Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Donald Rumsfeld I know isn't the one you know
St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | Nov. 12, 2006 | Douglas J. Feith

Posted on 11/12/2006 8:01:47 AM PST by rhema

Much of what you know about Donald Rumsfeld is wrong.

I know, because I worked intimately with him for four years, from the summer of 2001 until I left the Pentagon in August 2005. Through countless meetings and private conversations, I came to learn his traits, frame of mind and principles — characteristics wholly at odds with the standard public depiction of Rumsfeld, particularly now that he has stepped down after a long, turbulent tenure as defense secretary, a casualty of our toxic political climate.

I want to set the record straight: Don Rumsfeld is not an ideologue. He did not refuse to have his views challenged. He did not ignore the advice of his military advisers. And he did not push single-mindedly for war in Iraq. He was motivated to serve the national interest by transforming the military, though it irritated people throughout the Pentagon. Rumsfeld's drive to modernize created a revealing contrast between his Pentagon and the State Department — where Colin Powell was highly popular among the staff. After four years of Powell's tenure at State, the organization chart there would hardly tip anyone off that 9/11 had occurred — or even that the Cold War was over.

Rumsfeld is a bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature. And as my high school teachers drummed into my head, the best literature reveals that humans are complex. They are not the all-good or all-bad, all-brilliant or all-dumb figures that inhabit trashy novels and news stories. Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance and reality.

Because of his complexity, Rumsfeld is often misread. His politics are deeply conservative, but he was radical in his drive to force change in every area he oversaw. He is strong-willed and hard-driving, but he built his defense strategies and Quadrennial Defense Reviews on calls for intellectual humility.

Those of us in his inner circle heard him say, over and over again: Our intelligence, in all senses of the term, is limited. We cannot predict the future. We must continually question our preconceptions and theories. If events contradict them, don't suppress the bad news; rather, change your preconceptions and theories.

If an ideologue is someone to whom the facts don't matter, then Rumsfeld is the opposite of an ideologue. He insists that briefings for him be full of facts, thoughtfully organized and rigorously sourced. He demands that facts at odds with his key policy assumptions be brought to his attention immediately. "Bad news never gets better with time," he says, and berates any subordinate who fails to rush forward to him with such news. He does not suppress bad news; he acts on it.

In late 2002, Pentagon lawyers told Rumsfeld the detainee interrogation techniques in the old Army field manual were well within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. statutes. Detainee information could help us prevent another terrorist attack, and al-Qaida personnel were trained to resist standard interrogations. So, with the advice of counsel, military officers at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, asked Rumsfeld to authorize additional techniques thought to fall within the bounds of the law. He did so.

Less than a month later, in December 2002, Jim Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel, brought him the disturbing news that some lawyers in the military departments questioned the legality of the additional techniques. Rumsfeld did not brush off the questions or become defensive. In short order, he directed Haynes to revoke the authority for the new techniques. He told him to gather all the relevant lawyers in the department and review the matter — and he would not approve any new techniques until that review was completed. It took almost four months.

I was impressed by how quickly Haynes brought the information to Rumsfeld and how Rumsfeld changed course upon receiving it. It seemed to me if the country's leading civil libertarians had been in on the meetings with us, they would have approved of the way Rumsfeld handled the service lawyers' dissent. This story bears telling because when the cruel and sexually bizarre behavior at Abu Ghraib occurred many months later, critics inaccurately depicted Rumsfeld as disrespectful of laws on detainee treatment.

Rumsfeld's drive to overhaul the Pentagon — to drop outdated practices, programs and ideas — antagonized many senior military officers and civilian officials in the department. He pushed for doing more with less. He pushed for reorganizing offices and relationships to adapt to a changing world. After 9/11, he created the Northern Command (the first combatant command that included the U.S. homeland among its areas of responsibility), a new undersecretary job for intelligence and a new assistant secretary job for homeland defense. Seeking to improve civil-military cooperation, Rumsfeld devised new institutions for the Pentagon's top civilian and military officials to work face to face on strategic matters and new venues for all of them to gather a few times a year with the combatant commanders. He also conceived and pushed through a thorough revision of how U.S. military forces are based, store equipment, move and train with partners around the world — something that was never done before in U.S. history.

When he told organizations to take on new missions, their instinct — typical of bureaucracies — was to say they needed more people and more money. Rumsfeld responded: If changes in the world require us to do new things, those changes must also allow us to curtail or end old missions that we continue for no good reason. He made numerous major changes in the Defense Department at the cost of goring a lot of oxen.

On Iraq, Rumsfeld helped President Bush analyze the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Given Saddam's history — starting wars; using chemical weapons against foreign and domestic enemies; and training, financing and otherwise supporting various terrorists — Rumsfeld helped make the case that leaving him in power entailed significant risks. But in October 2002, Rumsfeld also wrote a list of the risks involved in removing Saddam from power. (I called the list his "parade of horribles" memo.) He reviewed it in detail with the president and the National Security Council. Rumsfeld's warnings about the dangers of war — including the perils of a post-Saddam power vacuum — were more comprehensive than anything I saw from the CIA, State or elsewhere.

Though we knew that the risks involved in ousting Saddam were high, it hardly means that Bush made the wrong decision to invade. I believe he made the correct call; we had grounds to worry about the threats Saddam posed, especially after 9/11 reduced our tolerance for security risks. But Rumsfeld continually reminded the president that he had no risk-free option for dealing with the dangers Saddam posed.

Rumsfeld has been attacked for insisting that troop levels for the Iraq operation be kept low, supposedly out of ideology and contrary to the advice of the military. What I saw, however, was that Rumsfeld questioned standard military recommendations for "overwhelming force." He asked if such force was necessary for the mission. And he asked what the consequences might be of having a large footprint in Iraq and playing into propaganda about the United States wanting to take over the country.

But Rumsfeld never told Gen. John Abizaid or Gen. Tommy Franks that U.S. Central Command could not have the number of troops that the commanders deemed necessary. Rumsfeld is more politically sensitive than that — he would never expose himself to the risk of a commander later saying that he had denied him the forces needed. If other generals are unhappy with the troop levels in Iraq, the problem is not that they failed to persuade Rumsfeld, but that they failed to persuade Abizaid or Franks.

Historians will sort out whether Rumsfeld was too pushy with his military, or not pushy enough; whether he micromanaged Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, or gave them too much slack. I know more about these issues than most people, yet I don't have all the information for a full analysis. I do know, however, that the common view of Rumsfeld as a close-minded man, ideologically wedded to the virtues of a small force, is wrong.

Rumsfeld had to resign, I suppose, because our bitter and noxious political debate of recent years has turned him into a symbol. His effectiveness was damaged.

For many in Congress and the public, the Rumsfeld caricature dominated their view of the Iraq war and the administration's ability to prosecute it successfully. Even if nominee Robert Gates pursues essentially the same strategies, he may garner more public confidence.

What Rumsfeld believed, said and did differs from the caricature. The public picture of him today is drawn from news accounts reflecting the views of people who disapproved of his policies or disliked him. Rumsfeld, after all, can be brutally demanding and tough. But I believe history will be more appreciative of him than the first draft has been. What will last is serious history, which, like serious literature, can distinguish appearance from reality.

Douglas J. Feith, a professor at Georgetown University, served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: dod; dougfeith; douglasjfeith; iraq; military; msm; rummie; rummy; rumsfeld; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

1 posted on 11/12/2006 8:01:50 AM PST by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: merry10

ping read later


2 posted on 11/12/2006 8:04:38 AM PST by merry10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Thank you for the post.

Many forget that after Iraq was invaded under the watchful eye of the embedded media, Rummy was considered a rockstar, and some wanted him to be considered for the Presidency.

Rummy's only crime was to be the smartest guy in the room.
3 posted on 11/12/2006 8:06:17 AM PST by Pukin Dog (Being a Liberal is just a coping mechanism for low self esteem and/or bad parenting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Don Rumsfeld goes the bum's rush because he sought to transform the U.S military into a post-Cold War institution. Actually a small force did a magnificient in Iraq. We accomplished in three weeks of the war with a force less than a third the size we deployed in Desert Storm. The Democrats opposed that war too just like they opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom. The war's aftermath is not Rumsfeld's fault. We had to strike a balance between doing too much and doing too little. None of Rumsfeld's critics have ever stated how they would have done things there differently. I think in retrospect, Rumsfeld fell because he was just too honest. Its not a quality that commands much respect in contemporary Washington.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

4 posted on 11/12/2006 8:10:37 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bttt
5 posted on 11/12/2006 8:12:51 AM PST by clyde asbury (It's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
The Donald Rumsfeld I know isn't the one you know

All this crap about Rumsfeld "not listening to his Generals" is BS. Rumsfeld is a very intelligent man doing what he thinks is right. It's his job. What the press means is that he doesn't succumb to the opinions of some of the Generals who think like liberals do. That is my opinion. Rumsfeld is like Bolton. mischaracterized and disrespected for doing his job.

6 posted on 11/12/2006 8:13:01 AM PST by SteamShovel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

History will remember him well, long after we've forgotten his poll driven critics. He seems to be a lot like Churchill in that he did what needed to be done and then was discarded when the politics of the moment changed.


7 posted on 11/12/2006 8:14:49 AM PST by GBA (God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Rummy's only crime was to be the smartest guy in the room.

And how.

8 posted on 11/12/2006 8:14:54 AM PST by SquirrelKing (Kayaking, environmental-conservationist, organic food eating, beer loving, gun owning conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Something I recall George Will saying when Don Rumsfeld became Sec. Def. (I paraphrase) Don Rumsfeld is Washington's worst nightmare, a 70 year old rich man who's not looking for the next job.

He will be missed, but I've a sneaking suspection that we've not heard the last of Rummy.
9 posted on 11/12/2006 8:18:32 AM PST by Valin (Rick Santorum 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog; jan in Colorado
This should have been out there before the election!

But still, it seems to miss a point...

Rumsfeld has been attacked for insisting that troop levels for the Iraq operation be kept low, supposedly out of ideology and contrary to the advice of the military. What I saw, however, was that Rumsfeld questioned standard military recommendations for "overwhelming force." He asked if such force was necessary for the mission.

There wasn't just one "Iraq operation"... Secretary Rumsfeld made the error that so many have done through history--he failed to recognize a change in conditions that required a change in response. If his generals were not realizing this, then they are also the problem.

In fact, that's one of the unaddressed problems our military has. As a product of the Clintonian 90s, we have a very politicized and managerial military that inhibits the proper flow of information and response along the chain of command. The frustration is felt by so many small-unit commanders, and it's a shame that Secretary Rumsfeld was unable to get beyond this and see the real needs in Iraq.

He was the right man for transforming our offensive and "conventional" armed forces, but not the right man for understanding the current phase of operations in Iraq.

10 posted on 11/12/2006 8:18:40 AM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhema
This is a great article from someone who knew the great man..I think the whole country should read this..what an amazing man..
11 posted on 11/12/2006 8:22:47 AM PST by Beth528
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Superb article. Thanks for sharing it.

Rumsfeld's fierce intelligence and intellectual honesty could be seen right away during his "rock star" press briefings for the war in Afghanistan.

The only reason he was trashed by the press was because he was right, everyone knew he was right, and as a credit to our military and our nation, this man was a very real threat to liberalism.

Can you imagine having him as a dad or uncle? How great would THAT be?!


12 posted on 11/12/2006 8:22:53 AM PST by Silly (still being silly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
The best and brightest leaders in government are always beat on and driven out. It seems they (the best) make the majority of incompetents look even more incompetent.

The State dept. for example is nothing buy rotting OLD wood. S.D. has probably not had a new idea since 1901 and would die of heart failure if someone suggested another course like "tell it like it is"!
13 posted on 11/12/2006 8:23:19 AM PST by Tannerone (FEED ALL TERRORIST LIVE AND OTHERWISE TO STARVED HOGS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Rummy was hired to restructure the military, like he had done the first time he was Sec. of Defense. For anyone to remain surprised by his decisions and conclusions it must mean that they were not paying attention when Bush first put him in the office, again. Did no one examine his record?


14 posted on 11/12/2006 8:28:07 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
How do you know that he failed to recognize a change in conditions that required a change of response. Is it just guess work on your part. How do you know he failed to get beyond it.

I'm asking seriously...

15 posted on 11/12/2006 8:28:49 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (Sorry, we don't want to stick around to see if we win; we'd rather vote ourselves off the island.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands; Lil'freeper; ExGeeEye

Thought you might enjoy this article.


16 posted on 11/12/2006 8:33:36 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (Sorry, we don't want to stick around to see if we win; we'd rather vote ourselves off the island.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rhema
I have finished reading "Cobra II". It does not paint a favorable picture. However, its omissions are quite apparent.

The Zinni plan, later put forward (not pushed) by Shinsheki was for over 400,000. No mention of post-Iraq appears. No mention of securing the countless WMD sites appear. No mention of sectarian violence and revenge killings appear.

Just 400,000 to overrun Iraq. Why? WMD. How many were they forecasting to die? I don't recall them reporting but I would guess 10-15% or between 40,000-60,000. Then one needs the cemetary troops and logistics to evacuate the wounded and dead. And, they still need the logistics to prosecute the conflict.

Rumsfeld did it with a lot less. And there were the same oversights WRT aftermath as at any previous sanctimonious time. Cobra II points out that Rumsfeld and Franks overlooked the Saddam Fedayeen, who turned out to be the most tenacious fighters (according to the book).

Until we overthrew Baghdad, no one could know how the various factions would react. Many would have thought the regulars would have dispensed with the Foreign fighters.

And of course, Bremer, by disbanding all units and officials did not help matters. If any blemish is to be found on Rumsfeld record, it would be the Bremer authority (imo - I thought Bremer was a Colin Powell plant).
17 posted on 11/12/2006 8:38:27 AM PST by Prost1 (Fair and Unbiased as always!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Only thing Rummy missed is that ANY democrat military officer is a security risk..
If they had any sense they wouldn't even be a democrat...
18 posted on 11/12/2006 8:41:40 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperboles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
This is a great article. The writer presents the Donald Rumsfeld I saw on the News, and the Donald Rumsfeld I hoped was working for our country. It's good to know that my perception of Donald Rumsfeld was right. He is a good man.

19 posted on 11/12/2006 8:49:01 AM PST by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

[...December 2002, Haynes, brought Rumsfeld news that (snip) questioned the legality of the additional (interrogation) techniques. Rumsfeld (snip) in short order directed Haynes to revoke the authority for the new techniques. ... the cruel and sexually bizarre behavior at Abu Ghraib occurred many months later...]

The media will ignore this.

Great Post!


20 posted on 11/12/2006 8:50:19 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose Dung

This is a keeper.


21 posted on 11/12/2006 8:50:44 AM PST by Moose Dung (Perquacky is a fools game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

mark for later reading


22 posted on 11/12/2006 8:52:18 AM PST by VirginiaMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rhema

No wonder the dems are afraid of him. He is natural leader and thinker.


23 posted on 11/12/2006 8:55:31 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
You are soooooooo right "rhema"!!

But for me, all I did was listen to him via the TV...he makes sinse, is clearly in possession of a good mind, and is "...a gentleman and a scholar..."...articulate...wise...the list goes on and on. I think so many people have lost the ability to think for THEMSELVES. It is hard NOT to see what a great man he is.

Thanks!!!

Nancee

24 posted on 11/12/2006 8:57:15 AM PST by Nancee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Very well written. Nice summary. And this is the view I always had of Rummy.


25 posted on 11/12/2006 8:57:56 AM PST by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

bttt


26 posted on 11/12/2006 8:59:42 AM PST by ADemocratNoMore (Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I agree that Rumsfelds departure is a sad event but in politics 5 years is a lifetime ....we should rejoice he was able to accomplish what he did


27 posted on 11/12/2006 8:59:52 AM PST by woofie (If not this war then which one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
the Rumsfeld caricature

Interesting tactic of the left. They create a caricature of someone, react to that caricature as though it were the real person, and before long, most Americans believe the caricature more than their own eyes and ears. In the MSM, and probably to most Americans, President Bush IS the caricature created by the left.
28 posted on 11/12/2006 9:00:26 AM PST by ChocChipCookie (Homeschool like your kids' lives depend on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Thank you for this Rumsfeld post. The election loss did not affect me much beyond knowing the terrible casualties our troops in Iraq will suffer, and the slaughter of the Iraq people when the Rats manage to facilitate a Viet Nam type pullout. What did cause me a visceral reaction was the hasty announcement that Donald Rumsfeld was resigning/fired. The way it was done sickened me. I could accept that he was leaving, but it was like he was being given the bums rush while the votes were still being counted. We have traded a giant patriot for a socialist anti-American passel of RATS.
29 posted on 11/12/2006 9:02:46 AM PST by mountainfolk (God Bless President George Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
As I see it, the biggest problem in the current political situation is increasingly we are asking the military to do things that they are not really significantly trained to do.

We still train most of our troops primarily to fight conventional warfare as we always have, but more and more we are demanding that they conduct policework, security, and local political affairs in areas that we don't understand all that well.

This is the sort of work that is best done by Special Ops guys, spies, diplomats, and contractors. If we have reached the point where we can no longer fight conventionally (which means killing the enemy in very large numbers) because of collateral damage concerns, then we really need to transform the way we train our forces.

30 posted on 11/12/2006 9:05:14 AM PST by jpl (Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

Rumsfeld is impressive in a televised briefing with questions and answers. It is the press that depresses. Rumsfeld is smart and substantive, and he is remarkably patient dealing with an often juvenile and hostile press. Unfortunately many Americans never see Rumsfeld or Bush directly. Instead "their" thoughts and opinions are handed to them from the juvenile and hostile main stream media.
31 posted on 11/12/2006 9:07:58 AM PST by ChessExpert (Reagan defeated America's enemies despite the Democrats. I hope Bush can do the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

We will rue the day that he resigned, I am afraid. I hope that we will not be prosecuted, as that is the left's knee-jerk reaction to not having their cake to eat too. They wanted to be on board as being conscientious Americans, worried about our safety, but they didn't want to do any more than 'Clintoon' had done with his cruise missiles, shooting across the desert and killing a few odd camels and taking out a pharmaceutical factory. That was enough for them...scare a few desert gnats and be done with it. They didn't bargain on a real war, one that they might have to complete. It should be interesting to see what happens now.


32 posted on 11/12/2006 9:09:35 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
"What I saw, however, was that Rumsfeld questioned standard military recommendations for "overwhelming force."

Yes, but unfortunately the military ended up using underwhelming force. I do believe however, Rumsfield would have used more ground troops if the Generals wanted them. This however, would have resulted in more casulties and possibly a more premature end to the war, precisely the reason the Generals wanted to keep the numbers of ground troops lower.

It is most unfortunate. I have the deepest respect and regard for Rumsfeld, a true American patriot.

33 posted on 11/12/2006 9:13:48 AM PST by TAdams8591 (It's the Justices, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Pretty tough to set the record straight when both the Dincons and the Surrender Now Leftists will simply refuse to listen to anything that does not validate their emotion based opinons about Rummy


34 posted on 11/12/2006 9:23:39 AM PST by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party: Hard on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Thanks for posting!


35 posted on 11/12/2006 9:24:17 AM PST by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

That is so true. He was the smartest man in town. And now we go from a great "Rummy" to an old re-tread dummy. So sad and so bad for this nation.


36 posted on 11/12/2006 9:25:27 AM PST by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

"He was the right man for transforming our offensive and "conventional" armed forces, but not the right man for understanding the current phase of operations in Iraq." GREAT POST. AGREE 100%


37 posted on 11/12/2006 9:25:47 AM PST by aumrl (voting against dims - not 4 reps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
"Rummy's only crime was to be the smartest guy in the room."

And when the room is full of "journalists," that's a terrible crime indeed.

38 posted on 11/12/2006 9:32:09 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhema

That is the Rumsfeld I know. The DoD won't be the same without him.


39 posted on 11/12/2006 9:39:07 AM PST by ilovew (Rummy...the best Secretary of Defense ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
And when the room is full of "journalists," that's a terrible crime indeed.

And yet, when the room is full of journalists, it's very hard to avoid.

40 posted on 11/12/2006 9:40:15 AM PST by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Prost1
And of course, Bremer, by disbanding all units and officials did not help matters.
---
Mostly I agree with you, but not about this.

The Iraqi Army was so politicized that keeping it would have left the Baathists in control of the Army, and they would have been undermining the new democratic government. There would have been no loyalty to it, the Army would be just waiting for the Americans to leave.

Think of the Reichswehr in Germany between the World Wars. Zero loyalty to the Wiemar Republic. Think of the average South American army in the 19th and early-mid 20th centuries. "We are the real country and the politicians are to be put in power and overthrown at our whim."

The results were better in West Germany and Japan after the war. Complete disbandment and a whole new Bundeswehr/Self-Defence Force, which knew it's place in the nation.

Lenin would have been a blip in Russian history if he hadn't abolished the old Imperial Army and started fresh with the Worker's-Peasant's Red Army.
41 posted on 11/12/2006 9:41:22 AM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Don Rumsfeld goes the bum's rush because he sought to transform the U.S military into a post-Cold War institution. Actually a small force did a magnificient in Iraq. We accomplished in three weeks of the war with a force less than a third the size we deployed in Desert Storm.

Bingo. But then, we entered another phase. Just like swift panzer spearheads were not appropriate for occupation of urban areas, a small force is unable to conduct effective counterinsurgency against a skilled opponent who can pop up where you aren't. Successes in counterinsurgency have illustrated the need for holding ground, not just striking here and there and playing defense for convoys.

42 posted on 11/12/2006 9:41:23 AM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Valin

"He will be missed, but I've a sneaking suspection that we've not heard the last of Rummy."

Let's hope his input from the sidelines is weighted heavily

btw - G. Will is an ass


43 posted on 11/12/2006 9:46:32 AM PST by nuconvert ([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business] (...but his head is so tiny...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mulligan

From Rummy to Dummy. I like.


44 posted on 11/12/2006 9:51:50 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GBA
It depends on who writes the history. Remember who is in charge of "education" in this country. Remember which writers are "Politically Correct" enough to have their text books read in class rooms all over the nation.

"America ... Where are you now?"

45 posted on 11/12/2006 9:56:54 AM PST by ImpBill ("America ... Where are you now?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rhema

'The Best of Donald Rumsfeld'
http://www.neoperspectives.com/rumsfeld.htm

This Feith piece will be added to the above.


46 posted on 11/12/2006 10:00:52 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

The de-baathification and de-nazification are not comparable.

Iraq is a hodgepodge of cultures and peoples, some with long standing (millenium) hatred one against the other.
The shia in charge of the police in the north is as bad as the sunni in charge in the south.

It would have been better to constitute a Shia security force for their area and Sunni for their area. Since Baghdad in mixed, it would have been best to use the Euphrates as a DMZ and move entire communities from one side to the other and eliminate the slums while they were at it.

IOW and imo, there were better options than what Bremer chose. We shall soon see if Saddam and his henchman are executed, who from the Sunni tribes comes forward as the leader. I am thinking it might be a red-headed guy.


47 posted on 11/12/2006 10:05:57 AM PST by Prost1 (Fair and Unbiased as always!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Editor's note: Mr. Feith is currently polishing his resume and is expected to leave before Mr. Rumsfeld leaves.


48 posted on 11/12/2006 10:18:13 AM PST by ArtyFO (I love to smoke cigars when I adjust artillery fire at the moonbat loonery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA
History will remember him well, long after we've forgotten his poll driven critics. He seems to be a lot like Churchill in that he did what needed to be done and then was discarded when the politics of the moment changed.

Well put. I can't imagine what WWII would have been like in today's media climate. There were so many SNAFUs and bad decisions in WWII, but people never heard about them. All people know today is that we ended up winning.

49 posted on 11/12/2006 10:23:43 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rhema

There are other views of what Rumsfeld accomplished. He destroyed the Army. He transformed the Army to a concoction of boutique brigades without adequate artillery support, suited to fight small actions only and little prepared to face the huge Chinese Army and another North Korean Army. We are left with only a nuclear option to fight wars on the horizon.


50 posted on 11/12/2006 10:25:33 AM PST by ArtyFO (I love to smoke cigars when I adjust artillery fire at the moonbat loonery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson