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


1 posted on 02/28/2003 8:29:04 AM PST by Axion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Axion
U.S. Army Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki

My question is why is that jerk still in there? He should have been booted for the morale assault he mounted with his beret nonsense, not to mention the money wasted on it as well as the money that went to China for berets.
2 posted on 02/28/2003 8:36:29 AM PST by Bigg Red (God help us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Isn't Shinseki the same guy who order a million berets for the US Army....all made in Red China?
3 posted on 02/28/2003 8:37:55 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Shinseki should just pass out magic black berets to all Iraqis....
If can turn ordinary boys and girls into an "elite" fighting force without effort..
Maybe it can turn Iarqis into "nice guys"
4 posted on 02/28/2003 8:41:22 AM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Shinseki should just pass out magic black berets to all Iraqis....
If can turn ordinary boys and girls into an "elite" fighting force without effort..
Maybe it can turn Iarqis into "nice guys"
5 posted on 02/28/2003 8:42:20 AM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Shinseki got there the old fashioned way, on his kneepads. Bush and Rummy better have a talk with the perfumed princes as to just who is in charge.
6 posted on 02/28/2003 8:42:45 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Clintonite Shinseki.
7 posted on 02/28/2003 8:46:02 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion; Bigg Red
Just a couple of random thoughts on this:

- Gen Shinseki has been a lame duck for just about a year now. His replacement, the serving Vice Chief, was tapped to replace him an unheard of lead time of 14 or 15 months. I believe Shinseki leaves in June or July.

- The descrepancy in numbers for an eventual occupying force begs for Sec Def Rummy and/or Sec Army White to step in and clear things up. If they don't step in, I'd have to say the whole thing is an example of planned confusion or just plain old disinformation.

Hello, Bigg Red

8 posted on 02/28/2003 8:47:28 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
As much as I hate the Berets, let us not forget that that Wolfowitz has absolutely ZERO military experience yet he talks like he's George S. Patton. He has absolutely no business publicly questioning Shenseki in such an important issue, it sends a terrible message to the troops.

Wolfwitz hid in college instead of going to Vietnam, and he's been a career bureaucrat ever since. Shinseki, on the other hand, graduated from the USMA and performed two combat tours in Vietnam, one as a forward artillery observer.

Wolfowitz's comments to Shinseki should consist of "no sir" and "yes sir"

10 posted on 02/28/2003 8:52:05 AM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
The words and their definitions are important. In 1983, the USS New Jersey was shelling positions in the Shouf Mountains in Lebanon. The Pentagon was asked if the Battleship was firing in direct support our allies (militia). The answer was a "No". They could say this because the misssion of the New Jersey was "General Support".

Semper Fi,
11 posted on 02/28/2003 8:54:47 AM PST by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Shinseki is near retirement. Let him go off into the sunset with a few chinese made berets to keep him company.

His is the one who has been feeding bullcrap to Hackworth.

13 posted on 02/28/2003 9:03:06 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
From: Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability with Afghan President Karzai 2/27/03

Rumsfeld: He was asked, I believe, in a Senate hearing what the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for occupation of Iraq would be following the war. And he responded something like that; that he said he didn't know. And then they said, well, do you have a range? And so then he said, well, several hundred thousand, roughly what it would take to win the war. Something like that, I think.

The fact of the matter is the answer to the question that was posed to him is not knowable. We have no idea how long the war will last. We don't know to what extent there may or may not be weapons of mass destruction used. We don't know -- have any idea whether or not there would be ethnic strife. We don't know exactly how long it would take to find weapons of mass destruction and destroy them -- those sites. There are so many variables that it is not knowable.

However, I will say this; what is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. The reality is that we already have a number of countries that have offered to participate with their forces in stabilization activities, in the event force has to be used.

Second, it's not logical to me that it would take as many forces to win the war -- following the conflict as it would to win the war.

So I can assure you that there are so many variables that it's not possible to come out with a point answer to the question. You'd have to first say: If you assume this, this or this with respect to the variables, how many other forces are going to be participating besides ours? Until someone decides that there has to be a conflict and that the conflict's over, you're not going to know the answer to that question. So it's simply not knowable.

And I will say that I do think that any idea that it's several hundred thousand over any sustained period is simply not the case.

18 posted on 02/28/2003 9:33:40 AM PST by Hipixs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
As can be seen in the below quotes from the article the issue is in semantics between Shinseki and Wolfowitz but the big story is that while the world is focused on Iraq the US is planning to use force elsewhere in the region. Wolfowitz's emphises on those large forces not being in Iraq as occupiers but for further deployment, this gives weight to the president's speech the other night how the world is on notice that they will have to reshape their governments, foreign policies and civil rights according to our dictates or they will be the next Iraq.

* We suspect that the explanation for this mismatch lies in the definition of the term "occupying forces." Strictly speaking, occupying force are those charged with maintaining order and providing services in an occupied country. Troops in Kuwait, for example, are not occupying forces. They are based in Kuwait, but their mission is outside of the country; so, there can be troops occupying Iraq and troops based in Iraq and the missions are completely different.

* There will be an occupation force charged with managing Iraq's internal security and other issues. There also will be other troops based in Iraq -- not reporting to the occupation commander, but reporting to a war-fighting commander whose primary responsibility will be for operations outside of Iraq.

* Wolfowitz -- and President George W. Bush -- simply don't want to lay the long-term cards on the table at this time. They would rather be accused of attacking Iraq without reason than being viewed as being engaged in a long-term, well-thought-out campaign against other countries in the region.

22 posted on 02/28/2003 9:41:03 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Shinseki is an imbecile. I saw the tape when he made this statement.

Q: How many troops will be needed to occupy Iraq after the war?

Shinseki: Uuuuh..it would probably take...uuhhh....several....hundred thousand.

This numbskull probably doesn't even know how many troops are under his command. His answer came from where most of his decisions come from - his ass.

24 posted on 02/28/2003 9:55:41 AM PST by servantoftheservant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Pentagon Briefing going on now. (C-SPAN). Maybe Rumsfeld or Meyers will be asked a question or two about this.
30 posted on 02/28/2003 10:51:22 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Pentagon Briefing going on now. (C-SPAN). Maybe Rumsfeld or Meyers will be asked a question or two about this.

I apologize if this is a double post. We can consider it an added bump.
31 posted on 02/28/2003 10:54:00 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
Rummy was asked about Shinseki's remarks at today's press conference. The conversation went something like this...

Reporter: What do you think about Gen Shinseki's estimate on the cost of a possible occupation of Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Reporter: But is it helpful to the adminstration to have him express this opinion at this time?

Rumsfeld: All opinions are helpful, unless they are wrong.

Rumsfeld then went on to explain that there would be many different variables involved in such an estimate, and since he doesn't know how Shinseki came up with his conclusions on each variable he really couldn't comment further on his opinion, except that it doesn't match what he has seen.
35 posted on 02/28/2003 12:32:09 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Axion
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab3772e1f05.htm
Who is this guy?
42 posted on 02/28/2003 7:38:08 PM PST by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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