Posted on 04/18/2006 5:51:54 PM PDT by kellynla
WHAT'S the dumbest thing George W. Bush could possibly do right at this moment - the action that would, more than any other, suggest his presidency was and is all but finished?
The answer: Fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Either a forced resignation or a dismissal would effectively bring the Bush presidency to an end.
This is something that Bush's out-and-out foes and opponents of the war in Iraq surely understand, otherwise they wouldn't be salivating over the prospect and doing everything they can to put pressure on the president to make it happen.
But some supporters of the president's efforts in Iraq also seem anxious to see Rummy replaced. These thoughtful people have had problems with the war plan from the start and have been insisting for several years that only with another Defense Secretary can the war plan's mistakes be corrected and the conflict brought to a positive conclusion.
Yet such a move would be an unmitigated disaster for the effort in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The Lefties' poster boys, LBJ, JFK & FDR would have given their right arm for successes like this one!
Semper Fi, Kelly
Amen!
I disagree. Rumsfeld and his pals failed to plan properly for post-war Iraq. I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster.
I believe President Bush should stay the course and not listen to the talking heads.
God Bless President Bush and his team and God Bless our Troops.
"but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster?"
not Rummy's job.
"his policies?"...
try GWB's "policies"...
Rummy takes his orders from GWB. And if Rummy wasn't doing what he was told and effectively; I'm sure Bush wouldn't have a problem replacing him.
if you have a problem with public relations, "policies" and/or "winning the peace" you need to file your complaint with GWB c/o the WH.
and if you have better solutions; we'd all be anxious to hear them. LOL
If Bush were to let Rummy go; the water would be full of blood for the Lefty sharks claiming victory and demanding others to be replaced and especially since Rummy has been so successful in waging the war; why do so?
" I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster."
You are very correct. The Iraq war PR has been a disaster.
Immediate corrective steps needed would be to deport all members of the MSMedia and all Democrats (except Lieberman and a couple others) to North Korea, Cuba, or some other country where they would feel more at home.
" I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster."
You are very correct. The Iraq war PR has been a disaster.
Immediate corrective steps needed would be to deport all members of the MSMedia and all Democrats (except Lieberman and a couple others) to North Korea, Cuba, or some other country where they would feel more at home.
What is your baseline of comparison? Which war has been more successful than the two under Rumsfeld's tenure?
An absolute ridiculous position to try and take - The success we have had in the WOT in the last 4 years is utterly amazing. The success in Iraq by all historical measures has been incredible.
Of course bringing a Country out of 30 year rule from a brutal dictatorship that sits in the heart of the Middle East isn't (wasn't) going to be easy.
But the reality is Iraq has come a very long way. The values of freedom and self-worth are spreading in both Iraq and Stan....these two values are our biggest allies in the WOT (in the years to come)....it is precisely because of our actions ...and steadfast resolve of SecDef Rumsfeld and CIC GWB that these values are spreading.
Since Sept 11th our enemies have suffered one strategic defeat after another....we have not suffered one.
I want to take the name and number of every pansy-reared fruit-cake that is responding to the polls with such hostitlity to Secretary Rumsfeld...who is just doing his job...and doing it well and with panache.
And I would kick them and their tushes to the moon, if I could...
I suspect that we are seeing major tampering with the polling by the MSM...push polling at least... to try and create pressure for the objectives Podhoritz discerns here...
What is your baseline of comparison? Which war has been more successful than the two under Rumsfeld's tenure?
EXACTLY! Let's take WWII, as it is generally considered a successful war. There were huge blunders throughout that war. Take the Mediterranean campaign alone. There we really DID go in "without a plan". Oh, Churchill thought maybe, after clearing out Africa, the allied forces might invade the Balkans (wouldn't that have been fun). The Americans didn't like that idea, but thought there might be other possibilities. So basically the allies said, "O.K., so let's clear out North Africa and then decide where to go from there".
And there were possibilities, but those where screwed up to. It depends on how you look at it, but arguably once the German forces were isolated to Tunisia they could have been left to wither on the vine. Instead a great deal of time and effort was expended in reducing them. And then a sensible strategy would have been to use control of the Mediterranean to stage raids into southern Europe. This could have been done with relatively small forces, and would have tied down much larger numbers of Axis forces since it could not be predicted where the raids might occur.
INSTEAD we got sucked into Sicily, and then Italy, which had the exact opposite effect: Tying down large numbers of allied forces with small numbers of German forces. And the consequences of that, the forces, and especially the landing craft, devoted to the Mediterranean and Italian campaigns, delayed the invasion of France by at least a year. Consider, in turn, the consequences of THAT: The Soviet control of Eastern Europe for the next half century of the Cold War!
What, wrt to Iraq, comes even close to that? (Or several other major WWII blunders.)
You gotta give the left credit though. At least they're finally going after a gentile. (In true Nazi fashion they came for the JEWS first. You'll remember the Wolfowitz was their first and primary target at defense. The left still hates him for overseeing the defense/liberation of Central America from Communism.) Of course, though, they can't resist including their charges the claim that Rummy fought the Iraq war for the sake of Israel, an argument made explicitly by at least two of the anti-Rummy generals I believe.
Describe the parameters of what a proper "plan for post-war Iraq" might have looked like. Be as detailed as possible. And then with each detail you list, I'll point out how your "plan" would likely have been rendered D.O.A. by events on the ground.
And what part of your "plan" would have prevented the Sunni minority from embracing terror-insurgency? Too often, these mystical "plan" things are spoken of as if the right, carefully-calculated "plan" can somehow engineer the behavior of other humans. I am skeptical of a standard of "planning" by which it is considered to be evidence of "bad planning" on our part if some foreigners make decision X instead of decision Y. What foreigners decide to do or not do is beyond our control; it is how we react and adjust, which we can control.
"Plans" are overrated. Adjustments are what is important. Now maybe Rummy can be criticized for not having adjusted quickly enough, but you have not done so here, and regardless, this war has been one of the most successful in human history, so forgive me for not being too swayed by Monday morning quarterbacking.
I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster.
I certainly will not insist that Bush has the best PR team in the world. But you must acknowledge that with a hostile media and a left determined to paint any and all circumstance (including victory) as failure, Bush could have had the best PR team in the world and it still wouldn't have mattered. Anyway, that is not a real criticism of the conduct of the counter-insurgency. You don't seem to have a real criticism of the conduct of the counter-insurgency.
Well said.
GWB has had to fight the WOT and the press every step of the way. IMO the press are the worst kind of scum because they are invested in our defeat.
There shouldn't have been a "plan for post-war Iraq." The idea of having a war and then building your enemy back up is ridiculous. Truman did it, but only to keep the Soviets from taking over in Japan and Germany.
Here is what the plan SHOULD have been:
Invade.
Destroy Baghdad.
Kill Saddam.
Kill his sons.
Execute the generals we know were guilty of warcrimes.
Leave.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it's going to get.
Exactly! And that is what the administration failed to do, take into account a range of possible Iraqi reactions and make contingency plans. Instead, the war was sold as quick, our military welcomed as liberators, and the war was to virtually pay for itself with oil revenues.
If the war is now perceived as a failure, its because reality hasn't matched administration pre-war PR.
Further, the administration failed to notice that rules of occupation as specified in the Hague Regulations (signed onto by the US) say that occupying forces "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." In other words, the administration's planned privatization of Iraqi assets could not legally take place until a new Iraqi constitution and government was in place to authorized it.
While the administration failed to notice, or decided to ignore the rules, potential investors did not. Privatization and economic development has been stalled because any investment or sale under those conditions can be declared void and subject to seizure, unless, of course we successfully set up a puppet government willing to carry out US plans. But where is the freedom in that? Isn't freedom really the ability to decide for ourselves what's good for us?
"Iraq" is not our enemy. The government of Saddam Hussein was our enemy. It is not ridiculous to stick around in Iraq and wield influence on the future direction of their government. That way we can minimize the chances that whichever government emerges becomes our enemy again. I don't want us to have to re-invade, do you?
Truman did it, but only to keep the Soviets from taking over in Japan and Germany.
And part of the reason we are doing it is to keep Al Qaeda (or Iran) from taking over in Iraq.
Here is what the plan SHOULD have been: Invade. Destroy Baghdad. Kill Saddam. Kill his sons. Execute the generals we know were guilty of warcrimes. Leave.
Meanwhile Al Qaeda has entered Iraq, built up sanctuaries, killed/extorted its way to some influence, and made Iraq a better haven than Afghanistan was. You don't mind?
Did you forget about Al Qaeda? Have you lost interest in fighting against Al Qaeda?
The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it's going to get.
I don't agree. Why do you say that?
I am not a big fan of Runsfeld, but no way he should resign, it would be terrible for the war effort for Runsfeld to go.
Based on what do you say this?
Instead, the war was sold as quick
No it wasn't.
our military welcomed as liberators,
I'll have you know that our military were, and are, welcomed as liberators, by some Iraqis. All Iraqis? No. But so what? Since when is that the standard for anything? If some fraction of Iraqis doesn't welcome the overthrow of Saddam, that makes "Iraqis didn't welcome us" a true statement?
Anyhow, "our military will be welcomed as liberators" was not a prominent part of how the war was "sold" (geez how I hate this cliched way of talking that the left has given us) in the first place. You can't find Bush saying this in a speech for example.
and the war was to virtually pay for itself with oil revenues.
No it wasn't. Again, show me where Bush ever said this.
If the war is now perceived as a failure, its because reality hasn't matched administration pre-war PR.
No, it's because reality doesn't match the cartoonishly impossible fantasyland ahistorical standard for success in war which has set up by a hostile media and straw-man-building left.
All of your preceding points are complete bogus straw-men. Bush never said "quick", he never said "pay for itself", he never said "all Iraqis will welcome us as liberators". Whether you know it or not those memes are straw-men that have trickled down to you from the left. The war is perceived as failure by people who have lazily bought into the left's straw-men.
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.