Posted on 11/09/2006 3:43:13 PM PST by MadIvan
Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq.
Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where at least 2,800 of their comrades have died.
Indeed some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.
Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, said Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.
Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: “It’s a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. It’s going to be hard to fill his shoes.”
But one US Army Colonel, who did not want to be named, said that such positive views were uncommon in the higher ranks of the US military. “We are the ones closer to the problem. We are the ones who have the broader picture,” he said.
The Colonel criticised Mr Rumsfeld for sending too few troops to Iraq, and for refusing to listen to the advice of his generals. He noted that General Eric Shinseki, the former US Army Chief of Staff, was sacked for demanding more troops, while General John Abizaid, Central Command’s commander, was the only general to have differed publicly with Mr Rumsfeld and survived.
Certainly the rank-and-file are trained not to question the decisions of their superiors. “We don’t question why we’re sent here. Our job is to do what we’re told and we do it with pride,” said Sergeant Jason Gomez, a military policeman. When pressed, some also admitted that to question Mr Rumsfeld’s execution of the war would raise doubts about the value of their mission and of their comrades’ deaths.
“I try to keep positive. That’s what keeps you going,” said Sergeant Daniel Allen of the 101st, who has lost three friends during his two tours in Iraq. “When you lose someone close to you, it’s hard to say whether [their deaths] were worthwhile or not. I like to believe so, especially for their families’ sake.”
But these men are also some of the last believers — people who are still convinced that Iraq can survive its present violence to become a stable democracy. “We’re losing a lot of people over here, but they’re not dying in vain,” insisted Sergeant Gomez.
Sergeant Ron Carter of the 101st said: “It’s a bad situation. It's a tough situation. But I think [Rumsfeld] probably did the right thing for the right reasons. Maybe it could have been a bit better planned, but helping people who were suffering: that’s a good reason.”
Major Mike Jason, who has been advising an Iraqi battalion for the past year, said it remained to be seen how Mr Rumsfeld would be judged. “I hope history will judge that we did something good and stuck with it and saw it through, because it’s already been pretty damn costly.”
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
It is not Rummy's exit that is the problem. The lib majority and the defense appropriations mob are the problem. They will end the war in Iraq...and just relocate it to our shores, effectively.
All this is getting really stupid and sad.
If we abandon Iraq like we did Viet Nam, no nation will ever again trust the United States to do what they say they will do. Our nation's word will be absolutely worthless.
I'm a huge fan of Rumsfeld, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which, I believe there is room in government for innovators and visionaries. His mark will remain.
Well, I find it more interesting the Rummy was replaced with Gates, an ex-CIA chief.
No one seems to be focused on that important development.
Three quarters of Congress and a large majority of the people decided to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003. Saddam, the insurgents, Al Qaida, and now the religious killers are the reason the troops are there - not Donald Rumsfeld.
I am really pissed at the MSM for constantly misusing this word.
Here's a bunch of guys who can look death in the eye and not flinch.
Our PRESIDENT on the other hand, looked PELOSI in the eye and TOTALLY CAVED.
Forget about all the jokes about how ugly she is. Think about how ugly this scenario is:
Bush cuts down a good soldier because the RATS tell him to.
Bush cuts-n-runs from Iraq because the RATS tell him to.
Now that's ugly. Very ugly indeed. If it happens. Which it looks like it will. Why else bring in a Scowcroft buddy?
And with good reason. The People's Party surrender monkeys are probably working on a pull-out timeline as we speak. We'll pull out pre-maturely (no sexual reference intended) and the Muslime extremists will overrun Iraq just like the North Vietnamese did the South. Mark my words. If we leave too early, the vacuum will suck them right in.
I have done two tours over there, looking to go back next year if we're still there and I will be damned if it's going to be for nothing because our party did not have the balls to stand up for themselves and let the libs use us as toilet paper.
What a braveheart.
THe Iraq policy will not change, victory will be ours. The rhetoric will change with Rummy gone, but it will be his and Bush's victory when all is said and done.
Our nation's word will be absolutely worthless.
-----
It already is. It became worthless the day we abandoned Viet Nam. A botched war, a military hamstrung by politco liberals who never let us fight the war. But it was OK to kill over 50,000 of our troops....while the whole world watched.
Washington has no credibility.
What a crock of cr$p!!
The U.S. is about to lose our credibility with the world.
[Mr] T
I believe the libs are laying the groundwork for cutting off funding for Iraq just as they did to Vietnam.
I hated to see Sec Rumsfeld resign but even had he not, he wouldn't be able to prevent a lib Congress from cutting off funding.
My guess he was gone regardless. This is Washington, where the next battle started months ago.
I am amazed that we are even seeing stories like these.
"paycheck to the woman w/ 8 kids w/ 5 different fathers, none of who's name she remembers"
already happened
Valid though
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.