Posted on 12/02/2006 1:20:05 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Totally agree on this point! And I contend that the administration should have been much more forthright about policy, either through WH press releases or weekly radio addresses. The media also bears some responsibility to keep transparency in government. I actually support this leak, since it is policy related. (Flame away!) Had it been troop movements, I would be calling for Congressional investigations.
I admit, I thought the iraqi forces could be trained by now - but I've accepted that the realities on the ground have proved that wrong. every 6 months, we get another speech about iraqi forces "needing another 12 months". I heard a clip of the president's speech at the naval academy - one year ago - its the same speech he's giving now.
at some point, doesn't anyone ask "what are we going to do differently tommorow, that we haven't been doing all along, to make things better". at least Rumsfeld is making some specific suggestions here.
But still - who is really running this war? or is the president simply getting so much conflicting opinions from various places, that a unified policy cannot be formulated? I don't know.
I love Donald Rumsfeld and his no-nonsense demeanor, but the only big miscalculation that he and the president both made was their underestimation of the enemy. Not the enemy in Iraq, mind you, but the enemy within the US. We trounced the Iraqis militarily, but because of the unprecedented access to Iraq that we permitted the media to have, they were able to wage an unrelenting campaign against the war by continuing to report gloom and doom and harp about the casualties.
Once we'd made the decision to go to war, we should have banned the media from the combat zone, and continued to enforce that ban wherever our soldiers were in combat. We should also have taken much more vigorous measures against leakers and publishers of classified information here at home, rather than permit these agents provocateurs to faciliate breaches of our national security.
It's obvious that the presence of an anti-American MSM in Iraq has had a "chilling effect" on the kinds of initiatives that we could have taken against the enemy. We should also have used complete and unrelenting force (i.e., total annihilation, regardless of the potential for civilian casualties) against the Sadrists and insurgents from the very beginning in this media-free environment, instead of hoping that they would "play nice" in a democracy. No war has ever been truly won with half-measures.
We would NEVER have won WWII had the media had the kind of access that they've had in this war. Only through the malevolent eyes of the anti-American MSM could such a resounding military victory be protrayed as a "failure". We should never have trusted them, from the beginning.
The article also gives the link to the actual memo ( so they say).
Rumsfeld’s Memo of Options for Iraq War
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03mtext.html
Following is the text of a classified Nov. 6 memorandum that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent to the White House suggesting new options in Iraq. The memorandum was sent one day before the midterm Congressional elections and two days before Mr. Rumsfeld resigned.
====
It's way past time to find, try, convict and jail those who keep leaking classified information to the NYT. Why does the NYT have the FULL TEXT of the memo?!
Obviously the memo shouldn't have been leaked.
But it certaily illustrates that Rumsfeld had good ideas and it's really too bad he was made to resign.
Here is a good advice from the Rummy memo:
"Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence. "
"But still - who is really running this war?"
"The United Nations has extended the mandate of the US-led multinational forces in Iraq for another year."
This was for 2005-2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4419222.stm
"Tuesday, November 28, 2006 · Last updated 2:58 p.m. PT
Security Council extends mandate in Iraq
By EDITH M. LEDERER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of the 160,000-strong multinational force in Iraq for one year, acting quickly ahead of a key meeting between U.S. and Iraqi leaders aimed at halting escalating violence in the country and paving the way for a reduction of American troops."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_UN_Iraq.html
Let me think real hard for a while, and I might figure out "who" is really running this war. I may have to sleep on it and get back to you tomorrow.
I knew there was a plan for a type of federalism along those lines, but I was surprised at the phrase three separate states. Did that jump out at anyone else? Or am I reading too much into it?
Read where it is in the memo. It is under the not so desirable alternatives.
"Flame away"
No, that's not me. Right or wrong, nice or not, I simply call things as I see them and let the chips fall where they may.
Exceptions to my flame rules are simple:
-I hate the enemy and want them dead.
-I hate the dims, msm and the libs, as I consider them all traitors.
-I hate rotten cheese, raw mushrooms and cheap wine.
I fail to see that you fall under any of those in my criteria, so no, there will be no flames.
That alternative was listed as not desirable. The only worse alternative was a "Dayton Accord" scenario. This is why the Dayton information was published. A TERRIBLE alternative. Better than just pulling out and going home, but not much.
Sure, every time I have an important decision to make in business, I send out my first thoughts to the whole world.
"I would cringe everytime I would hear Bush/Rumsfeld use the "stay the course" line."
Every time the president used that line or the line, Mexicans illegals "just do the work that Americans wont do", the republicans running for office probably lost another 10,000 votes.
True.
You missed by a mile - this isn't business, it's public war policy. The Administration's deafening silence on Iraq strategy changes contributed significantly to the recent Republican losses.
Maybe Rumsfeld suggested we kick the lawyers out of the Pentagon and stop them from running Iraq.
That would be a start.
Same process- you discuss things internally first. In this case, Rummy wrote the memo only a couple of days before the election. That's likely because only then had he come to these PRELIMINARY conclusions, and was in a position to discuss them.
Isn't it up to the generals in Iraq to be recommending changes to strategy. They're on the front lines after all.
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.