May 2003 to March 2004, and for rebuilding the Iraqi police force from March through June 2004; Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC (Ret.), who served in Iraq in 2004 and was responsible for establishing bases for the newly reconstituted Iraqi armed forces.
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.