NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted yesterday exerpts from an internal Pentagon doc that seriously questioned the leadership of this administration.

Today, it was Rumsfled's turn. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld)Talk about a photo-op going bad. Doing a little Q&A with the troops at Pendleton, he was asked by the soldiers some serious questions such as why, almost two years after the start of the war, are there still shortages of armoured vehicles for the troops, or as the soldier asked it:

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"

Rumsfeld's answer?

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up,"

Yes Donny, it can. Doesn't mean that you don't do your best to protect the troops anyway!

He also was questioned on why the regular army units get better equipment in-country than the guard, about the stop-loss orders that prevent troops from rotating out of combat at the end of their terms or force them to do additional tours past when they expected to.


Rummy summed up his attitude in one sentance:

"You go to war with the Army you have" .


That's not good enough Donny. It might have been in a war of neccessity, but this was a war of choice. How many young men and women died or were maimed because this administration was in such a damn hurry to go to war that they didn't properly ramp up the equipment and supplies they needed to adequately protect themselves? How many are STILL dying and being maimed for the same reason?


Explain to me again why HE is about the only cabinet secratary still standing?

It takes years to ramp up supplies. It takes years to train troops. Why don't we ask ex-President Clinton why he reduced the number of active duty Army personnel by a factor of 5 while he was in office, making it necessary to rely heavily on reserves and National Guard personnel to take any action?

Why he cancelled so many weapons programs?

Why he cancelled maintenance contracts, support contracts, supply purchases?

Ah, the peace dividend! Well, if you don't prepare for war, you'll never have peace. Unless your idea of peace is being a French surrender monkey.

It takes years to ramp up supplies. It takes years to train troops. Why don't we ask ex-President Clinton why he reduced the number of active duty Army personnel by a factor of 5 while he was in office, making it necessary to rely heavily on reserves and National Guard personnel to take any action?

Why he cancelled so many weapons programs?

Why he cancelled maintenance contracts, support contracts, supply purchases?

Ah, the peace dividend! Well, if you don't prepare for war, you'll never have peace. Unless your idea of peace is being a French surrender monkey.

Explains how he balanced the budget!

If it takes so long to do that stuff, then why did we go to war unprepared? It's not like Iraq was threatening us or anything. You can't have it both ways.

No--the fact is that the ideologues in the administration, of which Rumsfeld is a charter member, actually bought into the idea that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, dancing in the streets and showering us with flowers. They ignored the counsel of their own military people, who told them we needed more troops and that this was going to be hard. They didn't plan for the postwar reconstruction or for the securing of anything beyond the oil facilities. In short, they were incompetent. And they never take the blame for their incompetence--it's always someone else's fault. Grow the hell up and take some responsibilities for your own fuckups.

Just curious, but how many more years is it going to take before you guys stop blaming Clinton for everything?

Did the democrats blame everything that went wrong on Bush Senior AFTER a whole term of Clinton in office? Of course not - that would have been assinine.



And if the troops weren't properly equipped - then why the rush to war? Why didn't the Administration let the UN inspections continue in the hopes of gathering real evidence while they worked on the equipment problem?


As was often mentioned, the situation had been playing out for 12 years. This administration put in place the plans and preparations in about six months.



Why the rush if they weren't ready? And how can they STILL not have the neccessary production on-line after almost two years? That makes no sense at all. Except that the Administration is trying to do this on a budget as lives are cheaper than armour I guess.


And who pays for these mistakes? Not them. It's the troops that pay the cost in blood. They are brave souls willing to serve their country, they just don't like being asked to do so ill-equiped.

And I don't blame them.

No, I would believe that the following mistake was made:

In war, if you do not convince the general population that they are "defeated", you will either get an insurgency, or you will get another war later, as the people who live there will bear a grudge - they will believe that they were somehow "tricked" into losing.

The current "sanitized" method of battle, where we decimate the regular armed forces with astonishing speed and efficiency, does not satisfy this demand. It also requires, in the aftermath, that we station incredible numbers of troops to try and suppress the insurgency.

History has shown that nations that completely wreck a country from end to end, and destroy large sections of the civilian infrastructure while at the same time defeating the defender's military forces have little or no trouble with insurgency, and a long, long time before war comes again.

We should have done what the people opposed to the war feared we would do the most. We should have committed wholesale slaughter and destruction, and convinced whoever was left that God surely intended for them die, and they should have the good manners to do so.

Otherwise, a) we should not go to war, because war is by definition a terrible thing with no rules, and b) if we did go to war and were unwilling to do that, we should be prepared for an indefinite insurgency, no matter how much equipment we send or how many troops we station there.

Do you honestly think that stationing 1 million US soldiers in Iraq (five times or more than we have there now) would stop a jihadi from putting a bomb by the side of the road?

Psychological defeat of non-Western people requires wholesale massacre and destruction. Otherwise, they aren't convinced that they have been defeated.

No, I would believe that the following mistake was made:

In war, if you do not convince the general population that they are "defeated", you will either get an insurgency, or you will get another war later, as the people who live there will bear a grudge - they will believe that they were somehow "tricked" into losing.

The current "sanitized" method of battle, where we decimate the regular armed forces with astonishing speed and efficiency, does not satisfy this demand. It also requires, in the aftermath, that we station incredible numbers of troops to try and suppress the insurgency.

History has shown that nations that completely wreck a country from end to end, and destroy large sections of the civilian infrastructure while at the same time defeating the defender's military forces have little or no trouble with insurgency, and a long, long time before war comes again.

We should have done what the people opposed to the war feared we would do the most. We should have committed wholesale slaughter and destruction, and convinced whoever was left that God surely intended for them die, and they should have the good manners to do so.

Otherwise, a) we should not go to war, because war is by definition a terrible thing with no rules, and b) if we did go to war and were unwilling to do that, we should be prepared for an indefinite insurgency, no matter how much equipment we send or how many troops we station there.

Do you honestly think that stationing 1 million US soldiers in Iraq (five times or more than we have there now) would stop a jihadi from putting a bomb by the side of the road?

Psychological defeat of non-Western people requires wholesale massacre and destruction. Otherwise, they aren't convinced that they have been defeated.


They needed to be convinved that they were defeated?


Gosh - and here I though they were supposed to get "liberated" from a tyrant?


But I'm sure that the people of IRaq will be thrilled to understand that it's in their best interest to have wholesale slaughter and destruction as our means of "liberating them from evil", and of promoting peace and democracy in the name of "compassionate conservatism"...

:rolleyes:

I believe you don't understand what I'm saying. So I'll try again.

If you want to fight a war (and the Bush administration did), you must fight a war as a war. You have to convince people they are defeated.

Consider the outcome of WW I. Germany was not "convinced" at the level of the population that they were "defeated". It was viewed as a humiliation. And that humiliation was the engine that brought us Hitler and WW II.

Consider the outcome of WW II. Germany was laid waste, many civilians were killed or dispossessed, but they were "defeated" in their own minds - weary of war, death, and destruction, they surrendered not only on paper, but in their hearts.

Japan was different - but the people were loyal to an Emperor, an executive figure who they did not question. So when he said it was over, it was over.

There are more examples in history.

All I'm saying is that if you want to say the mistake that was made, make it the correct mistake.

If you don't convince a people that they are "defeated", it would not matter if we stationed 10 million troops there with the finest weapons and armor available. You would still have an insurgency. Try reading accounts of the Roman occupation of Judea.

If you're not willing to avoid this mistake, don't go to war, unless you like insurgency.

As a side note, the difference between National Guard equipment and active duty equipment has ALWAYS been around, because certain Senators (who actually control the budget - not the President or SecDef) don't want to fund them. If you want to ask "who didn't fund the National Guard?" or "who voted against body armor for troops?" I think you'll find a majority of those who voted against those things were Democrats.

Equating Iraq to WWII is silly. For starters, Hitler was a popular leader with the support of his country. Hitler was the aggressor so the people understood why the rest of the world fought back. And yes - it was devestated so that the will to fight was knocked out of them.


Equating that to a war of choice where you are the aggressor and where the battle was started under the assumption that it was supposedly to liberate an oppressed majority population is disingenuous.


But hey, go ahead and keep blaming the democrats for every misscalculation and error made by this administration if it turns your crank. For the supposed party of moral superiority, Republicans like yourself sure aren't convincing me that you ae the party of personal responsibility....

To My Gun Not Yours
So your recommendation to the Bush Administration is to begin wholesale destruction and slaughter of a huge proportion of Iraqi citizens, in order to teach them that they have been 'defeated'. The fact that they weren't at war with the US (or anyone else for that matter) is a minor problem easily ignored. The most important thing is to scare them and fatigue them into accepting a new regime out of fear of being slaughtered.
That sort of extreme right-wing thinking is beyond my words to describe.
Anyone for Pogroms?
How about a nice spot of Final Solutions maybe?
I know! Let's all go on a Roman holiday!

I'm not equating Iraq to Germany. I still think you're not reading my posts, because you're so angry. So I'll try again.

Let's dispense with whether a particular war in history is "right" or not.

1. We're talking about the aftermath of a war.

2. So, you're saying that Rumsfeld made a mistake.

3. And, you say that invading Iraq was a mistake, because it makes more insurgents and terrorists, and we weren't ready for that with equipment and personnel.

Fine. And I'm saying you're looking at the wrong mistake.
1. It takes years to build up troops and buy equipment.
2. And the budget is controlled by Senators and Representatives.
3. The President and Secretary of Defense do not control the budget. So, they can want equipment and a big army all they like, but it won't happen without 2/3 of the Senators and 2/3 of the Representatives agreeing with them.
4. If Republicans had a 2/3 majority in each House, you could blame them. But they haven't - so you'll have to blame someone else. If we look at voting records, you'll find that Republicans, by and large, consistently vote for more equipment and big army. Democrats generally vote against this.
5. So, Bush could not have gotten a big army if he wanted one.
6. So, you say that proceeding anyway was a mistake. Sure it was. But the mistake could still have been avoided.

By decimating the population and destroying the country. By following the lessons of history.

Not saying that this would be the moral thing to do, but it would avoid the problem that you have stated at the beginning of this posting - the problem of going to war and preventing a disaster from an insurgency you aren't prepared for.

I am also stating that even if you had an army ten or twenty times bigger, with all the weapons you ever wanted, it wouldn't stop the development of an insurgency unless you laid waste to the country.

And I am not saying we're "liberating" Iraq. Show me a post where I say that.

One more reason to punish Rummy. I recommend:

Have him tied to a chair next to the target of a US precision bombing. That´ll teach him a lesson.

To My Gun Not Yours
So your recommendation to the Bush Administration is to begin wholesale destruction and slaughter of a huge proportion of Iraqi citizens, in order to teach them that they have been 'defeated'. The fact that they weren't at war with the US (or anyone else for that matter) is a minor problem easily ignored. The most important thing is to scare them and fatigue them into accepting a new regime out of fear of being slaughtered.
That sort of extreme right-wing thinking is beyond my words to describe.
Anyone for Pogroms?
How about a nice spot of Final Solutions maybe?
I know! Let's all go on a Roman holiday!

The decision to go to war, and how you conduct a war are two completely separate topics.

If you are not willing to conduct a war in a successful fashion, with no insurgency, and complete subjugation of the target nation, you SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR.

War is nasty. War is filthy. People die in horrible ways. Things get blown up. Big surprise!

If you can't do it, and you don't want to do it, and even your right-wing leaders aren't willing to do it right (from a completely true historical perspective)

DON'T DO IT!

Some people here need reading glasses.

The decision to go to war, and how you conduct a war are two completely separate topics.

Some people here need reading glasses.

No, you need to do a better job of articulating what you are trying to say.

The decision to go to war and the way we conduct it go hand in hand. You mentioned WW2 as an example. Germany, and Japan declared war on the U.S., therefore the country had the popular support to completely level Germany and Japan. Iraq was a premeditated action, puplic support would not go along with the complete destruction of Iraq because it wouldnt be warranted.

Pres. Bush knew this, yet he tried to have his cake and eat it too.

I don't believe that it's just Bush's idea that we can somehow wage a bloodless war that only kills enemy military forces.

It's a whole philosophical outlook that drives what kinds of weapons we buy, and which ones we stop using.

We don't (and haven't) have the stomach for the kind of slaughter that a real war requires - we don't want casualties on our side, and we castigate ourselves for killing civilians, however inadvertent.

Can't fight a war like that. Ask Sherman. He knew.

I'm not equating Iraq to Germany. I still think you're not reading my posts, because you're so angry. So I'll try again.

Let's dispense with whether a particular war in history is "right" or not.

1. We're talking about the aftermath of a war.

2. So, you're saying that Rumsfeld made a mistake.

3. And, you say that invading Iraq was a mistake, because it makes more insurgents and terrorists, and we weren't ready for that with equipment and personnel.

Fine. And I'm saying you're looking at the wrong mistake.
1. It takes years to build up troops and buy equipment.
2. And the budget is controlled by Senators and Representatives.
3. The President and Secretary of Defense do not control the budget. So, they can want equipment and a big army all they like, but it won't happen without 2/3 of the Senators and 2/3 of the Representatives agreeing with them.
4. If Republicans had a 2/3 majority in each House, you could blame them. But they haven't - so you'll have to blame someone else. If we look at voting records, you'll find that Republicans, by and large, consistently vote for more equipment and big army. Democrats generally vote against this.
5. So, Bush could not have gotten a big army if he wanted one.
6. So, you say that proceeding anyway was a mistake. Sure it was. But the mistake could still have been avoided.

By decimating the population and destroying the country. By following the lessons of history.

Not saying that this would be the moral thing to do, but it would avoid the problem that you have stated at the beginning of this posting - the problem of going to war and preventing a disaster from an insurgency you aren't prepared for.

I am also stating that even if you had an army ten or twenty times bigger, with all the weapons you ever wanted, it wouldn't stop the development of an insurgency unless you laid waste to the country.

And I am not saying we're "liberating" Iraq. Show me a post where I say that.


Actually, it's the policy of the administration that claims that they are liberating Iraq.

You would think you would know that.

Now, if you are complaining that the Democrates so undercut the US military that it is UNABLE to lay waste to IRaq, then I think people here will start to giggle. Send in the air strikes. Send in the cruise missiles. You may be loosing Hummers left and right under current operational planning, but the tanks can roll through the country with ease.

So, if that is your problem with why the war is the way it is - then lay the blame where it belongs - with this administration. Because that is a tactical error, not an error of equipment.

And if, as you say, it wouldn't matter how well armed the soldiers are and how many there are that they will have these problems using the current strategy, then stop blaming Clinton given that according to you he couldn't have spent enough to do this job anyway.


Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it to....


But, I know - I know.... it's still all Clinton's fault.

Everything is.

Explain to me again why HE is about the only cabinet secratary still standing?
john stewart and the cast of the daily show summed it up bust. in order to stay in office, you have to not just screw up, but SERIOUSLY screw up

And the budget is controlled by Senators and Representatives.
3. The President and Secretary of Defense do not control the budget. So, they can want equipment and a big army all they like, but it won't happen without 2/3 of the Senators and 2/3 of the Representatives agreeing with them.
if anyone has noticed the president has gotten the congress to raise the money cap three times to load more debt onto use because of money being spent for the iraqi cowboy action

The decision to go to war, and how you conduct a war are two completely separate topics.

If you are not willing to conduct a war in a successful fashion, with no insurgency, and complete subjugation of the target nation, you SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR.

War is nasty. War is filthy. People die in horrible ways. Things get blown up. Big surprise!

If you can't do it, and you don't want to do it, and even your right-wing leaders aren't willing to do it right (from a completely true historical perspective)

DON'T DO IT!

Some people here need reading glasses.

hahaha, oh man . . . insurgency will happen, but NOT at the current levels in Iraq. Look at insurgency levels in Afghanistan and compare it to Iraq. There's a big difference. The problem with Iraq is that a majority of the people feel that America isn't there to help, only to surpress them. And so, no matter how long you fight, there will always be insurgents trying to "protect" Iraq from America.

AND finally, you say it takes up years to build troops. If that's the case, why the hell did Bush run into Iraq when Afghanistan was still trying to rebuild? Maybe it was because he thought we had enough troops? Maybe he was just stupid and rushed in without thinking.

But anyway, you're right. You obviously know a lot about war, especially since you've personally participated in one, right? I'm sure you're fighting in Iraq right now. I mean, from all that stuff you said about war, it sounds like you're a general or major. IMPRESSIVE!! I bet you went to college and studied on war tactics and history too. Yes, you are a THE man.

Edit to say:
Stop making damn excuses and just say "we fucked up, we didn't do planning and we fucked up. We fucked up bad and now our troops are dieing." Just say it, then we can concentrate on how to solve the problem instead of going "OH, it's hard work, things aren't that easy" like you're currently doing. NO MORE EXCUSES!!!!!!!!

Stop making damn excuses and just say "we fucked up, we didn't do planning and we fucked up. We fucked up bad and now our troops are dieing." Just say it, then we can concentrate on how to solve the problem instead of going "OH, it's hard work, things aren't that easy" like you're currently doing. NO MORE EXCUSES!!!!!!!!


Haven't you heard? It's all Clintons fault!

Donald Rumsfeld is a fool. But you all knew that.

Donald Rumsfeld is a fool. But you all knew that.

Well, for a fool, he seems to be remarkably successful at doing whatever he wants to do.

That, and he can mess up, and not get fired. Which is more than most of us can say about ourselves.

Explains how he balanced the budget!
He balanced the budget because he had to share power with the Republicans in congress. He also wasn't a typical now-dem. He was a moderate, through and through. Unlike J. Kerry...

No, Clinton was a Republican.

No, Clinton was a Republican.
Ideologically, you mean.

It takes years to ramp up supplies. It takes years to train troops. Why don't we ask ex-President Clinton why he reduced the number of active duty Army personnel by a factor of 5 while he was in office, making it necessary to rely heavily on reserves and National Guard personnel to take any action?

Why he cancelled so many weapons programs?

Why he cancelled maintenance contracts, support contracts, supply purchases?

Ah, the peace dividend! Well, if you don't prepare for war, you'll never have peace. Unless your idea of peace is being a French surrender monkey.
Our military was adequate for the Afghanistan war. Bush just rushed us into an unnecessary war with Iraq and didn't listen to critics, like Gen. Shinseki (sp?) who told him we needed more troops and equipment.

Ideologically, you mean.

I'm just quoting Michael Moore. "Clinton was the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan".

I'm just quoting Michael Moore. "Clinton was the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan".
Ah, I recognize now.

No, I would believe that the following mistake was made:

In war, if you do not convince the general population that they are "defeated", you will either get an insurgency, or you will get another war later, as the people who live there will bear a grudge - they will believe that they were somehow "tricked" into losing.

The current "sanitized" method of battle, where we decimate the regular armed forces with astonishing speed and efficiency, does not satisfy this demand. It also requires, in the aftermath, that we station incredible numbers of troops to try and suppress the insurgency.

History has shown that nations that completely wreck a country from end to end, and destroy large sections of the civilian infrastructure while at the same time defeating the defender's military forces have little or no trouble with insurgency, and a long, long time before war comes again.

We should have done what the people opposed to the war feared we would do the most. We should have committed wholesale slaughter and destruction, and convinced whoever was left that God surely intended for them die, and they should have the good manners to do so.

Otherwise, a) we should not go to war, because war is by definition a terrible thing with no rules, and b) if we did go to war and were unwilling to do that, we should be prepared for an indefinite insurgency, no matter how much equipment we send or how many troops we station there.

Do you honestly think that stationing 1 million US soldiers in Iraq (five times or more than we have there now) would stop a jihadi from putting a bomb by the side of the road?

Psychological defeat of non-Western people requires wholesale massacre and destruction. Otherwise, they aren't convinced that they have been defeated.
I hate to say it, but I think you're right.