An Open Letter of Appreciation For Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

[amicus]

Whenever anyone dares venture outside the litany of the liberal left, the little covy of radical left witches and warlocks whine and scream: flamer! Sirring the Pot~ Troll!


There are those, maybe even a few here on the Author's forum, who have and hold different opinions on many things.

There has been a tremendous transition in the armed forces of the United States of America since the Korean 'Police Action', the Vietnam Conflict, the Balkans fiasco and two episodes in the Middle East.

Under the guidance of Rumsfeld and others in the defense establishment, the military concepts of the United States has been refined and honed with 21st Century Technology and battle plans that reflect a different strategy than has been practiced before.

An all volunteer military has taken on the best of Soviet and French weapons and battle plans and demonstrated the efficacy of the modern military. Thanks to Donald Rumsfeld.

With far fewer troops and weapons than in 1991, coalition forces swept into Iraq in record time and few losses and toppled the regime of the Dictator Saddam Hussein.

That should have been accomplished in 1991, but United Nations reluctance and wimpy European allies decided to let Saddam continue, along with much of his military forces intact. A large and tragic error, thanks to the United Nations.

An intelligence community decimated by deep cutbacks in defense spending by the Clinton administration and Clintons failure to respond to terrorist actions and threats against the US, led to the horror of 9/11.

In an amazingly quick response and retalitation in Afghanistan, barely two months after 9/11, US Airpower and special forces moved in and subdued terrorist forces and Al Queda training bases.

Taking into consideration that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons before(fact), and that he had lobbed ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, (fact), that he had a nuclear weapons program and was actively pursuing technology and materials to build WMD, a right and proper decision to remove Hussein from power was agreed upon at all levels of government and supported by an international coalition of nearly 40 nations.

So, I, Personally wish to say, 'thank you' to Mr. Rumsfeld for the fine service to this nation you have given.



"Donald Rumsfeld was sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense on January 20, 2001. Before assuming his present post, the former Navy pilot had also served as the 13th Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, U.S. Congressman and chief executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies.

Secretary Rumsfeld is responsible for directing the actions of the Defense Department in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The war is being waged against a backdrop of major change within the Department of Defense. The department has developed a new defense strategy and replaced the old model for sizing forces with a newer approach more relevant to the 21st century. Secretary Rumsfeld proposed and the President approved a significant reorganization of the worldwide command structure, known as the Unified Command Plan, that resulted in the establishment of the U.S. Northern Command and the U.S. Strategic Command, the latter charged with the responsibilities formerly held by the Strategic and Space Commands which were disestablished.

The Department also has refocused its space capabilities and fashioned a new concept of strategic deterrence that increases security while reducing strategic nuclear weapons. To help strengthen the deterrent, the missile defense research and testing program has been reorganized and revitalized, free of the restraints of the ABM treaty.

Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975). He served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977).

From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business.

Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

Before returning for his second tour as Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld chaired the bipartisan U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, in 1998, and the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, in 2000.

During his business career, Mr. Rumsfeld continued his public service in a variety of Federal posts, including:

Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982 - 1986);
Special Presidential Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982 - 1983);
Senior Advisor to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983 - 1984);
Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1983 - 1984);
Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984);
Member of the National Commission on Public Service (1987 - 1990);
Member of the National Economic Commission (1988 - 1989);
Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988 - 1992);
Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989 - 1991); and
Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999 - 2000).
While in the private sector, Mr. Rumsfeld's civic activities included service as a member of the National Academy of Public Administration and a member of the boards of trustees of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the National Park Foundation, and as Chairman of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, Inc.

In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom..."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I never had a problem with him until the incasion of Iraq. My problem then wasn't political, it was the grave strategic/tactical blunder in hi splan to do war lean, mean and on the cheap. Specifically, his insitance that the military throw out their long honed logistical doctrine. And it cost us.

Of all the things we do right, logisitics is the one where no nation on earth comes close. One reason we win, and our fighting forces are so good, is beacuse they usually lack for nothing. In world war II the average Japanese soldier in the field had 2 tons of munitions, rations, and equiptment produced by Japan. The average american had over 16 tons. And we fielded armies in two theatres.

Trying to circumvent that doctrine left our guys dangerously exposed, with suply lines that were vulnerable and were hit.

Everyone makes mistakes, but I tend to get really pissy when civilians make mistakes, against the objections of the professional soldiers, and our boys end up paying for them.

 

[Recidiva]

I had respect for him for the first few years.

However, now he can barely put two sentences together or remember which country he's talking about without tripping.

His stance on human rights and the Geneva Convention is appalling.

Removing the US from participation in ICC law is going to cost us for decades if not centuries.

He needs to be removed from office before he does more damage to US credibility than he's already done.

 

[amicus]

Colleen from time to time displays and in depth knowledge of US military history and I for one, appreciate that.

However, in this case, I beg to disagree.

The 'boots on the ground' concept is still valid in many ways, but I ask you to provide evidence supporting your contention that troops were not supplied or equiped properly.

Please consider that 'body armor' is a relatively new concept, perhaps long overdue, but still, put in place under Rumsfeld.

There is no question that Rumsfeld's tactics were daring in concept and no question that many of the traditional military leaders did not want to change from the old fashioned 'mass forces' with boots on the ground.

I rather think had the number of troops been doubled or tripled, there would have been double or triple the casualities and an inability to supply that increased number of men.

I think one must take into consideration the truly long distances involved in re supplying our forces and give credit where credit is due to those who administered the logistical side of this war.

Americans, in general, have always been of an 'isolationist' and even pacifist nature, e.g. ww1, ww2, Korea and Vietnam. I tended to think this was a feminine position but over the years have been forced to conclude that it is a philosophical tenet of non intervention that drives the anti war protestors.

I only trust, as the 2008 election approaches, that the left wing does not take office and destroy the sacrifices made thus far to liberate the oppressed people of the Middle East and gut the military as Democrats seem inclined to do after every conflict.

I expect there will be military conflict with Iran and possibly Syria in the coming years. I can only hope the determination of the US Government does not falter or lose focus in the ongoing attempt to bring freedom and democracy to the world at large.

amicus...

 

[Liar]

I'm afraid I must be a little bit out of the loop....

Ami, was that a totally spontaneous outburst of love for the Rummy-dude, or was it caused by something specific in current events that I'm not aware of?

Just q-rious.

 

[amicus]

Recidiva]I had respect for him for the first few years.

However, now he can barely put two sentences together or remember which country he's talking about without tripping.

His stance on human rights and the Geneva Convention is appalling.

Removing the US from participation in ICC law is going to cost us for decades if not centuries.

He needs to be removed from office before he does more damage to US credibility than he's already done.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From what little I have read of your thoughts before, this comes as rather a surprise to me.

As you may suspect, I follow closely news events covering Washington DC and the war in general.

There is a portion of the American populace that believes we should subject ourselves to international laws and courts and act only in accordance with United Nations approved actions.

Even the West Wing had an episode about International Courts and how destructive of human rights that participation would be.

But I agree, listening to Rumsfeld speak, makes me feel uneasy. I try to overcome that uneasiness by realizing that his every word and every implication is on the line before a hostile press that is largely left wing.

I really wish, from time to time, that he and the President would say "Shut the fuck up and quit playing politics, this is how it really is!"

But of course neither he nor Mr. Bush can do that.

I think we are very fortunate to have a man of his caliber as Secy of Defense and I hope he stays on. However, I think he is 70 or 72, and it must be a tremendous strain and stress on him.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Liar]I'm afraid I must be a little bit out of the loop....

Ami, was that a totally spontaneous outburst of love for the Rummy-dude, or was it caused by something specific in current events that I'm not aware of?

Just q-rious.

[/I]

~~~~~~~


Kind of spontaneous, or perhaps an accumulation of news events that keep calling for his resignation and critical comments on this forum from time to time.

And also, I felt an obligation to point out my conclusion that the attacks against him and the Bush administration in general are not just opposing opinions, but purely politically motivated. Further, I think these continuing attacks against the war in Iraq at all levels is harmful to the country at large.

So, I guess, I am hoping that those who are not politically entrenched on the left consider that the Democrats will say and do almost anything in preparation for the next elections, even if it is untrue, false and damaging to the nation as a whole.

I sense the left wing democratic theology is in the throes of desperation and they are acting like cornered rabid dogs.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

I really wish, from time to time, that he and the President would say "Shut the fuck up and quit playing politics, this is how it really is!"

You don't really believe they aren't as big or bigger into playing the politico game as anyone else, do you?????

Bless your heart.

 

[Liar]

You don't really believe they aren't as big or bigger into playing the politico game as anyone else, do you?????

Don't be such a cynic.

 

[elsol]

You don't really believe they aren't as big or bigger into playing the politico game as anyone else, do you?????

Bless your heart.

It's not a game when they play it, just like it's not classified when they leak it.

It's good to be the king!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

cloudy]You don't really believe they aren't as big or bigger into playing the politico game as anyone else, do you?????

Bless your heart.

[/I]
~~~~~~~~

Colly, I suppose politics always play a part in everything, however...

I really do believe that this administration is being forthright and honest and sincere in their efforts to prosecute the war in Iraq and to fight Terrorism around the world.

I further believe the Republicans are being honest as they seek tax cuts and the reduction of 'entitlements' as a means to reduce the size of government.

I suppose one could say this is an interesting time we live in, although there have been other times in the past as critical.

The right wing is fairly in agreement over basic political principles but the left wing seems to be greatly divided and has been on an 'opposition' minority party status for years now without a codified political platform to stand on.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

[/I]
~~~~~~~~

Colly, I suppose politics always play a part in everything, however...

I really do believe that this administration is being forthright and honest and sincere in their efforts to prosecute the war in Iraq and to fight Terrorism around the world.

I further believe the Republicans are being honest as they seek tax cuts and the reduction of 'entitlements' as a means to reduce the size of government.

I suppose one could say this is an interesting time we live in, although there have been other times in the past as critical.

The right wing is fairly in agreement over basic political principles but the left wing seems to be greatly divided and has been on an 'opposition' minority party status for years now without a codified political platform to stand on.

amicus...

well, that's the basics of where we differ, then. "Forthright" and "honest" are not words that come to mind when I think of our current administration...not even close.

I don't think they're forthright and honest about anything. I don't think any politician, republican or democrat, is. It's one big game, money/oil/power (take your pick) are the spoils.

I'm surprised you're that naive.

 

[amicus]

I am not naive, Cloudy. Perhaps you should check your own gauge on cynicism.

(nice av anyway)

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen from time to time displays and in depth knowledge of US military history and I for one, appreciate that.

However, in this case, I beg to disagree.

The 'boots on the ground' concept is still valid in many ways, but I ask you to provide evidence supporting your contention that troops were not supplied or equiped properly.

Please consider that 'body armor' is a relatively new concept, perhaps long overdue, but still, put in place under Rumsfeld.

There is no question that Rumsfeld's tactics were daring in concept and no question that many of the traditional military leaders did not want to change from the old fashioned 'mass forces' with boots on the ground.

I rather think had the number of troops been doubled or tripled, there would have been double or triple the casualities and an inability to supply that increased number of men.

I think one must take into consideration the truly long distances involved in re supplying our forces and give credit where credit is due to those who administered the logistical side of this war.

Americans, in general, have always been of an 'isolationist' and even pacifist nature, e.g. ww1, ww2, Korea and Vietnam. I tended to think this was a feminine position but over the years have been forced to conclude that it is a philosophical tenet of non intervention that drives the anti war protestors.

I only trust, as the 2008 election approaches, that the left wing does not take office and destroy the sacrifices made thus far to liberate the oppressed people of the Middle East and gut the military as Democrats seem inclined to do after every conflict.

I expect there will be military conflict with Iran and possibly Syria in the coming years. I can only hope the determination of the US Government does not falter or lose focus in the ongoing attempt to bring freedom and democracy to the world at large.

amicus...

Ever hear of Jessica Lynch Amicus? I'm sure you have. She was a member of a maintenance outfit. An outfit that was hit. Maintenance, is generally, behind the lines, i.e. these guys aren't heavily armed, beacuse they should be operating with a shield of infantry/armor before them. The reasonthey were hit, is because our suply lines were so tenuous that the Fedaieen were able to disrupt them.

Ever hear of body armor? Remember the row about our guys not having enough of it? That would never have happened IF our logistics plan had been followed

Remeber that lag in the push to baghdad? The one where pacifists, lefitists and anti-war folks were shouting quagmire and vietnam? The lull was beacuse our supply lines couldn't keep up with the advance. And had become so vulnerable that line units had to be pulled out of formation and used to sheappard supply columns. At that point, the JCS reinsititued the logistic plan, still over rumsfelds objections, and we proceeded to kick ass after a suitable build up of supply in forward stageing areas.

If you want to read about it, google it. You'll find plenty of commentary on it, from reputable military and ex military persons. It's more or less common knowledge for anyone who pays attention to the tactical/military side of the Iraq conflict without letting the politics get involved. I dosen't rank up there with Yorktown or Dien Bien Phu for military disaters, but it was a certifiable mistake. And if the military had made it, I would say unforgiveable. Since the civilian in charge of the military made it, I say foul.

Perhaps you can do low intensity interventions on rumsfelds plan, but when you employ armor and infantry in division strength, you have to pay attention to the logistic involved.

A quote I love comes from a Brit, who's name eludes me now. Amatures study tactics, professional soldiers study logistics.

 

[Liar]

I further believe the Republicans are being honest as they seek tax cuts and the reduction of 'entitlements' as a means to reduce the size of government.

That has been debated, both a-here and a-there.

Not enough in the know of US domesic politics to say for sure, but I've hearsd a lot of people, debaters, politicians and others who calls themselves republicans complaining about how "Big Goverment" the Bush politics are. Not only about huge military spending, which I understand. There's a major war rolling here after all. But also big government when it somes to social intervention, apparently.

 

[cloudy]

I am not naive, Cloudy. Perhaps you should check your own gauge on cynicism.

(nice av anyway)

amicus...

History's lessons have taught me cynicism, sweets. I never believe anything a politician says. Every one of 'em's a snake, as far as I'm concerned.

(thank you)

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

IMHO, Donald Rumsfeld, as Sec. of Defense, is the re-incarnation of Robert McNamara: very smart, very arrogant, and someone who pushed policies that proved to be very wrong.

It's worth noting that as of today, Amicus and President Bush support him, five retired generals involved with the planning and execution of the war in Iraq, do not.

However, the Sec. of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President. If Bush thinks Rumsfeld's the best person available to straighten out the mess he played a large part in causing, then he should stay.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

In case anyone wonders why the sudden burst of PR

from amicus, who will gush about styling itself conservative:

This is todays paper. A fourth General, of some with Iraq experience, has called for Rummy's resignation.

Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals
Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for Resignation

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 13, 2006; Page A01

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN.

Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.

Batiste said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle -- ensuring there are enough forces -- helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.

His comments follow similar recent high-profile attacks on Rumsfeld by three other retired flag officers, amid indications that many of their peers feel the same way.

"We won't get fooled again," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in an essay in Time magazine this week. Listing a series of mistakes such as "McNamara-like micromanagement," a reference to the Vietnam War-era secretary of defense, Newbold called for "replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach."

Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."

Also, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld and the administration's handling of the Iraq war, has been more vocal lately as he publicizes a new book, "The Battle for Peace."

"The problem is that we've wasted three years" in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he "absolutely" thinks Rumsfeld should resign.

On Tuesday, Gen. Peter Pace, who is the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attempted to tamp down the revolt of the retired generals. No officers were muzzled during the planning of the invasion of Iraq, he said.

"We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us," he said at a Pentagon briefing. "The articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong."

=====
Page 2 of 2

Lawrence T. Di Rita, a counselor to the Defense Department, disagreed with the retired generals' characterizations of Rumsfeld's style. "People are entitled to their opinions. What they are not entitled to is their own facts. . . . The assertions about inadequate exposure to military judgment are just fundamentally incorrect," he said.

Other retired generals said they think it is unlikely that the denunciations of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease.


"A lot of them are hugely frustrated," in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. He said he is sensing much anger among Americans over the administration's handling of the war and thinks the continuing criticism from military professionals will fuel that anger as the November elections approach. He declined to discuss his own views.

Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said he believes that his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch" but that, even so, his sense is "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out."

He emphatically agrees, Riggs said, explaining that he believes Rumsfeld and his advisers have "made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict."

Military experts expressed some concern about the new outspokenness of retired generals.

"I think it flatly is a bad thing," said Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina who writes frequently on civilian-military relations. He said he worries that it could undermine civilian control of the military, especially by making civilian leaders feel that that they need to be careful about what they say around officers, for fear of being denounced as soon as they retire.

"How can you prosecute a war if the military and civilians don't trust each other?" Kohn asked.

Also, the generals themselves may be partly to blame for the situation in Iraq, along with Rumsfeld and the White House, said Michael Vickers, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.

"It's just absurd to lay the blame on Don Rumsfeld alone," he said.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Colleen Thomas]Ever hear of Jessica Lynch Amicus? I'm sure you have. She was a member of a maintenance outfit. An outfit that was hit. Maintenance, is generally, behind the lines, i.e. these guys aren't heavily armed, beacuse they should be operating with a shield of infantry/armor before them. The reasonthey were hit, is because our suply lines were so tenuous that the Fedaieen were able to disrupt them.

Ever hear of body armor? Remember the row about our guys not having enough of it? That would never have happened IF our logistics plan had been followed

Remeber that lag in the push to baghdad? The one where pacifists, lefitists and anti-war folks were shouting quagmire and vietnam? The lull was beacuse our supply lines couldn't keep up with the advance. And had become so vulnerable that line units had to be pulled out of formation and used to sheappard supply columns. At that point, the JCS reinsititued the logistic plan, still over rumsfelds objections, and we proceeded to kick ass after a suitable build up of supply in forward stageing areas.

If you want to read about it, google it. You'll find plenty of commentary on it, from reputable military and ex military persons. It's more or less common knowledge for anyone who pays attention to the tactical/military side of the Iraq conflict without letting the politics get involved. I dosen't rank up there with Yorktown or Dien Bien Phu for military disaters, but it was a certifiable mistake. And if the military had made it, I would say unforgiveable. Since the civilian in charge of the military made it, I say foul.

Perhaps you can do low intensity interventions on rumsfelds plan, but when you employ armor and infantry in division strength, you have to pay attention to the logistic involved.

A quote I love comes from a Brit, who's name eludes me now. Amatures study tactics, professional soldiers study logistics.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~
I kept close watch as the war began, Colly, and if I recall, Jessica Lynch and her supply column took a wrong turn.

And I remember all the press pundits shouting 'quagmire' after that first huge sandstorm that stopped the column and I recall the ambush in Nasiriya and the two different bridge approaches to Baghdad that slowed the column for a few days and press again erupted 'quagmire' Vietnam! All left wing press bullshit.

As a student of war, you will most likely be familiar with the phrase, "When the war begins, the plans are put aside..." Something like that.

Most war planners expected the Iraqis to fight. They did not, they got into civilian clothes and melted into the countryside. This both helped and hindered coalition forces as the progress was quicker, but they were not prepared to take care of the thousands of Iraqi prisoners and still continue the march to Baghdad.

Perhaps you recall the 'Red Ball Express' in the months after D day in Europe, trying to resupply Patton's rush across France?

Plans are made to be changed upon contingent demands. The rapid advance to Baghdad will go down in history as one of the most amazing military operations of all times, as soon as this generation of left wing reporters is drawing social security.

And while the information was not available at the time, there have been recent programs on the Military Channel, detailing the planning and efficacy of the supply lines from Kuwait to Baghdad. There was very little if any delay because of logistics, it worked just as it was planned, to perfection.

And perhaps you could have planned better for the 'insurgencies', the village to village, house to house combat and the guerilla tactics of terrorists from neighboring countries such as Iran and Syria and even Egypt. Those eventualities were considered of course, but if you think you could have done the planning better, I suggest you offer your services.

All branches of the service, from top to bottom, performed magnificently in the liberation of Iraq.

It is truly a shame and disgraceful and harmful to the nation that the press continues to publish inaccuracies and outright false information to the public and at the same time, refuse to cover the positive events that are occuring in 14 our of the 18 provinces in Iraq.

And yes, I have listened until I am green in the face to the 'retired' military officers and other political pundits and military journalists who are full of criticism.

I had hopes that you, perhaps more than most, would see through all the propaganda.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Colleen Thomas]Ever hear of Jessica Lynch Amicus? I'm sure you have. She was a member of a maintenance outfit. An outfit that was hit. Maintenance, is generally, behind the lines, i.e. these guys aren't heavily armed, beacuse they should be operating with a shield of infantry/armor before them. The reasonthey were hit, is because our suply lines were so tenuous that the Fedaieen were able to disrupt them.

Ever hear of body armor? Remember the row about our guys not having enough of it? That would never have happened IF our logistics plan had been followed

Remeber that lag in the push to baghdad? The one where pacifists, lefitists and anti-war folks were shouting quagmire and vietnam? The lull was beacuse our supply lines couldn't keep up with the advance. And had become so vulnerable that line units had to be pulled out of formation and used to sheappard supply columns. At that point, the JCS reinsititued the logistic plan, still over rumsfelds objections, and we proceeded to kick ass after a suitable build up of supply in forward stageing areas.

If you want to read about it, google it. You'll find plenty of commentary on it, from reputable military and ex military persons. It's more or less common knowledge for anyone who pays attention to the tactical/military side of the Iraq conflict without letting the politics get involved. I dosen't rank up there with Yorktown or Dien Bien Phu for military disaters, but it was a certifiable mistake. And if the military had made it, I would say unforgiveable. Since the civilian in charge of the military made it, I say foul.

Perhaps you can do low intensity interventions on rumsfelds plan, but when you employ armor and infantry in division strength, you have to pay attention to the logistic involved.

A quote I love comes from a Brit, who's name eludes me now. Amatures study tactics, professional soldiers study logistics.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~
I kept close watch as the war began, Colly, and if I recall, Jessica Lynch and her supply column took a wrong turn.

And I remember all the press pundits shouting 'quagmire' after that first huge sandstorm that stopped the column and I recall the ambush in Nasiriya and the two different bridge approaches to Baghdad that slowed the column for a few days and press again erupted 'quagmire' Vietnam! All left wing press bullshit.

As a student of war, you will most likely be familiar with the phrase, "When the war begins, the plans are put aside..." Something like that.

Most war planners expected the Iraqis to fight. They did not, they got into civilian clothes and melted into the countryside. This both helped and hindered coalition forces as the progress was quicker, but they were not prepared to take care of the thousands of Iraqi prisoners and still continue the march to Baghdad.

Perhaps you recall the 'Red Ball Express' in the months after D day in Europe, trying to resupply Patton's rush across France?

Plans are made to be changed upon contingent demands. The rapid advance to Baghdad will go down in history as one of the most amazing military operations of all times, as soon as this generation of left wing reporters is drawing social security.

And while the information was not available at the time, there have been recent programs on the Military Channel, detailing the planning and efficacy of the supply lines from Kuwait to Baghdad. There was very little if any delay because of logistics, it worked just as it was planned, to perfection.

And perhaps you could have planned better for the 'insurgencies', the village to village, house to house combat and the guerilla tactics of terrorists from neighboring countries such as Iran and Syria and even Egypt. Those eventualities were considered of course, but if you think you could have done the planning better, I suggest you offer your services.

All branches of the service, from top to bottom, performed magnificently in the liberation of Iraq.

It is truly a shame and disgraceful and harmful to the nation that the press continues to publish inaccuracies and outright false information to the public and at the same time, refuse to cover the positive events that are occuring in 14 our of the 18 provinces in Iraq.

And yes, I have listened until I am green in the face to the 'retired' military officers and other political pundits and military journalists who are full of criticism.

I had hopes that you, perhaps more than most, would see through all the propaganda.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Deleted

 

[amicus]

Well, Colly, I guess you told me all right. I am not qualified and you are? Hmmm...if you say so.

Let us lay this out. An entire battle plan, including strategy and logistics, troops numbers and type was planned an executed by the defense department and all the associated hundreds if not thousand of experts and planners and you know better?

Give me a break, Colleen, give me a damned break. You affect superiority in discussing military matters most likely comes without any active duty service, correct? Well, I had eight years active service, some of it classified duties.

Add to that my long time interest in world war two, the planning, the campaigns, the battles and yes, my friend, the logistics. Add also the huge amount of information available on television and on the internet concerning such things.

My conclusion, from availing myself of the information is that you are dead wrong in your assessment of the Iraq war thus far.

But I will grant that you are one spunky little devil in defending your viewpoint and in claiming it is not a politically inspired position.

And you will admit the similarity of your viewpoints to that of the political left wing in their continual criticism of everything Bush.

Insofar as political invective, I hasten your attention back to the days when I first came on this forum; when anyone with an even slightly differing viewpoint was chastized and ostracisized to no end.

I say again for the benefit of the lurkers, the overall strategy for the war in Iraq has been emminently successful in all aspects of the conflict. There were no gross failures at any level and what small inconsistencies that did crop up were dealt with quickly and efficiently.

The military complex of the United States has done an excellent job and should receive more respect than it has. They did a good job for all Americans.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Pure...


Lincoln fired one of his generals for not fighting, Admiral Halsey, 'bull' Halsey was heavily criticized over the battle of Leyte Gult andTruman fired McArthur because he wanted to nuke China.

Then of course there is the micro management of Vietnam by President Johnson and McNamara.

Disagreement between generals or between the military and the Commander in Chief is not a new thing.

Time, perhaps, will tell in terms of how history views the war in Iraq.

There is a not so subtle point here: one that asks a question: What is the purpose of the criticism of war strategy and tactis in Iraq?

Can the past be relived? Can the war be refought? Or is what is really happening is a portion of the military establishment, like the old battleship Admirals, so entrenched in past tactics and strategies that they cannot adapt to new ideas?

Rumseld and the military planners have put in place a battle strategy that will dominate the first half of the 21st century. Military equipment procurement programs are based on the 'new] strategy, not the old and that isolates the oldtimers, makes them obsolete.

Many do not want to embrace the 'robotic nature' of coming conflicts. Air Force generals see stealth bombers functioning without a pilot, along with armed drones that high school kids with video game experience are running from a keyboard in Burbank, California while flying over Afghanistan.

Robots are being manufactured this very day that will perform house to house search and combat, avoiding risk to human life. Robots are now disarming and destroying IED's on Iraqi streets as we speak.

This continual criticism by retired military personnel is only 'sour grapes' because they could not see the changes coming.

But Pure continues to see everything from a jaded political perspective and like many others, uses the conflict to further attack the United States.

What else is new?

amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Liar]That has been debated, both a-here and a-there.

Not enough in the know of US domesic politics to say for sure, but I've hearsd a lot of people, debaters, politicians and others who calls themselves republicans complaining about how "Big Goverment" the Bush politics are. Not only about huge military spending, which I understand. There's a major war rolling here after all. But also big government when it somes to social intervention, apparently.[/QUOTE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liar...a fair enough assessment, if you listen only to the news and other politicians.

Aside from the huge expeditures for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, factor in also the losses to the economy by the 9/11 incident and the huge outlays to protect the nation under the Homeland Security program.

Count in also the devastation caused not only by Hurricane Katrina on the gulf coast, but the preceding two years of major storm damage in Florida and adjacent states.

You might also add in the continuing costs brought about by high energy prices because of US dependence on foreign sources of energy.

But the biggest factor in the Federal Budget is already allocated spending on 'entitlement' programs. Spending that cannot be diminished and increases each year due to Congressional passage of such socialistic programs as social security and medicare. Not to speak of the many government subsidized programs approved by Congress.

Realize also the half century build up, from Roosevelt's New Deal, to JOhnsons great society of funded government programs that cannot be eliminated or diminished.

The basic premise of the Republican party still advocates small government and low taxes. But getting from where things are to where they should be, in my opinion, will take a revolution. Congress will never do abolish social security or the quasi socialized medicine programs we have.

The percentage of the budget that the Bush administration could reduce is a minor percentage and each reduction or cutback is met with stiff opposition in Congress.

Now, that is not intended as an excuse, merely an explanation of why it appears that Republicans are no longer the party of small government, they remain so, it is just an impossible task to reduce the size.

amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

Well, Colly, I guess you told me all right. I am not qualified and you are? Hmmm...if you say so.

Let us lay this out. An entire battle plan, including strategy and logistics, troops numbers and type was planned an executed by the defense department and all the associated hundreds if not thousand of experts and planners and you know better?

Give me a break, Colleen, give me a damned break. You affect superiority in discussing military matters most likely comes without any active duty service, correct? Well, I had eight years active service, some of it classified duties.

Add to that my long time interest in world war two, the planning, the campaigns, the battles and yes, my friend, the logistics. Add also the huge amount of information available on television and on the internet concerning such things.

My conclusion, from availing myself of the information is that you are dead wrong in your assessment of the Iraq war thus far.

But I will grant that you are one spunky little devil in defending your viewpoint and in claiming it is not a politically inspired position.

And you will admit the similarity of your viewpoints to that of the political left wing in their continual criticism of everything Bush.

Insofar as political invective, I hasten your attention back to the days when I first came on this forum; when anyone with an even slightly differing viewpoint was chastized and ostracisized to no end.

I say again for the benefit of the lurkers, the overall strategy for the war in Iraq has been emminently successful in all aspects of the conflict. There were no gross failures at any level and what small inconsistencies that did crop up were dealt with quickly and efficiently.

The military complex of the United States has done an excellent job and should receive more respect than it has. They did a good job for all Americans.


amicus...

Nice vaunting. I like that word, vaunt.