Yet More Ultra Liberal Iraq Propaganda

[otterinbham 0]

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

[AURaptor 1,126]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

That's too bad b/c Rummy should be screwing-up someone's business instead of our short-changing my military by sending them into harm's way with inadequate equipment and civilian leadership. You are inexperienced in this subject AURaptor. I'd stick to calling people names, that's what you seem to do best.

[AURaptor 1,126]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

That's too bad b/c Rummy should be screwing-up someone's business instead of our short-changing my military by sending them into harm's way with inadequate equipment and civilian leadership. You are inexperienced in this subject AURaptor. I'd stick to calling people names, that's what you seem to do best.

I suspect you'll say something inane like Rummy sent them to war w/ out the proper body armor, or Humvees that aren't 'up armored' enough, right ? Fact is, the US military is the best equipped in the world. Every army has supply issues, but in the end, it IS a war. No amount of body armor could save every soldier in every situation. Soldiers are saying they don't WANT a full suit of armor, because they can't carry that much weight around , and it limits their ability to move, aim, etc... Humvees were never intended to be APCs. That's what Bradley's are used for, pin head. ( Oh, but I'm a civilian, so I don't know what I'm talking about. ) Simply chucking on extra sheets of metal on the sides / bottom of HVs only makes them slower, wears on the engines more, which causes more maintenance problems, which taxes the supply lines for parts to replace worn out engines..... There are no simple answers for all this, unless you're a Democrat.

[otterinbham 0]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

That's too bad b/c Rummy should be screwing-up someone's business instead of our short-changing my military by sending them into harm's way with inadequate equipment and civilian leadership. You are inexperienced in this subject AURaptor. I'd stick to calling people names, that's what you seem to do best.

I suspect you'll say something inane like Rummy sent them to war w/ out the proper body armor, or Humvees that aren't 'up armored' enough, right ? Fact is, the US military is the best equipped in the world. Every army has supply issues, but in the end, it IS a war. No amount of body armor could save every soldier in every situation. Soldiers are saying they don't WANT a full suit of armor, because they can't carry that much weight around , and it limits their ability to move, aim, etc... Humvees were never intended to be APCs. That's what Bradley's are used for, pin head. ( Oh, but I'm a civilian, so I don't know what I'm talking about. ) Simply chucking on extra sheets of metal on the sides / bottom of HVs only makes them slower, wears on the engines more, which causes more maintenance problems, which taxes the supply lines for parts to replace worn out engines..... There are no simple answers for all this, unless you're a Democrat.

Actually my issue has to do with the fact that Rumsfeld blew off the Joint Chiefs on manpower levels needed to occupy Iraq, crucifying Shinseki in the process. Then rather than eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi government (the way we did with the German and Japan) and keep the rest to maintain civil order, we basically destroyed the abilities of the Iraqis to govern themselves.

Serious, serious policy mistakes were made from beginning to end in this. Yet the administration can't admit to its mistakes.

[CCTAU 3,350]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

That's too bad b/c Rummy should be screwing-up someone's business instead of our short-changing my military by sending them into harm's way with inadequate equipment and civilian leadership. You are inexperienced in this subject AURaptor. I'd stick to calling people names, that's what you seem to do best.

I suspect you'll say something inane like Rummy sent them to war w/ out the proper body armor, or Humvees that aren't 'up armored' enough, right ? Fact is, the US military is the best equipped in the world. Every army has supply issues, but in the end, it IS a war. No amount of body armor could save every soldier in every situation. Soldiers are saying they don't WANT a full suit of armor, because they can't carry that much weight around , and it limits their ability to move, aim, etc... Humvees were never intended to be APCs. That's what Bradley's are used for, pin head. ( Oh, but I'm a civilian, so I don't know what I'm talking about. ) Simply chucking on extra sheets of metal on the sides / bottom of HVs only makes them slower, wears on the engines more, which causes more maintenance problems, which taxes the supply lines for parts to replace worn out engines..... There are no simple answers for all this, unless you're a Democrat.

Actually my issue has to do with the fact that Rumsfeld blew off the Joint Chiefs on manpower levels needed to occupy Iraq, crucifying Shinseki in the process. Then rather than eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi government (the way we did with the German and Japan) and keep the rest to maintain civil order, we basically destroyed the abilities of the Iraqis to govern themselves.

Serious, serious policy mistakes were made from beginning to end in this. Yet the administration can't admit to its mistakes.

I thought the number of troops on the ground were controlled by the Generals on the ground, not the JCS?

[otterinbham 0]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

That's too bad b/c Rummy should be screwing-up someone's business instead of our short-changing my military by sending them into harm's way with inadequate equipment and civilian leadership. You are inexperienced in this subject AURaptor. I'd stick to calling people names, that's what you seem to do best.

I suspect you'll say something inane like Rummy sent them to war w/ out the proper body armor, or Humvees that aren't 'up armored' enough, right ? Fact is, the US military is the best equipped in the world. Every army has supply issues, but in the end, it IS a war. No amount of body armor could save every soldier in every situation. Soldiers are saying they don't WANT a full suit of armor, because they can't carry that much weight around , and it limits their ability to move, aim, etc... Humvees were never intended to be APCs. That's what Bradley's are used for, pin head. ( Oh, but I'm a civilian, so I don't know what I'm talking about. ) Simply chucking on extra sheets of metal on the sides / bottom of HVs only makes them slower, wears on the engines more, which causes more maintenance problems, which taxes the supply lines for parts to replace worn out engines..... There are no simple answers for all this, unless you're a Democrat.

Actually my issue has to do with the fact that Rumsfeld blew off the Joint Chiefs on manpower levels needed to occupy Iraq, crucifying Shinseki in the process. Then rather than eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi government (the way we did with the German and Japan) and keep the rest to maintain civil order, we basically destroyed the abilities of the Iraqis to govern themselves.

Serious, serious policy mistakes were made from beginning to end in this. Yet the administration can't admit to its mistakes.

I thought the number of troops on the ground were controlled by the Generals on the ground, not the JCS?

The JCS made very specific recommendations on troop strength based on repeated wargaming for the decade previous to Gulf War II. Instead, Rumsfeld swept those recommendations aside, deciding on troop levels roughly half of what the Pentagon recommended. In short, Rumsfeld's arrogance meant we did not have enough troops on the ground to foil a rising insurgency.

[Captain Liger 0]

2nd time the editorial's called for Rummy to go. Basically, just repeating a point which has already been made. Sad pre-election day pandering going on here. Rummy's not going anywhere.

That's too bad b/c Rummy should be screwing-up someone's business instead of our short-changing my military by sending them into harm's way with inadequate equipment and civilian leadership. You are inexperienced in this subject AURaptor. I'd stick to calling people names, that's what you seem to do best.

I suspect you'll say something inane like Rummy sent them to war w/ out the proper body armor, or Humvees that aren't 'up armored' enough, right ? Fact is, the US military is the best equipped in the world. Every army has supply issues, but in the end, it IS a war. No amount of body armor could save every soldier in every situation. Soldiers are saying they don't WANT a full suit of armor, because they can't carry that much weight around , and it limits their ability to move, aim, etc... Humvees were never intended to be APCs. That's what Bradley's are used for, pin head. ( Oh, but I'm a civilian, so I don't know what I'm talking about. ) Simply chucking on extra sheets of metal on the sides / bottom of HVs only makes them slower, wears on the engines more, which causes more maintenance problems, which taxes the supply lines for parts to replace worn out engines..... There are no simple answers for all this, unless you're a Democrat.

Actually my issue has to do with the fact that Rumsfeld blew off the Joint Chiefs on manpower levels needed to occupy Iraq, crucifying Shinseki in the process. Then rather than eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi government (the way we did with the German and Japan) and keep the rest to maintain civil order, we basically destroyed the abilities of the Iraqis to govern themselves.

Serious, serious policy mistakes were made from beginning to end in this. Yet the administration can't admit to its mistakes.

I thought the number of troops on the ground were controlled by the Generals on the ground, not the JCS?

The JCS made very specific recommendations on troop strength based on repeated wargaming for the decade previous to Gulf War II. Instead, Rumsfeld swept those recommendations aside, deciding on troop levels roughly half of what the Pentagon recommended. In short, Rumsfeld's arrogance meant we did not have enough troops on the ground to foil a rising insurgency.

The troop levels at the time of the invasion were sufficient enough to take the country and topple Saddam. That's been proven. Military planners in their "war gaming" thought it would take a half million soldiers to beat the coveted Republican Guard. They weren't planning on fighting an insurgency. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. 100,000 troops, 500,000 troops...makes no difference. I'm not taking up for Rumsfeld but simply stating that the insurgency would have happened anyway. The only thing more troops would have solved was the time it takes for an insurgent to find a US soldier to shoot at.

[Tiger Al 0]

The troop levels at the time of the invasion were sufficient enough to take the country and topple Saddam. That's been proven. Military planners in their "war gaming" thought it would take a half million soldiers to beat the coveted Republican Guard. They weren't planning on fighting an insurgency. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. 100,000 troops, 500,000 troops...makes no difference. I'm not taking up for Rumsfeld but simply stating that the insurgency would have happened anyway. The only thing more troops would have solved was the time it takes for an insurgent to find a US soldier to shoot at.

Yes, of course troop levels were sufficient enough to beat Iraq militarily. My guard unit probably could've beaten them!!! Beating them militarily was only half of the mission. The other half, peacekeeping/rebuilding, was what Shinseki and others said that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed for. Shinseki was blown off because, said Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, his figures were "wildly off the mark" because, among other things, there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq. (WTF??? ) They also disregarded cost estimates, saying that $95B for the war AND rebuilding Iraq too high. How much have we spent so far?

And, yes, the insurgency would've happened anyway, but, unfortunately, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, either didn't listen to those who said it would or didn't care. More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I think this Rumsfeld thing is the single biggest head scratcher for me regarding Bush's decision making. You can dicker back and forth about pre-war intelligence and all that crap regarding how the war has been handled. But the bottom line is, the major tactical decisions have been Rumsfeld's to make and he's done a terrible job. For the life of me I cannot understand why Bush continues to back this clown. And says he's done a "great job!"

If he's done a great job, Shula should be up for 2006 National Coach of the Year. He's done a terrible job...from miscalculating the response of the Iraqis after the fall of Saddam, to misreading the amount of ethnic hostility, to underestimating the power of foreign insurgents, to refusing to budge on the troop levels even after the above mistakes could be seen by even the blind...any CEO worth a damn would have fired a person under him that's messed up this much.

Sometimes I wonder if Rummy has naked pics of W with Ted Haggard or something.

[Captain Liger 0]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

[Tiger Al 0]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni believed it at the time planning was going on. Turns out they were right. Are you more experienced at planning and conducting a war than them?

[Captain Liger 0]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni believed it at the time planning was going on. Are you more experienced at planning and conducting a war than them?

No more than you are at running a country.

If Shinseki and Zinni honestly believed that enormous amounts of troops would have crushed an insurgency, or at least hampered it, then they obviously didn't learn anything from their own experiences in Vietnam 30 years prior. Over how many years was the war escalated there?? At its zenith, how many troops were deployed to Vietnam?? Please, tell me the outcome of the Vietnam War. With all those troops there, surely the VC were decimated and the NVA backed off. Right? Vietnam: 10 years, 58,000 casualties. Nothing to show. Iraq: 3.5 years, 3,500 casualties thus far. The country is getting back on its feet after 30 years of torment. Do the math. Apparently we're doing something right despite not having 50% of America's youth slinging lead downrange.

Even high ranking generals can be wrong from time to time. At least Shinseki and Zinni were able to save face and retire. MacArthur was outright fired in front of an entire nation and forced to retire for being wrong.

EDIT: Go ahead and chalk up berets and Stryker Combat Vehicles to Shinseki's list of boneheaded ideas!

[TitanTiger 20,511]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni believed it at the time planning was going on. Are you more experienced at planning and conducting a war than them?

No more than you are at running a country.

If Shinseki and Zinni honestly believed that enormous amounts of troops would have crushed an insurgency, or at least hampered it, then they obviously didn't learn anything from their own experiences in Vietnam 30 years prior. Over how many years was the war escalated there?? At its zenith, how many troops were deployed to Vietnam?? Please, tell me the outcome of the Vietnam War. With all those troops there, surely the VC were decimated and the NVA backed off. Right? Vietnam: 10 years, 58,000 casualties. Nothing to show. Iraq: 3.5 years, 3,500 casualties thus far. The country is getting back on its feet after 30 years of torment. Do the math. Apparently we're doing something right despite not having 50% of America's youth slinging lead downrange.

Even high ranking generals can be wrong from time to time. At least Shinseki and Zinni were able to save face and retire. MacArthur was outright fired in front of an entire nation and forced to retire for being wrong.

The difference was, the PTB back then didn't let our troops really go in and take out the Vietcong like we were capable of. They were content with containing them instead of scoring a truly decisive victory.

The one thing I'll say about Bush is that he didn't tie the troops hands behind their back. He wanted to win and win decisively...at least at first. What he's failed to do is follow through with that mentality toward the insurgents...partly because he knows he doesn't have the manpower to pull it off. And Rummy is the dunce most respsonsible for that hard-headed position.

[CCTAU 3,350]

he one thing I'll say about Bush is that he didn't tie the troops hands behind their back. He wanted to win and win decisively...at least at first. What he's failed to do is follow through with that mentality toward the insurgents...partly because he knows he doesn't have the manpower to pull it off. And Rummy is the dunce most respsonsible for that hard-headed position.

I don't think it has anything to do with manpower. Iraq does not belong to us. Most of the decisions are being made by them. They would not want more troops. They want their own army to get trained. They don't want us as much because they cannot control us the way they control their own army. If we get shot at, we try to find who's doing the shooting and then shoot. When the IA gets shot at, they try to kill everything in the direction of where the fire is coming from. We are in a tentative position right now. As soon as the IA gets to full force, their government will become very intolerant of anyone who does not conform. It is the only thing their people and their religion recognizes. Force and strength. We are not allowed to use either on a daily basis because it will be reported as torture and murder. Unfortunately, time is what they need and what we are growing short of. But like Liger said, more troops = more targets at this point in the war.

[Captain Liger 0]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni believed it at the time planning was going on. Are you more experienced at planning and conducting a war than them?

No more than you are at running a country.

If Shinseki and Zinni honestly believed that enormous amounts of troops would have crushed an insurgency, or at least hampered it, then they obviously didn't learn anything from their own experiences in Vietnam 30 years prior. Over how many years was the war escalated there?? At its zenith, how many troops were deployed to Vietnam?? Please, tell me the outcome of the Vietnam War. With all those troops there, surely the VC were decimated and the NVA backed off. Right? Vietnam: 10 years, 58,000 casualties. Nothing to show. Iraq: 3.5 years, 3,500 casualties thus far. The country is getting back on its feet after 30 years of torment. Do the math. Apparently we're doing something right despite not having 50% of America's youth slinging lead downrange.

Even high ranking generals can be wrong from time to time. At least Shinseki and Zinni were able to save face and retire. MacArthur was outright fired in front of an entire nation and forced to retire for being wrong.

The difference was, the PTB back then didn't let our troops really go in and take out the Vietcong like we were capable of. They were content with containing them instead of scoring a truly decisive victory.

The one thing I'll say about Bush is that he didn't tie the troops hands behind their back. He wanted to win and win decisively...at least at first. What he's failed to do is follow through with that mentality toward the insurgents...partly because he knows he doesn't have the manpower to pull it off. And Rummy is the dunce most respsonsible for that hard-headed position.

Wrong. Just like Vietnam we weren't allowed to go in and take out Sadr and his Mahdi Army in Najaf in August 2004 like we were capable of. We were content with him escaping (albeit wounded) and his army surrendering instead of scoring a truly decisive victory where we completely annihilated the enemy and Sadr himself.

The last half of your post I agree with to a certain extent. What I don't agree with is the statement saying we don't have the manpower to pull it off. There's no problem with the manpower level. It's the management and utilization of said manpower that needs to be questioned. You want to attack Rumsfeld on his decision making skills, fine. Just attack him on a front that exists. Nothing wrong with the troop level. It's how you implement the troops. It needs improvement. Attack him on that. We probably could have been home long ago had the true ferocity of the US Military been unleashed. Instead, we've got all these ignorant ass rules of engagement to obide by which results in soldiers second guessing themselves "should I take the shot" for fear of a 15-6 investigation while all the while Mr. I Hate America slips away to come back and plant a roadside bomb. Couple that with all the freaks back here at home that seem to be more concerned with wire tapping and us giving water treatment to captured terrorists rather than destroying an enemy that wants this country wiped off the map and it's no wonder we're so freaking bogged down.

[otterinbham 0]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni believed it at the time planning was going on. Are you more experienced at planning and conducting a war than them?

No more than you are at running a country.

If Shinseki and Zinni honestly believed that enormous amounts of troops would have crushed an insurgency, or at least hampered it, then they obviously didn't learn anything from their own experiences in Vietnam 30 years prior. Over how many years was the war escalated there?? At its zenith, how many troops were deployed to Vietnam?? Please, tell me the outcome of the Vietnam War. With all those troops there, surely the VC were decimated and the NVA backed off. Right? Vietnam: 10 years, 58,000 casualties. Nothing to show. Iraq: 3.5 years, 3,500 casualties thus far. The country is getting back on its feet after 30 years of torment. Do the math. Apparently we're doing something right despite not having 50% of America's youth slinging lead downrange.

Even high ranking generals can be wrong from time to time. At least Shinseki and Zinni were able to save face and retire. MacArthur was outright fired in front of an entire nation and forced to retire for being wrong.

The difference was, the PTB back then didn't let our troops really go in and take out the Vietcong like we were capable of. They were content with containing them instead of scoring a truly decisive victory.

The one thing I'll say about Bush is that he didn't tie the troops hands behind their back. He wanted to win and win decisively...at least at first. What he's failed to do is follow through with that mentality toward the insurgents...partly because he knows he doesn't have the manpower to pull it off. And Rummy is the dunce most respsonsible for that hard-headed position.

Wrong. Just like Vietnam we weren't allowed to go in and take out Sadr and his Mahdi Army in Najaf in August 2004 like we were capable of. We were content with him escaping (albeit wounded) and his army surrendering instead of scoring a truly decisive victory where we completely annihilated the enemy and Sadr himself.

The last half of your post I agree with to a certain extent. What I don't agree with is the statement saying we don't have the manpower to pull it off. There's no problem with the manpower level. It's the management and utilization of said manpower that needs to be questioned. You want to attack Rumsfeld on his decision making skills, fine. Just attack him on a front that exists. Nothing wrong with the troop level. It's how you implement the troops. It needs improvement. Attack him on that. We probably could have been home long ago had the true ferocity of the US Military been unleashed. Instead, we've got all these ignorant ass rules of engagement to obide by which results in soldiers second guessing themselves "should I take the shot" for fear of a 15-6 investigation while all the while Mr. I Hate America slips away to come back and plant a roadside bomb. Couple that with all the freaks back here at home that seem to be more concerned with wire tapping and us giving water treatment to captured terrorists rather than destroying an enemy that wants this country wiped off the map and it's no wonder we're so freaking bogged down.

I can tell you this, CL, that American soldiers are dying in the field right now because Rumsfeld has not organized the military to fight asymmetrical warfare.

I've been working on asymmetrical warfare projects for the Pentagon for a defense contractor for two years now. Guess what happens? It doesn't go anywhere. We are still not organizing units, intelligence, or response to face asymmetrical threats in the field. The interval between first encountering a new enemy tactic and implementing effective field countermeasures is currently six months. You heard right. Six months. The reason for this is that no one at the top of the DoD or the General Staff is remotely interested in a reorganization of units and doctrine that allows for rapid gathering, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence. Yet, ASW is mission critical for our success in Iraq. That tells me that the political and military leadership in this country is largely detached from what our men (and women) in the field must face. It's a failure of leadership on a host of levels--but the buck stops with the man who was supposed to reform our military to actually fight conflicts.

[Captain Liger 0]

More troops would've meant that we could've made the numbers work for us instead of against us.

You honestly believe that?

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni believed it at the time planning was going on. Are you more experienced at planning and conducting a war than them?

No more than you are at running a country.

If Shinseki and Zinni honestly believed that enormous amounts of troops would have crushed an insurgency, or at least hampered it, then they obviously didn't learn anything from their own experiences in Vietnam 30 years prior. Over how many years was the war escalated there?? At its zenith, how many troops were deployed to Vietnam?? Please, tell me the outcome of the Vietnam War. With all those troops there, surely the VC were decimated and the NVA backed off. Right? Vietnam: 10 years, 58,000 casualties. Nothing to show. Iraq: 3.5 years, 3,500 casualties thus far. The country is getting back on its feet after 30 years of torment. Do the math. Apparently we're doing something right despite not having 50% of America's youth slinging lead downrange.

Even high ranking generals can be wrong from time to time. At least Shinseki and Zinni were able to save face and retire. MacArthur was outright fired in front of an entire nation and forced to retire for being wrong.

The difference was, the PTB back then didn't let our troops really go in and take out the Vietcong like we were capable of. They were content with containing them instead of scoring a truly decisive victory.

The one thing I'll say about Bush is that he didn't tie the troops hands behind their back. He wanted to win and win decisively...at least at first. What he's failed to do is follow through with that mentality toward the insurgents...partly because he knows he doesn't have the manpower to pull it off. And Rummy is the dunce most respsonsible for that hard-headed position.

Wrong. Just like Vietnam we weren't allowed to go in and take out Sadr and his Mahdi Army in Najaf in August 2004 like we were capable of. We were content with him escaping (albeit wounded) and his army surrendering instead of scoring a truly decisive victory where we completely annihilated the enemy and Sadr himself.

The last half of your post I agree with to a certain extent. What I don't agree with is the statement saying we don't have the manpower to pull it off. There's no problem with the manpower level. It's the management and utilization of said manpower that needs to be questioned. You want to attack Rumsfeld on his decision making skills, fine. Just attack him on a front that exists. Nothing wrong with the troop level. It's how you implement the troops. It needs improvement. Attack him on that. We probably could have been home long ago had the true ferocity of the US Military been unleashed. Instead, we've got all these ignorant ass rules of engagement to obide by which results in soldiers second guessing themselves "should I take the shot" for fear of a 15-6 investigation while all the while Mr. I Hate America slips away to come back and plant a roadside bomb. Couple that with all the freaks back here at home that seem to be more concerned with wire tapping and us giving water treatment to captured terrorists rather than destroying an enemy that wants this country wiped off the map and it's no wonder we're so freaking bogged down.

I can tell you this, CL, that American soldiers are dying in the field right now because Rumsfeld has not organized the military to fight asymmetrical warfare.

I've been working on asymmetrical warfare projects for the Pentagon for a defense contractor for two years now. Guess what happens? It doesn't go anywhere. We are still not organizing units, intelligence, or response to face asymmetrical threats in the field. The interval between first encountering a new enemy tactic and implementing effective field countermeasures is currently six months. You heard right. Six months. The reason for this is that no one at the top of the DoD or the General Staff is remotely interested in a reorganization of units and doctrine that allows for rapid gathering, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence. Yet, ASW is mission critical for our success in Iraq. That tells me that the political and military leadership in this country is largely detached from what our men (and women) in the field must face. It's a failure of leadership on a host of levels--but the buck stops with the man who was supposed to reform our military to actually fight conflicts.

While I appreciate your views and can understand your frustations and concern, you, as a contractor, need to realize it isn't as simple as you think for an entire army to drop what it's doing and reorganize and restructure everytime the bad guy changes tactics. You have one job: work on asymmetrical warfare projects. I'm sure you do a bang up job and I appreciate what you do. The Army, meanwhile, has about a million different things going on both overseas and stateside. Even with all the leaders we have in place to make sure things run as smoothly as possible, day to day Army business doesn't exactly run like a freight train out of control. Is it sad that we don't react fast enough to counter new threats we face in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hell yes, you bet it is. But, unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. I really hate to quote Rumsfeld here, but, you go to war with what you have. Take comfort in this though, you can bet your ass that we ground pounders down where the rubber meets the road aren't going to wait six months for the Pentagon brass in all their wisdom to tell us to change our tactics in response to the bad guy. I mean, give us some credit. We adapt and change based on enemy tactics constantly. It's what professional soldiers do. And let's get one thing straight, soldiers aren't dying in the field because Rumsfeld won't embrace assymetrical warfare. The enemy is not better than us. We are better trained, better equipped, and smarter (contrary to what Kerry says). We've been in Iraq long enough we know the bad guy's back yard just as well as he does. Soldiers are dying in the field because the bad guy gets lucky every so often. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut here and there.

I would love to see the entire Army instantly adapt to a changing threat everytime it rears its ugly head. I'd love to be able to field and implement every new wonder toy that government contractors crank out to fight every new threat. The reality of the situation is that it's virtually impossible to transform, restructure, and retrain 10 Army divisions (nevermind all the separate combat brigades) every time Ali Baba changes tactics. Just won't happen. You complain about 6 months. Hell, to me that's lightning fast. I'd more expected you to say something along the lines of 1.5 to 2 years. In my six short years on active duty I've seen the Army restructure twice. As a lieutenant we went from the "Army of Excellence" MTOE to the Force XXI MTOE. And now, as a captain, we've gone from Force XXI to this new, streamlined, modular Unit of Action MTOE. The first restructuring, when I came on active duty in 2001, had been going on since the mid-90s. The second restructuring started right before I rotated out of OIF II...and it's still going on Army wide and won't even be completed before we start restructuring again around 2010 when all this WINN-T technology starts to get fielded. Hopefully by then we'll be out of Iraq and we can once again concentrate on fighting uniformed armies in the conventional style that we are used to. Yes, we WILL one day soon fight a conventional war. So as much as I appreciate your work (and I do) assymetrical warfare is not the way of the future. Bet on that. To forget the tactics we've grown up with, tactics derived to fight the Soviets, is complete lunacy. The enemy may not be the Russians but their style of fighting we will face again one day.

[quietfan 233]

Historians have an old adage that describes the difficulty in keeping up with technology and tactics: "An army is always prepared to fight the last war, not the next one".

[Captain Liger 0]

Historians have an old adage that describes the difficulty in keeping up with technology and tactics: "An army is always prepared to fight the last war, not the next one".

LOL, true. But knowing how to avoid IED's and fight an insurgency won't help us any in the next war when 5 million Chinamen come rushing at us head on with AK-47s and T-72s blazing.

There's another old saying you should know: "We can't know where we're going unless we know where we've been."

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I don't know if you non-military types are aware, but all of these publications are part of the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of the very pro-liberal Gannett Co. I cancelled my subscription to The Navy Times when I discovered this.