NationStates Jolt Archive

This tine we're not talking about exmilitary officials who haven't participated in this war. These are people who were high level officers in Iraq including a senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/09/25/iraq.democrats.ap/story.rumsfeld.afp.gi.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired military officers on Monday bluntly accused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," he added in testimony prepared for the hearing, held six weeks before the November 7 midterm elections, in which the war is a central issue.

The conflict, now in its fourth year, has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American troops and cost more than $300 billion.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, the committee chairman, told reporters last week that he hoped the hearing would shed light on the planning and conduct of the war. He said majority Republicans had failed to conduct hearings on the issue, adding, "if they won't ... we will."

Since he spoke, a government-produced National Intelligence Estimate became public that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the attacks of September 11, 2001. (Full story)

Several members of the Senate Democratic leadership were expected to participate in the hearing. Dorgan said Republican lawmakers had been invited.

It is unusual for retired military officers to criticize the Pentagon while military operations are under way, particularly at a public event likely to draw widespread media attention.

But Batiste, Eaton and retired Col. Paul X. Hammes were unsparing in remarks that suggested deep anger at the way the military had been treated. All three served in Iraq, and Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask "the tough questions."

He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.

Batiste said if full consideration had been given to the requirements for war, it's likely the U.S. would have kept its focus on Afghanistan, "not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."

Hammes said in his prepared remarks that not providing the best equipment was a "serious moral failure on the part of our leadership."

The United States "did not ask our soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the same armor they trained on in 1941. Why are we asking our soldiers and Marines to use the same armor we found was insufficient in 2003," he asked.

Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University.

Eaton was responsible for training the Iraqi military and later for rebuilding the Iraqi police force.

He said planning for the postwar period was "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."

Public opinion polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq, but division about how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops. Democrats hope to tap into the anger in November, without being damaged by Republican charges they favor a policy of "cut and run."

By coincidence, the hearing came a day after public disclosure of the National Intelligence Estimate. The report was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an intelligence official.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/25/iraq.democrats.ap/index.html

Some how this doesn't seem surprising.

How blunt they were is amazing.

He said planning for the postwar period was "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."

A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," he added in testimony prepared for the hearing.

Accusing Rumsfeld of screwing up the war in Iraq is a little like accusing grass of being green. We all know the war will turn out to be even more of a disaster than it has been so far. We will wish it was Vietnam in 20 years.

Out of interest, when was good old Rummy a general? Cos if he wasn't, then why do people expect him to be able to carry out a war as if he was?

Out of interest, when was good old Rummy a general? Cos if he wasn't, then why do people expect him to be able to carry out a war as if he was?

He wasn't. He's never been in the military as far as I know and he certainly never fought in a war.

He wasn't. He's never been in the military as far as I know and he certainly never fought in a war.

So why is he in charge of the war in Iraq instead of a trained army officer?

So why is he in charge of the war in Iraq instead of a trained army officer?

For the same reason that a horse breeder was in charge of FEMA. The same reason the a judge who had never been published in any legal journals and produced no summaries of note in her career was nominated to the Supreme Court. This administration doesn't care about incompetence because it's too incompetent to recognize competence.

This tine we're not talking about exmilitary officials who haven't participated in this war. These are people who were high level officers in Iraq including a senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.


I think we need to keep tabs on these guys and see which are running for public office. Sounds like they have the Democratic party talking points down pretty well.

Err... not news. Both Batiste and Eaton have been slamming Donny for quite some time now.

I think we need to keep tabs on these guys and see which are running for public office. Sounds like they have the Democratic party talking points down pretty well.

It would also appear that they have extensive knowledge of Iraq, Rumsfeld, and military planning.

I love Stephen Colberts suggestion "Don't let 'em retire! How hard is it to sit on a bank of computers and order men to war?"

It would also appear that they have extensive knowledge of Iraq, Rumsfeld, and military planning.

Yes they do. Apparently, none of them found the events so morally reprehensible that they found the need to resign. They certainly have the character required to run for office as a Democrat.

Is there a point at which imcompetence is considered treason?

I think we need to keep tabs on these guys and see which are running for public office. Sounds like they have the Democratic party talking points down pretty well.

Noe of them are running for any political office that I have heard of and they all served this president in Iraq recently. That's a stupid debate tactic. rather than attack the criticisms they have you write them off as Democrats. They're not. They served under a Republican (this one) and were appointed by Republicans including, obviously, Paul Wolfowitz. If you're gonna debate this, please attackwhat they are saying, for example:

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making,"

From Paul eaton, theperson assigned to rebuilding the Iraqi police and army after the invasion by theBush administration. Not his motives, not whether he is a democrat (he's not), but what he actually said. Whether you are for this war or not, do you believe that Rumsfeld has done a good job and made good tactical and strategic decisions while running this war?

My opinion on Rumsfeld is that ; its a shame some villiage has been deprived of an idiot .

My opinion on Rumsfeld is that ; its a shame some villiage has been deprived of an idiot .

Is it my imagination, or are you singning a new song here?

Or did I misunderstand your post (quoted below) on this topic back in April?

You have a bunch a guys who think Rummy is a prick for a boss.
Nothing to do with the WAR and its reults or direction .

They cant stand him because he's a hard ass . There's a bunch of other generals that are on the other side of the fence and appreciate a civilian with big balls as a leader.
others think civilians should shut up and listen to them ...after all they are the experts...or so they seem to think . This shits been going on since the first general had to work for a civilian ....if you think this is something study up on McArthur and his cabal ..he and his crew make these generals look like a bunch of whineing pussies .
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763335&postcount=12

Is it my imagination, or are you singning a new song here?

Or did I misunderstand your post (quoted below) on this topic back in April?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763335&postcount=12



Different subject on whinny generals...my change of opinion is based on how he has acted ( adapted ) once he found out his initial " plan" wasn't working and how he has continued in the face of the prevelent evidence to screw up the composition of the armed forces to fight FUTURE conflicts...its not JUST about Iraq...in the big picture the mans proving to be an idiot ...I am almost ready to compare him to Mc Farland...

He has gotten about all the benifit of the doubt I am capable of giving.

And I still can't stand whinny Generals in a time of war . Work within the system ...or STFU . Be part of the solution not the problem . AND STAY THE FUCK OUT OF POLITICS .


This shits been going on since the first general had to work for a civilian ....if you think this is something study up on McArthur and his cabal ..he and his crew make these generals look like a bunch of whineing pussies .

And I thought I made that VERY clear in my post . he being an idiot is secondary to the generals complaining behind his back DURRING a war . HE is THEIR boss ..they dont like it. They have NO RIGHT to undermine him in public.

And I still can't stand whinny Generals in a time of war . Work within the system ...or STFU . Be part of the solution not the problem . AND STAY THE FUCK OUT OF POLITICS .

And I thought I made that VERY clear in my post . he being an idiot is secondary to the generals complaining behind his back DURRING a war . HE is THEIR boss ..they dont like it. They have NO RIGHT to undermine him in public.
well maybe politicians should stay out of the FUCK OUT OF WAR. Hitler another politician who in his military career never amounted to anything thought himself a military genius and where did that get Germany.

Military people are also citizens and have a right to voice their opinion, had the German military stood up to Hitler the 2nd WW may never have happened.

Different subject on whinny generals...my change of opinion is based on how he has acted ( adapted ) once he found out his initial " plan" wasn't working and how he has continued in the face of the prevelent evidence to screw up the composition of the armed forces to fight FUTURE conflicts...its not JUST about Iraq...in the big picture the mans proving to be an idiot ...I am almost ready to compare him to Mc Farland...

He has gotten about all the benifit of the doubt I am capable of giving.

And I still can't stand whinny Generals in a time of war . Work within the system ...or STFU . Be part of the solution not the problem . AND STAY THE FUCK OUT OF POLITICS .




And I thought I made that VERY clear in my post . he being an idiot is secondary to the generals complaining behind his back DURRING a war . HE is THEIR boss ..they dont like it. They have NO RIGHT to undermine him in public.

But that's the point. I really believe that most people who get into the military, especially those that are actually able to climb the ranks, are into it because they are fiercly patriotic. Well, you now not only have past military brass coming out against Rummy, but people who just recently worked for him in this war. Maybe these people are just worried about teh country they have fought so hard for. maybe the reason they are coming out is because they think Rummy's doing real damage to the country they love. They're not saying, "he could have done a little better job with such and such," or "He interferes with tactical decisions," they're using phrases like, "extraordinarliy bad decision making," and, "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor." Maybe the reason they are speaking out like this is because they are afraid of the consequences of leaving this guy in charge of the military.

Noe of them are running for any political office that I have heard of and they all served this president in Iraq recently. That's a stupid debate tactic. rather than attack the criticisms they have you write them off as Democrats. They're not. They served under a Republican (this one) and were appointed by Republicans including, obviously, Paul Wolfowitz. If you're gonna debate this, please attackwhat they are saying, for example:

That's silly. Their motivation for this break of faith is just as important as what they say. I notice that not all retired generals share this view. So, just like any other topic, there two sides. Chances are the truth lies in between.

That's silly. Their motivation for this break of faith is just as important as what they say. I notice that not all retired generals share this view. So, just like any other topic, there two sides. Chances are the truth lies in between.

If they're motives are important than actually impugn their motives with evidence, not speculation. These people served in key positions in this administration's war in Iraq so the question of their expertise is answered by their records. The only other option you have is to question their motivations, but show me some vidence that their motivation is something other than concern for their country. Show me that one of them is running for office, don't just speculate. Show me that one of them has a personal need for revenge or something. If you don't do that then it looks like you're just a Bush and Rumsfeld cheerleader. But just to remove the generals altogether, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job?

I'd also like to see some evidence that there are generals that think he is doing a good job that don't currently work for him. I've never seen anyone say he's doing a good job except George Bush and others in teh admin.

If they're motives are important than actually impugn their motives with evidence, not speculation. These people served in key positions in this administration's war in Iraq so the question of their expertise is answered by their records. The only other option you have is to question their motivations, but show me some vidence that their motivation is something other than concern for their country. Show me that one of them is running for office, don't just speculate. Show me that one of them has a personal need for revenge or something. If you don't do that then it looks like you're just a Bush and Rumsfeld cheerleader. But just to remove the generals altogether, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job?

I'd also like to see some evidence that there are generals that think he is doing a good job that don't currently work for him. I've never seen anyone say he's doing a good job except George Bush and others in teh admin.
So they served in key positions? That doesn't make them the benchmark of good military policy. General Tommy Franks led the invasion. I don't see him doing anything but praising Rumsfield and the President over their actions. Does that mean he's entirely in the right? Of course not. Like I said, the truth is somewhere in between.

So they served in key positions? That doesn't make them the benchmark of good military policy. General Tommy Franks led the invasion. I don't see him doing anything but praising Rumsfield and the President over their actions. Does that mean he's entirely in the right? Of course not. Like I said, the truth is somewhere in between.

The difference being that Tommy Franks is desperately trying to become a politician.

So they served in key positions? That doesn't make them the benchmark of good military policy. General Tommy Franks led the invasion. I don't see him doing anything but praising Rumsfield and the President over their actions. Does that mean he's entirely in the right? Of course not. Like I said, the truth is somewhere in between.

Not from what I can see it's not. This war looks like an abysmal failure in leadership. Not even because we souldn'thave fought it, but because it was fought so incompetently. This war has been and will continue to be a disaster that is unprecedented in American history and it's plain to see that the reason is because of downright incompetence in the administration.

Yes they do. Apparently, none of them found the events so morally reprehensible that they found the need to resign. They certainly have the character required to run for office as a Democrat.

Touché.

This tine we're not talking about exmilitary officials who haven't participated in this war. These are people who were high level officers in Iraq including a senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/09/25/iraq.democrats.ap/story.rumsfeld.afp.gi.jpg



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/25/iraq.democrats.ap/index.html

Look at it this way: in forty years, we'll have people directing wars whose only strategic experience has been Rise of Nations.

The little bits of bio that the Yahoo! article gives are interesting. Mr Hammes is employed by a think tank.
Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University.
When I found the homepage, I went to the "about" part, then to the "publications" page. Turns out that these guys have even second-guessed General Lee at the battle of Gettysburg. Not a bad idea, since he lost, but it looks to me that this is a company that makes it's living by selling analysis. If the analysis follows the history, it's not going to be long before they are out of business.

One last comment on this whole "retired generals speak out" thing. None of them seem to be doing anything more than second-guessing what's been done. They, much like the Democratic party, have not offered any advice for the future. They are privvy to the plans and resources and know our capabiliities. Why don't they offer a little more than just "I told you so".

The little bits of bio that the Yahoo! article gives are interesting. Mr Hammes is employed by a think tank.

When I found the homepage, I went to the "about" part, then to the "publications" page. Turns out that these guys have even second-guessed General Lee at the battle of Gettysburg. Not a bad idea, since he lost, but it looks to me that this is a company that makes it's living by selling analysis. If the analysis follows the history, it's not going to be long before they are out of business.I know. Much like "The Project for a New American Century," the think tanks are often wrong and Iraq is a perfect example of that. It should be pointed out that the think tank he belongs to is a conservative, Republican think tank.

One last comment on this whole "retired generals speak out" thing.Of course. Not that you once actually addressed the criticism itself. None of them seem to be doing anything more than second-guessing what's been done. They, much like the Democratic party, have not offered any advice for the future. They are privvy to the plans and resources and know our capabiliities. Why don't they offer a little more than just "I told you so".First, you don't always have to have a solution yourself to know when someone else is doing a bad job. Second, they very well may have solutions but these hearings are about a no-confidence vote on Donald Rumslfeld so solutions were irrelevent to these proceedings and they also may just not want to discuss possible solutions in an open, public forum for national security reasons.

I know. Much like "The Project for a New American Century," the think tanks are often wrong and Iraq is a perfect example of that. It should be pointed out that the think tank he belongs to is a conservative, Republican think tank.

Of course. Not that you once actually addressed the criticism itself. First, you don't always have to have a solution yourself to know when someone else is doing a bad job. Second, they very well may have solutions but these hearings are about a no-confidence vote on Donald Rumslfeld so solutions were irrelevent to these proceedings and they also may just not want to discuss possible solutions in an open, public forum for national security reasons.

So we should take the word of some 'concerned' officers that things could be better and take what's behind door number two because we don't like Rumsfeld.
Wrong answer.
When the stakes are this high, and we've come this far, we stick with what we've got, because the deal behind door number two is always a zonk.

So we should take the word of some 'concerned' officers that things could be better and take what's behind door number two because we don't like Rumsfeld.
Wrong answer.
When the stakes are this high, and we've come this far, we stick with what we've got, because the deal behind door number two is always a zonk.

That's ridiculous logic. If the guy keeps making bad decisions you replace him with someone more qualified. By your logic no one would ever get fired from their job for doing a bad job, we should never vote incumbants out of office and there should be no term limits for president.

That's ridiculous logic. If the guy keeps making bad decisions you replace him with someone more qualified. By your logic no one would ever get fired from their job for doing a bad job, we should never vote incumbants out of office and there should be no term limits for president.
Nope, what I'm saying is that, without a credible alternative to the present policy, there's no reason to fire anyone. I have absolutely no confidence that any other scheme would work any better to promote all our goals in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We can certainly focus on individual goals and probably find something that would work better, but there are drawbacks -- i.e. saving American lives would be best served by immediate withdrawal, but then we can count on an Iranian puppet government.

Read Hammes paper (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF214/SF214.pdf). This fourth-generation warfare stuff is at least a decade long proposition. There are no easy answers -- not even changing the whole Presidential administration -- if we want to prevail.

I think we need to keep tabs on these guys and see which are running for public office. Sounds like they have the Democratic party talking points down pretty well.
Can you please take the Republican cock out of your mouth and look at reality?

They, much like the Democratic party, have not offered any advice for the future. They are privvy to the plans and resources and know our capabiliities. Why don't they offer a little more than just "I told you so".
Which does nothing to render their criticisms invalid.

They have NO RIGHT to undermine him in public.
They have every right now that they're retired.

Two Busheviks, both attacking the people not the points. Typical Bushevik weakness.

They have NO RIGHT to undermine him in public.

A while back, a bunch of people made a list of a lot of rights, lemme see if I can find it..

Ah, yes, here we are:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Shit, guess you're wrong on that one.

Nope, what I'm saying is that, without a credible alternative to the present policy, there's no reason to fire anyone. I have absolutely no confidence that any other scheme would work any better to promote all our goals in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We can certainly focus on individual goals and probably find something that would work better, but there are drawbacks -- i.e. saving American lives would be best served by immediate withdrawal, but then we can count on an Iranian puppet government.

Read Hammes paper (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF214/SF214.pdf). This fourth-generation warfare stuff is at least a decade long proposition. There are no easy answers -- not even changing the whole Presidential administration -- if we want to prevail.

You're right. We do need an alternative strategy and I have no confidence in this bufoon's ability to come up with and since he won't even admt the glaring mistakes he has made how would you expect him to? You have to acknowledge something's wrong in order to fix it. The guy fucked up at every turn. Afghanistan probably would have been a success but he dropped our troop levels too low and now the Taliban is resurgent. In Iraq, first he didn't send enough troops in even though senior brass was telling him he'd need at 350,000 troops to occupy. He said no. This guy who never fought or ran a war before told senior Pentagon brass tha that many troops were not necessary. Then, again over brass objections, he disbanded Iraq's regular army and police forces leaving an inadequate amount of US troops to police teh place which resulted in Iraq being absolutely gutted by looting in the days and weeks follwoing the invasion while our soldiers watched while guarding the oil ministry and other oil infrastructure. Then, as teh marines were finally going to clean out Fallujah, widely acknowledged as the birthplace of the insurgency, he told them to stop and let a bunch of brand new Iraqi recruits finish the job - which they did by handing their new American weapons over to the insurgents and joining them. Then you have the failure of leadership that resulted in Abu Gahraib, the still inadequate troop levels, the recent murders, the failure to rebuild critical infrastructure... the whole thing is a mess and that mess stops on his desk. He consistently ignored advice from senior military officials and even fired some when they dissented - most of whom turned out to be right.

He needs to go and we need someone who knows how to fight wars to clean up this mess and it gets worse everyday. Even today this came out:

WASHINGTON — The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Can you please take the Republican cock out of your mouth and look at reality?


Which does nothing to render their criticisms invalid.


They have every right now that they're retired.

Two Busheviks, both attacking the people not the points. Typical Bushevik weakness.

You know this, but I'm sure your hatred of the present administration has blinded you to it, but when a person expects his testimony to be accepted because he is an "expert", then his status as an expert is subject to challenge. Likewise, if we are to believe that these gentlemen are making this testimony as a service to our country, then we should be able to examine their motives.

Otherwise, we would even acknowledge that the arguments of Irishmen had some validity in a discussion forum. But knowing their character, we can dismiss those arguments as poppycock.

You're right. We do need an alternative strategy and I have no confidence in this bufoon's ability to come up with and since he won't even admt the glaring mistakes he has made how would you expect him to? You have to acknowledge something's wrong in order to fix it. The guy fucked up at every turn. Afghanistan probably would have been a success but he dropped our troop levels too low and now the Taliban is resurgent. In Iraq, first he didn't send enough troops in even though senior brass was telling him he'd need at 350,000 troops to occupy. He said no. This guy who never fought or ran a war before told senior Pentagon brass tha that many troops were not necessary. Then, again over brass objections, he disbanded Iraq's regular army and police forces leaving an inadequate amount of US troops to police teh place which resulted in Iraq being absolutely gutted by looting in the days and weeks follwoing the invasion while our soldiers watched while guarding the oil ministry and other oil infrastructure. Then, as teh marines were finally going to clean out Fallujah, widely acknowledged as the birthplace of the insurgency, he told them to stop and let a bunch of brand new Iraqi recruits finish the job - which they did by handing their new American weapons over to the insurgents and joining them. Then you have the failure of leadership that resulted in Abu Gahraib, the still inadequate troop levels, the recent murders, the failure to rebuild critical infrastructure... the whole thing is a mess and that mess stops on his desk. He consistently ignored advice from senior military officials and even fired some when they dissented - most of whom turned out to be right.

He needs to go and we need someone who knows how to fight wars to clean up this mess and it gets worse everyday. Even today this came out:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-headlines

If you want to talk about DoD staffing and funding, Congress is as much to blame as anyone else. The 'peace dividend' that was supposed to follow the cold war never materialized, yet the budgeting that followed seemed to indicate that the DoD was facing fewer commitments. That all changed in 1991, but there has been no administration that has been willing to halt the string of base closures and force reductions. An Army of 500,000 is too small. Especially, only about two-thirds of those are actually combat arms.

Funding and staffing are the problems. No administration can just pull troops out of thin air. We need to build up the Army, and the other forces as well, to a level that can support single, one-year deployments to combat areas. The problems aren't at the SecDef level, they're at the Congressional and Administration level. That's what your article says.

Look at it this way: in forty years, we'll have people directing wars whose only strategic experience has been Rise of Nations.

Well good. Its so fun and easy to crush nations technologically inferior to you in that game, they should have plenty of experience in it!

If you want to talk about DoD staffing and funding, Congress is as much to blame as anyone else. The 'peace dividend' that was supposed to follow the cold war never materialized, yet the budgeting that followed seemed to indicate that the DoD was facing fewer commitments. That all changed in 1991, but there has been no administration that has been willing to halt the string of base closures and force reductions. An Army of 500,000 is too small. Especially, only about two-thirds of those are actually combat arms.

Funding and staffing are the problems. No administration can just pull troops out of thin air. We need to build up the Army, and the other forces as well, to a level that can support single, one-year deployments to combat areas. The problems aren't at the SecDef level, they're at the Congressional and Administration level. That's what your article says.

No it doesn't. It says this:
According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels.

In any case, that takes care of your response to one of the sentences I wrote but what about the rest of my post? I'll repost it.

You're right. We do need an alternative strategy and I have no confidence in this bufoon's ability to come up with and since he won't even admt the glaring mistakes he has made how would you expect him to? You have to acknowledge something's wrong in order to fix it. The guy fucked up at every turn. Afghanistan probably would have been a success but he dropped our troop levels too low and now the Taliban is resurgent. In Iraq, first he didn't send enough troops in even though senior brass was telling him he'd need at 350,000 troops to occupy. He said no. This guy who never fought or ran a war before told senior Pentagon brass tha that many troops were not necessary. Then, again over brass objections, he disbanded Iraq's regular army and police forces leaving an inadequate amount of US troops to police teh place which resulted in Iraq being absolutely gutted by looting in the days and weeks follwoing the invasion while our soldiers watched while guarding the oil ministry and other oil infrastructure. Then, as teh marines were finally going to clean out Fallujah, widely acknowledged as the birthplace of the insurgency, he told them to stop and let a bunch of brand new Iraqi recruits finish the job - which they did by handing their new American weapons over to the insurgents and joining them. Then you have the failure of leadership that resulted in Abu Gahraib, the still inadequate troop levels, the recent murders, the failure to rebuild critical infrastructure... the whole thing is a mess and that mess stops on his desk. He consistently ignored advice from senior military officials and even fired some when they dissented - most of whom turned out to be right.

He needs to go and we need someone who knows how to fight wars to clean up this mess and it gets worse everyday.

I'm not saying Rumsfeld doesn't deserve some criticism, but the timing of this and the fact that this is the "Senate Democratic Policy Committee seem to indicate this is nothing but election year politics.

Screw them all. Vote Libertarian.

No it doesn't. It says this:


In any case, that takes care of your response to one of the sentences I wrote but what about the rest of my post? I'll repost it.

Like I told the other joker, your hatred of everything Bush is so intense that you can't see the forest for the trees. The reason that the budgets are so low is because the politicians are still trying to realize the peace dividend that will never be paid. Now, consider why Rumsfeld is setting a budget in view of this new information.

The rest of your post was just the usual Bush-hating rhetoric that is amazingly difficult to reply to because of it's incoherence.

I imagine we're 'bout done. I know I'm headed out.

Myrmidonisia, PsycoticDan asked you one question in the post below, and you did not answer it.

But just to remove the generals altogether, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job?
Well Myrmidonisia, skip the rhetoric and answer the question.

Or will you settle for this?

So we should take the word of some 'concerned' officers that things could be better and take what's behind door number two because we don't like Rumsfeld.
Wrong answer.
When the stakes are this high, and we've come this far, we stick with what we've got, because the deal behind door number two is always a zonk.
You must have watched a different show than me, because lots of times, there was a better deal behind another door.

BTW, you analogy is piss poor logic. This war isn't about Let's Make a Deal. IF you can get someone better in there and it helps save American lives, why wouldn't you opt for better?