13 November 2006
The Rummy Show was wonderful, every time I saw it. Unfortunately I'm not prepared to give a substantial, logical argument for why he was a great Secretary of Defense, but I'll say he's honest, and loved by America's fighters. Whenever he was criticized over some strategy or another in Iraq, he always said he was following the recommendations of our military experts. I thought that best too.
On the other hand, "military experts" makes me think of General Zinni. I was disheartened to learn that Zinni had become one of Rumsfeld's detractors, and if his group published a letter, I haven't read it. I'll go try and find it now.
...
No letter, but snippets from an interview at NewsMax. Paraphrasing, he says that the US should not have invaded Iraq, Iraq did not pose the kind of threat it was purported to, and those responsible for invasion, including Rumsfeld, should own up. He says we haven't won their hearts and minds, democracy is not there yet, but we're in it now, and we have to win.
It's just about time for work, so I'm gonna go, have a wonderful day.
Edit: Since I was on the subject of defense, I went ahead and uploaded a first effort recording from Marine Corps Doctrinal Paper 1: Warfighting. My first criticism of it is that it's very unenthusiastic. See for yourself: http://www.zshare.net/audio/warfighting-mp3.html
Holy crap, but this is some weak material, Alchemy.
The Army Times editorial was written by a man who has never been in the military. The Army Times is a civilian enterprise owned by Gannett with a pretty small circulation. "...Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops..." Don't believe it brother, that's all I can tell you, it's simply not true.
I guess I can forgive your misunderstanding my point about Rumsfeld deferring to his professional military leaders. I did not mean he was blaming them for failure. He never has.
The USAToday article was blaming Rumsfeld for invading Iraq with too few troops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we defeat them in three weeks?
The Olympian article is just ludicrous. I'm embarassed for anyone who doesn't have mind enough to reject it.
Finally, my research indicates the term "8000 mile screwdriver" was coined by a diplomat, not a soldier.
I gots no time to read weak-ass articles. But... Mr. Ray, surely you don't believe Rumsfelds detractors are under the impression that there were too few troops to beat the Iraqi Army, do you? Come on... they're talking about too few troops to pacify the disgruntled citizenry, keep jihadis from crossig the borders, and generally keep the peace. Do you dispute this?
The point J. E. Ray was making is that Army Times (and Navy Times and whatever other newspapers) is just a newspaper. A column in USA Today or the New York Times doesn't represent the opinions of the entire US populace or even, quite often, a significant proportion of them. Most places I read about this column (and I haven't read the column itself) said nothing about the fact that Army Times is published by Gannett and left readers to assume that it was an official organ.
Ben, the USA Today article was published in April 2003, during the invasion of Iraq, and that's what it was about.
Alchemy, I didn't and don't mean to imply that only military personnel have relevant views on the competence of the Secretary of Defense. However, the Army Times editorial has been held up as evidence that the military is dissatisfied with Rumsfeld, and the Army Times isn't the Army. The editorial is an opinion piece by a civilian, with little factual evidence. Incidentally, based on my reading of the article, I do feel like I have a better feel for the pulse of the armed forces than Mr. Hodierne. (Also, according to Business Wire, Stars and Stripes has a little over 500,000 in circulation.)
Regarding your misunderstanding:
The incident I'm recalling was a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting where Senator Clinton said, "you did not go into Iraq with enough troops to establish law and order." Rumsfeld says that the troop numbers reflected the best judgements of the military commanders and their civilian leadership. History will judge whether you're right or we are. He's not saying, "it's not my fault, it's theirs." He's saying, "where exactly should we be looking for this counsel if not from our military commanders?"
As for the Olympian article, I dismiss it because there isn't anything there. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which Rumsfeld may have said "I'll fire the next man who brings that up." Maybe he was at a meeting for which that topic was irrelevant, and a waste of time. Maybe that topic had already been dealt with and was considered resolved for the day. Maybe he was joking with someone. We'll never know, because no context is ever given by General Scheid. If you'll believe that Secretary Rumsfeld thought we'd go in, blast Saddam, and leave, you'll believe anything, so long as it's anti-Rumsfeld.