The news today had been full of articles about the retired military professionals who think Rumsfeld has placed our nation in grave peril because of his incompetence. Before you blow them off as moonbats, read their testimony. Politburo Diktat has…

Maj. Gen. Eaton has some good, specific, points, then trips over himself in his prescriptions for solving the problems.

The other two don’t even get that far.

Obviously a whole lot more ACTIVE GENERALS agree with the policy, and haven’t walked off the job. They won’t be doing any dog and pony’s in Washington either - because they’re out effecting the policy and keeping the country free for these CIVILIAN moonbats to speak their mind.

“Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values.”

He lost me on that quote. Nobody claiming to offer legit criticism would spout nonsense such as that.

A minor point of blog etiquette here.

Pixy is a long-time commenter and friend. He’s welcome to voice his opinion here anytime, briefly or at length.

It’s new commmenters (on a particular blog) who have to demonstrate a little extra reasonableness and civility.

We did not ask our soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the same armor they trained on in 1941.

Well … in 1941 the Sherman was introduced and first used in Operation Torch in 1942. And Shermans were the main US tank on D-Day. As far as I remember, Shermans were pretty much the best on offer, and compared to Tigers and Panthers were underarmored and undergunned.

Not a good example. You go to war with the material you ordered years ago.

I don’t see much new in this criticism than what many have been saying for years and none of them show much appreciation for the politics of the Middle East - whichh was always a part of the equation, like it, or not.

I agree with many of the comments above, especially in regard to equipment. Never forget it was the Clinton Administration that stripped our military with cuts of up to 60% so they could tout their legendary “budget surplus”.

Also true is the comment regarding going to war with previous wars’ weapons. The hummers were never intended to carry all that armor plating, and nobody ever issued me my own body armor when I served.

Want to win this war? We need to fight fire with fire, and stop worrying about what others will think.

(ed. - corrected for split infinitive)

Generals are people, too. They have feet of clay. Consider Murtha, who fell on his USMC sword for political gain and the promise of some of Soros’ money.

I’m all for a more serious, and expansive approach to settling Iraq, but certainly the Generals need to see that their otherwise constructive requests for more, better, and faster are being misused and misconstrued by partisans who do not support the Generals’ goals. Their targeting of Rumsfeld speaks of sour grapes and, if improving the strategic and tactical situation is truly their goal, it would be better to avoid such divisive and overtly political rhetoric to focus on the achievable.

Never forget it was the Clinton Administration that stripped our military with cuts of up to 60%

You are forgetting a fundemental aspect of our government. The House of Representives is in charge with all budgetary matters. For most of Clinton’s term in office the House was controlled by the Republicans.

Could we admit the possibility that Rumsfeld has seriously F*cked up the war? I mean, we must concede that it is theoretically a possible conclusion.

If it is, … if it is possible, … BUT we dismiss all critics that ever might emerge as Soros-sucking, disaffected, partisan careerists, how could we ever find that out? (”The defendant cannot be guilty, because anyone who testifies against him is a liar.”)

As it happens, these three guys are not alone. There is lots and lots of evidence that Rumsfeld has F*ked up the war.

I’m just not sure what, if any, level of evidence would satisfy some of the commenters here. Could any of them say? Could any of them suggest what evidence of Rummy’s alleged failure they MIGHT find persuasive?

BTW, in 1941, the US armed forces were training with Grant and Lee tanks. Some of the early production Shermans did see action in August, 1942 with Operation Torch.

Well, that’s your credibility down the drain.

Righty: These generals don’t know what they’re talking about.

How about iterating towards a superior strategy instead of either using counter-examples as canonical examples or ignoring those counter-examples? Has Rumsfeld made mistakes? Of course. Has Rumsfeld enacted changes in the DoD that are both valuable and particular to his style of leadership? Yes.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Has Rumsfeld enacted changes in the DoD that are both valuable and particular to his style of leadership? Yes.

Absolutely. The armed forces have never been so perfectly adapted to fight the Soviet Union as they have been under Rumsfeld.

I think the US had an incredible opportunity in 2003 to reshape the Middle East. That has been lost, but what can be saved is an opportunity to reshape Iraq.

The armed forces have never been so perfectly adapted to fight the Soviet Union as they have been under Rumsfeld.

Garbage. The “three block war” (TBW) was formalized under Rumsfeld’s DoD and continues to be refined in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The TBW (soldier as peacekeeper, relief worker and rifleman all in the same three blocks) is a direct product of a post-Soviet world and is not even remotely related to our methods during the Cold War.

Rumsfeld has not put up roadblocks to formalization of the TBW. It’s been integrated into the military lexicon and embraced as a necessary strategy. Rumsfeld’s whole argument is that the men in the field can be aided by, and in some cases replaced with, technology when executing the TBW. How does that imply that he’s trying to fight Ruskies?

No one is better than Rummy at using the jargon.

Looks like he’s gonna put Ray Odierno back in Iraq, this time as top guy. Comment?

Third, we must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge, …. gearing up our industrial base in a serious manner.

I heartily agree to this point having been involved building prototypes for many weapons systems over the last four decades. This last decade though, I have watched our manufacturing base erode significantly. It is a testament to the American ability to innovate that we become more efficient every year to make up most the difference. The bad part of that is we are losing machinists at an alarming rate. It is a difficult trade to learn and we will have a sore time responding rapidly in a crisis.

Lee wrote:

TxMarko,

You are forgetting a fundemental aspect of our government. The House of Representives is in charge with all budgetary matters. For most of Clinton’s term in office the House was controlled by the Republicans.

Ummm, NOT. “Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans. [10] … Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[12] ”

Here is neat little graph that uses GPO data to summarize things….

After all, that would leave us about, what, 60,000 left over for all other commitments?

And what do you do when it’s time to start rotating some of the 500,000 home? Quit the war?

I think we _should_ be expanding the size of the military. But we pretty much have put the maximum-sustainable-by-the-military we have into Iraq.

(In fact, the same generals being quoted above about how we haven’t sent enough people are talking about how the men and equipment we have are being stretched thin. Which of them are right? For those saying both of those, which statement of theirs is right? And are the Democrats who cut the military by 40%, and the army in particular by proportionately more than that, in their last administration the people we need to depend on to make things right?)

that a particular policy in Iraq, is spreading jihadism and anti-Americanism

And has killed (by Al Queda’s admission) a minimum of 4,000 foreign jihadis.

Those jihadis aren’t in the US. They are under dirt. Thats a very good thing.

What other strategy would have enticed so many jihadis to come and die in a place other than say … New York?