• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How would you rate the performance of the Pentagon leadership post "major combat"

Well to give a serious answer, good during the war, and completely clueless now.

America isn't used to invading and occupying a friendly people. It's a first for us.
 
I have doubts that few people would actually have the knowledge to make this evaluation.
However, from the only perception I have (various media outlets) his performance would make for some interesting debate.
🙂
 
Can't fully judge the guy. We, or at least I, don't have all the facts.

However based on the state of the military in Iraq I would say poor.

The military doesn't have enough support (armor) to conduct the low intensity fighting that is taking place is dozens of places around Iraq. That is why they are taking so many casualties while back home the government is in a panic and still "debating" on what to do.

Bunch of freaking loosers.

Edit: I wonder what these loosers would "suggest" to resolve this problem if we stuck em all in a convoy and had em ride through some of the "rough" spots that the Marines are forced to patrol or watch over while they get sniped at.

Anyone here think that would produce results? =p
 
I think Rumsfeld is a fvckup. He reminds me of the middle management dolts at my last job who got to where they are on their connections rather than their merits.
 
I wouldn't place Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, so I think they have done a good job of a terrible situation.

Our political leadership (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) would rate an F. F- is I'm allowed to grade that low...
 
Back
Top