Rumsfeld is Right

[Tigermike 3,053]

August 08, 2006

Rumsfeld is Right

By Cal Thomas

Opponents of President Bush and his Iraq policy have jumped on a comment last week by Gen. John Abizaid, commander, U.S. Central Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

Ignored in most of the media coverage was what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same hearing: "I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact." Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.

Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do."

For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism."

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Rumsfeld is right.

Cal@CalThomas.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...d_is_right.html

[otterinbham 0]

August 08, 2006

Rumsfeld is Right

By Cal Thomas

Opponents of President Bush and his Iraq policy have jumped on a comment last week by Gen. John Abizaid, commander, U.S. Central Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

Ignored in most of the media coverage was what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same hearing: "I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact." Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.

Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do."

For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism."

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Rumsfeld is right.

Cal@CalThomas.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...d_is_right.html

The columnist, who has a spectacular record of getting things wrong, fails to point out how Rumsfeld got things wrong. To wit:

1) An utter lack of planning on Iraq's occupation after hostilities ceased. I deal with a lot of Colonels and Generals in my everyday work, and have had more than one bull session with them over beers. All of them discuss how members of the Joint Chiefs pleaded for greater troop commitments as the war wound down, only to be dismissed by Rumsfeld. The result? The chaos allowed the insurgency to form. Period.

2) A continued unrealistic assessment of field conditions. Does anybody remember Rumsfeld quote a year and half ago that "the insurgency will be finished in a year." At the very least, the man should have managed the expectation of the American public by telling them that we were in for a long hard slog. Anybody who knows anything about counterinsurgency knows that it takes years to vanquish one.

I believe strongly that we can and will prevail in Iraq. But the mistakes and hubris of Rumsfeld have made things much more difficult than they could have been, costing thousands and thousands of American and Iraqi lives in the process.

[Tigermike 3,053]

The columnist, who has a spectacular record of getting things wrong, fails to point out how Rumsfeld got things wrong. To wit:

1) An utter lack of planning on Iraq's occupation after hostilities ceased. I deal with a lot of Colonels and Generals in my everyday work, and have had more than one bull session with them over beers. All of them discuss how members of the Joint Chiefs pleaded for greater troop commitments as the war wound down, only to be dismissed by Rumsfeld. The result? The chaos allowed the insurgency to form. Period.

2) A continued unrealistic assessment of field conditions. Does anybody remember Rumsfeld quote a year and half ago that "the insurgency will be finished in a year." At the very least, the man should have managed the expectation of the American public by telling them that we were in for a long hard slog. Anybody who knows anything about counterinsurgency knows that it takes years to vanquish one.

I believe strongly that we can and will prevail in Iraq. But the mistakes and hubris of Rumsfeld have made things much more difficult than they could have been, costing thousands and thousands of American and Iraqi lives in the process.

Just so I can get this straight in my own mind, are you saying that the reasons for the war are wrong or the implementation of the war has been wrong?

Are these statements, thoughts and conclusions correct and accurate? Or are they wrong and off base?

Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.

Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do."

For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism."

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

As far as the generals you were speaking of; does the Sec of Def. make all decisions in a vacuum? Or does he receive input from the JC & many others? If the generals are all merely yes men to the Sec of Def., then they need to speak up, wouldn't you think? All I'm saying is that there had to be agreement somewhere along the line as far as troop levels, etc. etc.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Rummy should have been a scapegoat years ago. I guess their waiting for the total collapse of Iraq to make this change. They'll probably give it to Lieberman.

[otterinbham 0]

The columnist, who has a spectacular record of getting things wrong, fails to point out how Rumsfeld got things wrong. To wit:

1) An utter lack of planning on Iraq's occupation after hostilities ceased. I deal with a lot of Colonels and Generals in my everyday work, and have had more than one bull session with them over beers. All of them discuss how members of the Joint Chiefs pleaded for greater troop commitments as the war wound down, only to be dismissed by Rumsfeld. The result? The chaos allowed the insurgency to form. Period.

2) A continued unrealistic assessment of field conditions. Does anybody remember Rumsfeld quote a year and half ago that "the insurgency will be finished in a year." At the very least, the man should have managed the expectation of the American public by telling them that we were in for a long hard slog. Anybody who knows anything about counterinsurgency knows that it takes years to vanquish one.

I believe strongly that we can and will prevail in Iraq. But the mistakes and hubris of Rumsfeld have made things much more difficult than they could have been, costing thousands and thousands of American and Iraqi lives in the process.

Just so I can get this straight in my own mind, are you saying that the reasons for the war are wrong or the implementation of the war has been wrong?

Are these statements, thoughts and conclusions correct and accurate? Or are they wrong and off base?

Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.

Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do."

For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism."

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

As far as the generals you were speaking of; does the Sec of Def. make all decisions in a vacuum? Or does he receive input from the JC & many others? If the generals are all merely yes men to the Sec of Def., then they need to speak up, wouldn't you think? All I'm saying is that there had to be agreement somewhere along the line as far as troop levels, etc. etc.

The war AND its implementation. And members of the JCs, such as Shinseki, said from the get-go that the troop levels were insufficient for occupation purposes. In fact, two lieutenant generals resigned because they disagreed with the WMD evidence AND they vehemently disagreed with the troop levels. Just go back and look it up. And for every general such as Shinseki who publicly asked for more troops before the invasion began, there were many more who tried making the same plea through channels.

So, yes, Rumsfeld DID make his decision in a vacuum, namely because he ignored the advice of his top generals.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Funny how all I heard from the media on this matter was, what Gen Pace was quoted as saying..."

"I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, ....

Funny, because what is left out of the WHOLE sentence, that being, " but that does not have to be a fact." .

Add selective quoting to the doctored photos, and we have the makings of an entire field of Journalism which is hell bent on spinning the facts to promote their politcal agenda.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Funny how all I heard from the media on this matter was, what Gen Pace was quoted as saying..."

"I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, ....

Funny, because what is left out of the WHOLE sentence, that being, " but that does not have to be a fact." .

Add selective quoting to the doctored photos, and we have the makings of an entire field of Journalism which is hell bent on spinning the facts to promote their politcal agenda.

That's sounds about right. Sad thing is no one understands that, or at least very few do. Both sides of the wars have an agenda, for the Neocons it's power, for the Islamofascists it's 72 virgins, death to the infidel and democracy (the killing of democracy agenda is shared by both sides, you just don't see it). Don't think for a minute that the Neocons are your friends, they are brown-shirts in their infancy.

[Tiger Al 0]

Funny how all I heard from the media on this matter was, what Gen Pace was quoted as saying..."

"I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, ....

Funny, because what is left out of the WHOLE sentence, that being, " but that does not have to be a fact." .

Add selective quoting to the doctored photos, and we have the makings of an entire field of Journalism which is hell bent on spinning the facts to promote their politcal agenda.

You've never had a problem with selective editing before. Why start now???

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The only problem I have with those statements, Tiger Al, is all of the politicians are fed the same BS in order to twist their judgement, thus causing their statements. In other words, faulty intelligence can lead to wars approved by both sides. The CIA has problems, and until they fix those problems I won't believe them. The entire system is corroded to an irreversible point of decay. And, 911 didn't change a thing for me, b/c I'm not afraid of death. However, if we are going to invade a country, do it right, or get the #### out of the way. That's why I like Ron Paul of Texas. If it's unconstitutional he doesn't vote for it.

[AUman43 5]

As much as I dislike Rummy, I have to agree with his statement. I have no doubt that these fanatics will never give up regardless of what we do or don't do. My fear all along has been that the conflict in Iraq will evolve into a civil war between the various religious factions with us caught in the middle. This has happened! With this in mind, I question America's resolve to "stay the course" until some resolution to this problem can be found, given the slanted reporting by this country's liberal news media on a daily basis and women like Cindy Shehan strutting around crying about her son who volunteered for service. The inevitable comparison with Vietnam has already begun although much more is at stake in this conflict and conparisons by the media is DANGEROUS... (see last sentence)As foul as it sounds, Saddam KNEW the only way to govern these idiots was to rule with an iron hand and kill anyone who didn't toe the line. They have never known a democratic form on government and in many ways, their religion does not embrace one due to conflicts wiith Muslim philosophy. We may, in the final analysis, have to make a "stand" against these terrorists another time in another place. I hope to God it's not on our own soil. Another fear I have is that our Christian values will place us at a clear disadvantage when confronting these infidels who don't mind taking innocent human lives for one second if it helps their cause. The main DIFFERENCE in this conflict and Vietnam is that our SURVIVAL did NOT depend upon winning in Vietnam, although many thought it did. THIS WAR IS FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE CHRISTIANS around the world.