PSU, your thoughts?

[Diogenes]

W. House backs Rumsfeld as generals demand he resign

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House gave a new vote of confidence to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday as yet another retired general demanded Rumsfeld resign.

"Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

A fifth retired general, Major Gen. John Riggs, added his voice to those opposing Rumsfeld. In an interview with National Public Radio, Riggs cited an atmosphere of "arrogance" among top civilian leaders at the Pentagon.


Rumsfeld "should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic," he said.

Of the Pentagon's civilian leadership, Riggs said: "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni kept up the pressure for Rumsfeld's scalp by telling CNN Rumsfeld should be held accountable for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."

"I think he should (resign). This is not personal, believe me. We grew up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting your mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said.

A recently retired two-star general, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Germany-based 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, called on Wednesday for Rumsfeld to resign.




So what's the over/under on how long it takes to force Rumsfeld out?

[PSUFAN]

My thoughts? I feel that Rumsfeld should resign or be fired for incompetence. Why? Zinni states the reason perfectly:

"throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."

Rumsfeld preferred to believe that the future was "unknowable".

[Diogenes]

So how long until he's forced out?

Any predictions?

[PSUFAN]

I seriously doubt he'll be "forced out". Bush has already made it clear that he's happy with the job he did/does.

You do have to wonder, though...if another invasion would become necessary, would they feel comfortable with Rumsfeld calling the shots? My guess is no.

[Tom In VA]

I seriously doubt he'll be "forced out". Bush has already made it clear that he's happy with the job he did/does.

Brownie was doing a "heckuva job" too. We'll see.

[Diogenes]

Cool. I feel better now, I know how well you predict this kind of shit.

And I don't see us needing to invade Iran (air power should work on any nucleur facilities they have if nessecary).

[Mikey]

Has Rummy been on The Colbert Report yet?

[PSUFAN]

Let me clarify: Rumsfeld led the invasion somewhat creditably, but totally ignored what was to happen subsequently. In case there's some confusion on that point, read what Zinni said once more:

"throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."

[Bizzarofelice]

Careful what you wish for

1) I learned that when I voted for the dead guy over Ashcroft.

2) No need to blanket the world as libs... that is, unless you can't argue with anyone without projecting some set of principles uypon them and attacking that projection.

[PSUFAN]

Note for the dittoheads:

The "Clinton wanted to attack Saddam too" thing is totally egregious. The point of the debate is not whether Saddam should have been removed. It is, instead, why they bungled the occupation so abysmally.

[Diogenes]

Note for the dittoheads:

The "Clinton wanted to attack Saddam too" thing is totally egregious. The point of the debate is not whether Saddam should have been removed. It is, instead, why they bungled the occupation so abysmally.

Tell that to the moveon nutjobs.

[Bizzarofelice]

Tell that to the moveon nutjobs.

Yes, because they set the dialogue. All 1,000 of them.

[PSUFAN]

Tell that to the moveon nutjobs.

Yes, because they set the dialogue. All 1,000 of them.

This is the kind of logical disconnect that many in our nation suffer.

Generals come out against Rumsfeld's approach to the occupation, and we hear that "Clinton wanted to invade, too".

Criticize something like Halliburton's cost-plus no-bid contract, and you'll be accused of "not supporting the troops".

You know what's funny? Listen to Limbaugh these days. He's calm, collected, and actually reasonable. The seedlings of demagogery long ago found sustenance, and have flowered independent of the gardener.

[Bizzarofelice]

We never trained for that mission.

Who could have forseen it? We can not see into the future.

[Tom In VA]

It is, instead, why they bungled the occupation so abysmally.

We never trained for that mission. The occupation has been, for all intents and purposes, an improvisational exercise.

I don't think that's an unreasonable take. RACK.


But mvscal, I think at issue here is Rumsfeld not listening to the general who have been actively participating in the improvisational nature of the exercise. "Lessons Learned" sessions probably go on and these guys bring back the "Lessons Learned" and outline recommendations to remediate issues and they're feeling as if they're being ignored.

That's a problem, isn't it ?

[Tom In VA]

Tell that to the moveon nutjobs.

Yes, because they set the dialogue. All 1,000 of them.

This is the kind of logical disconnect that many in our nation suffer.

Generals come out against Rumsfeld's approach to the occupation, and we hear that "Clinton wanted to invade, too".

Can you point that out to me in this thread ?

[PSUFAN]

We never trained for that mission.

Exactly. That's why I use the term "bungle".

Like Powell said, "you break it, you pay for it". That nugget of wisdom flew over Rummy and Cheney like a SR-71 Blackbird - or what's more likely, they just didn't give a fuck.

[Diogenes]

Tell that to the moveon nutjobs.

Yes, because they set the dialogue. All 1,000 of them.

This is the kind of logical disconnect that many in our nation suffer.

Generals come out against Rumsfeld's approach to the occupation, and we hear that "Clinton wanted to invade, too".

Criticize something like Halliburton's cost-plus no-bid contract, and you'll be accused of "not supporting the troops".

You're the one who brought up the first, and link to the second?

[Tom In VA]

We never trained for that mission.

Exactly. That's why I use the term "bungle".

Like Powell said, "you break it, you pay for it". That nugget of wisdom flew over Rummy and Cheney like a SR-71 Blackbird - or what's more likely, they just didn't give a fuck.

Even in my field, I've come to expect a disconnect from reality between executives and the "boots on the ground".

Hell, just ask any grunt about their brand spanking new butterbar flashing his shiny new ring about. I'm sure mvscal can shed some light on that one.

The disconcerting factor here is the "arrogance". Which screams an unwillingness to waiver and reconsider despite all evidence pointing to "your way isn't working and it won't work".

If that's going on, then Rumsfeld should go. IMHO

[PSUFAN]

Rumsfeld not listening to the general who have been actively participating in the improvisational nature of the exercise.

They warned him before, during, and now they're cracking him after. The inescapable conclusion is that the man is incompetent.

I'm not so sure about the rest of you...but when the US military brass is talking about strategic considerations, I will lend them my ear. We're supposed to simply assume that the entire military hierarchy is laden down with buffoons? No one would suggest something like that unless they were advancing an agenda...like for instance, that the military should be pared down to a quick strike force. Rumsfeld certainly advanced that agenda, and ignored the fact that there would be a transitional period.

[Tom In VA]

Rumsfeld not listening to the general who have been actively participating in the improvisational nature of the exercise.

They warned him before, during, and now they're cracking him after. The inescapable conclusion is that the man is incompetent.

I'm not so sure about the rest of you...but when the US military brass is talking about strategic considerations, I will lend them my ear. We're supposed to simply assume that the entire military hierarchy is laden down with buffoons? No one would suggest something like that unless they were advancing an agenda...like for instance, that the military should be pared down to a quick strike force. Rumsfeld certainly advanced that agenda, and ignored the fact that there would be a transitional period.

While our motivations might differ, I think we are in agreement. Listen to the people who know and are experienced in these matters, i.e. the military.

Since this operation was so fluid and "improvisational", it might be a bit unreasonable to hold him accountable for the "before". But to continue to ignore facts as they come in "during" is inexcusable. If that's what's going on, then by all means, the dude has to go.

[PSUFAN]

Can you point that out to me in this thread?

Note for the dittoheads:

The "Clinton wanted to attack Saddam too" thing is totally egregious. The point of the debate is not whether Saddam should have been removed. It is, instead, why they bungled the occupation so abysmally.

Tell that to the moveon nutjobs.

[Cicero]

Dont we have a forum for this?? This place is falling apart. I'm threatening to leave for good, if its not cleaned up.

[PSUFAN]

While our motivations might differ, I think we are in agreement.

I'm not really in a position to explain your motivation...but I can tell you, I'm not interested in savaging Rumsfeld just for fun or to make political hay. I'm interested in removing an individual who holds the fate of our servicepeople in his hands - removing him because he is incompetent.

[Diogenes]

Bye.

Fag.

[PSUFAN]

Dont we have a forum for this?? This place is falling apart. I'm threatening to leave for good, if its not cleaned up.

well done, fellahs. thanks for responding so quickly.

[PSUFAN]

Actually he warned that there would be a transitional period and certainly knew that toes would be mashed along the way and that it would be accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Glad you're with me so far. The eventual point is that it was wrong to apply those principles in the Iraq scenario - to essentially pretend the transitional phase was complete, and that his gleaming new toy only awaited his instructions.

He treated the invasion as his own petri dish. Of course, the US had no tremendous difficulty or dramatic loss of life entering Iraq, and subduing the Iraqi army. The problem is, though...that was merely the very beginning - but it was the entirety, as far as Rummy was concerned.

[Tom In VA]

He treated the invasion as his own petri dish. Of course, the US had no tremendous difficulty or dramatic loss of life entering Iraq, and subduing the Iraqi army. The problem is, though...that was merely the very beginning - but it was the entirety, as far as Rummy was concerned.

And when he found out differently, he should have fill in the blank
but he failed to fill in the blank therefore he should be removed.

Will you play ?

[PSUFAN]

How about this: he should have listened to his generals and what they had to say about the invasion and occupation. His ego prevented any such thing. Remember how he was showing up in those "sexiest man of the year" things? Sorry to say, but dood was feeding his ego like a mutherfuckah.

[Tom In VA]

I admit that the administration certainly overestimated the ability and desire of Iraqis to take responsibility for their country, though.

Do you think they also underestimated the inability to control the border and thwart the foreign "factor" ?

[PSUFAN]

Those principles lead to one of the most astonishing feats in the history of armored warfare.

That being, specifically?

I admit that the administration certainly overestimated the ability and desire of Iraqis to take responsibility for their country, though.

Not good enough. Why would it be left to chance? Anyone could have explained the following to him, and plenty certainly tried to:

If you rip the lid off, you better be prepared to contain what comes out. Simply stated, he personally wasn't...and the folks who knew better, having tried to dissuade him prior, were charged with his impossible cleanup job after.

[Tom In VA]

How about this: he should have listened to his generals and what they had to say about the invasion and occupation. His ego prevented any such thing. Remember how he was showing up in those "sexiest man of the year" things? Sorry to say, but dood was feeding his ego like a mutherfuckah.

No doubt. But I dare say most leaders don't really carry "wishy washy" as a trait.

Thanks for playing, but I was looking for something a bit more specific and tactical in order to research whether or not other generals were whispering other things in his ear. At that level, I'm sure it's highly competitive ... even with lives on the line ... and ego-charged. Rummy might have fallen into the trap of "yes men" around him in uniform. A need to have ones ego stroked will do that to you.

[PSUFAN]

whether or not other generals were whispering other things in his ear.

I suppose Gen. Shinseki will serve pretty well as an example.

Who's supposed to know better about how many troops it would take to secure post-war Iraq...the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army, or Paul fucking Wolfowitz? I think I know who I'd believe.

Rummy heard what he wanted to hear.

[Tom In VA]

Rummy heard what he wanted to hear.

There's a lot of that going around.

The bottom line is this. Whether or not Bush has confidence in Rummy or not is irrelevant. Has the majority of the military lost confidence in Rummy ? If the answer is yes, then I'm expecting him to be asked to resign.

Frankly, my guess is that he's burnt out more than anything else and will resign "with encouragement".

[PSUFAN]

What was so astonishing about the drive to Baghdad? What was so remarkable about it? Really, I didn't know that it was regarded as such a tremendous feat.

Let's hear why it was. Wow me.

In fifty years, this "bungled occupation" won't even rate an asterisk.

Maybe that "asterisk" will rate a memorial, eh?



No problem...just as long as Rummy was able to test out his theories and everything.

[PSUFAN]

Wolfowitz wasn't in command, dumbfuck.

I wish someone had explained that to Rummy, especially when he gobbled up Paul's estimate of how many troops would be needed to secure Iraq.

[PSUFAN]

What was so astonishing about the drive to Baghdad? What was so remarkable about it? Really, I didn't know that it was regarded as such a tremendous feat.

That's because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And yet you continue to offer criticism on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

Not to hold you back from a good melt or anything, but I'm honestly not trying to criticize the drive to Baghdad. I have never heard that it was a dramatic military accomplishment.

Were you actually reading the posts in this thread, in between aneurysms, you'd have picked up on me stating numerous times that the invasion of Iraq is not what I take issue with. Your masturbatory evaluations of how well it went are a curious sidebar, at best.

The issue here is: why did Rummy fumble the rock on the occupation?

[PSUFAN]

Isn't it ironic how important the opinions of retired military personnel are when it comes to evaluating Rumsfeld's performance, but they were considered completely meaningless (and politically motivated) when it came to evaluating John Kerry's performance.

I'm not really sure what the connection is there. Are we talking about the same folks? Did anyone mention the Swift Boat Vets? From what I understand, the criticisms of Rummy come, by and large, from Generals:

"We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results." - Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission." - Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." - Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

[Tom In VA]

The issue here is: why did Rummy fumble the rock on the occupation?

The presumption in your question is that if things had been done differently according to an alternative plan available at the time, the occupation would have been so much better than it is right now. Have you got any evidence to support the truth of that presumption?

Only after you prove the truth of your presumption does the issue you want to talk about have any value. Just sayin.

Well that's the whole point 88, two generals who have "been there" are now able to chime in and say "he fumbled the rock". There's the rub.

We can, perhaps, dismiss as "politically motivated" when retired generals, out of the loop, say "He's going to fumble the rock". Or even mouthpieces on CNN that used to have stars on their shoulders saying "He's fumbling the rock".

It's kind of hard to dismiss men who have been there and watched as the rock was being fumbled. But where are their peers ?

[PSUFAN]

Why does everyone pretend that there was no plan for occupation? It's just not true:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FB13Ak01.html

According to army procedure, they developed a Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data (TPFDD) plan, an extremely intricate master plan detailing the movements of each and every unit and the "logistics tail" (the supply of fuel, spare parts, food, etc) needed to keep that unit operational. This plan initially called for an invasion force of about 400,000, including support personnel. The original plan also envisioned the US leading a broad coalition, much like Operation Desert Storm.

However, Secretary Rumsfeld began reviewing the TPFDD in November 2002, trimming the number of personnel to about 75,000. These modifications were part of a new kind of operational thinking by Rumsfeld, who reportedly views the army planning process as cumbersome and inefficient, hobbled by bureaucracy and mired in old-style management. The army, on the other hand, views the planning as necessary to prepare for any contingency and essential to ensuring victory.