Is it time for Rumsfeld to retire or get fired?

[Dari]

Too many mistakes in only four years. One that caused my jaw to drop was sending so few troops during the initial invasion.

But the one that caught me completely off guard was when he disbanded the Iraqi Army. That's something you simply don't do. The military of any nation is the only institution, aside from organized religion, that can keep a nation intact no matter what, making the difference between anarchy and civilization. To disband it is to assume that the invading Army can take its place in no time. Furthermore, the majority of the Iraqi military was not part of the decision-making process that caused the illegal activities for which we invaded. Sadly, our troops are paying for that mistake today with their lives.

Rumsfeld goal of making the military more efficient (do more with less) may look good on paper, but its execution has been nothing short of dismal. Bush may value loyalty, but common sense and the righting of wrongs should top that.

 

[conehead433]

Of course he should have already been fired, but Dubya is just too stupid to actually fire anyone. So that means he needs to resign, but I guess he just doesn't feel like it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Of course he should have already been fired, but Dubya is just too stupid to actually fire anyone. So that means he needs to resign, but I guess he just doesn't feel like it.

There comes a time when every man should feel that new blood or new insights are needed to get something going. Hopefully, Rumsfeld will have that epiphany in 2005.

 

[cwjerome]

I'm for getting someone new as Defense Secretary. He's lost my confidence.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dari
Too many mistakes in only four years. One that caused my jaw to drop was sending so few troops during the initial invasion.

But the one that caught me completely off guard was when he disbanded the Iraqi Army. That's something you simply don't do. The military of any nation is the only institution, aside from organized religion, that can keep a nation intact no matter what, making the difference between anarchy and civilization. To disband it is to assume that the invading Army can take its place in no time. Furthermore, the majority of the Iraqi military was not part of the decision-making process that caused the illegal activities for which we invaded. Sadly, our troops are paying for that mistake today with their lives.

Rumsfeld goal of making the military more efficient (do more with less) may look good on paper, but its execution has been nothing short of dismal. Bush may value loyalty, but common sense and the righting of wrongs should top that.

What mistakes?

All is going as the Fearless Liar and his minions including Rumsfeld had planned.

Don't forget wholeheartedly endorsed by the U.S. citizenry especially the RRR FLL's in here.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm for getting someone new as Defense Secretary. He's lost my confidence.

Here! Here! I wholeheartedly agree. His time has come and gone. We need new tactics, new policies and new blood in the Pentagon. Rumsfeld probably stymies many of the ideas that could change the way things happen in Iraq at the moment.

Also, Dari is right on with the disbanding of the Iraqi military. My brother was part of the initial assault force and said that nearly all of the Iraqi Army troops never wanted to fight us in the first place. The knew they would be routed even worse than they were in '91 because they never fully rebuilt. He actually spoke to an Iraqi General when doing house to house searches and the General told him that he told his troops to go home as soon as he reasonably could after Saddam disappeared. He himself simply walked home It's likely that those very same soldiers, rather than being dismantled, disbanded and "civilianized" again could be standing on street corners right now, in their own uniforms maintaing law and order in their very own country. To think that you can obliterate an entire institution and rebuild it from the ground up in a wholly different way is poor decision making at best and outright incompetence at worst.

 

[cwjerome]

Gasp... I just noticed dmcowen674 is an "elite" member!

(/me looks at his post and just wonders......)

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Dari
Too many mistakes in only four years. One that caused my jaw to drop was sending so few troops during the initial invasion.

But the one that caught me completely off guard was when he disbanded the Iraqi Army. That's something you simply don't do. The military of any nation is the only institution, aside from organized religion, that can keep a nation intact no matter what, making the difference between anarchy and civilization. To disband it is to assume that the invading Army can take its place in no time. Furthermore, the majority of the Iraqi military was not part of the decision-making process that caused the illegal activities for which we invaded. Sadly, our troops are paying for that mistake today with their lives.

Rumsfeld goal of making the military more efficient (do more with less) may look good on paper, but its execution has been nothing short of dismal. Bush may value loyalty, but common sense and the righting of wrongs should top that.

How would YOU have done it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Gasp... I just noticed dmcowen674 is an "elite" member!

(/me looks at his post and just wonders......)

It wasn't for his involvement in P&N. It was from a different area of Anandtech that tries to shield itself from the rest of AT(and rightly so).

CsG

 

[Veramocor]

Someone explain why they couldn't de-disband the army 3-4 months after they found out disbanding it was a bad idea? Its not like the soldiers disappeared.

 

[cwjerome]

I see CAD, I see...

Anyways, I've never claimed to be an "expert", but I do have my own opinions on what SHOULD have been done. Since the conflict started (I totally agree with the invasion of Iraq), I would have done several major things quite differently, and I was pretty critical of the Pentagon's moves throughout the campaign. In fact, we're facing today many of the problems I predicted because of faulty strategies. I posted those thoughts publicly on an old forum I used to chill at... PM me for a link to those criticisms if interested

 

[imported_Aelius]

At this point what does it matter? Even if he was removed this morning it would make scarce little difference. His replacement would be left with a sucking chest wound of a problem with a band-aid on it and all he would have in his arsenal is more band aids and the possibility of coming up with a solution later. Too little too late.

Even if you completely ignore the actual reasons for going to war, real & fake, and simply look at the current state of affairs you know you fvcked yourself a long way back. The battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis has long since been lost and any minimal wins you might actually start to gain or have gained is overshadowed by the bad. The damage done is permanent like a huge scar to remind Iraq what the US has done to them.

It reminds me of Hungary in 1956. You think any Hungarian forgives the Soviets who drove tanks down streets and indiscriminately mowed people down, standing in bread lines, ten, twenty, 100 at a time, and stood kids up against a wall, randomly picked from a crowed to be shot? Besides the Communist party members? Not likely. It's not blind rage either. It might very well be today for the Iraqis, I for one totally understand where they are coming from, but give it 10 or 20 years and I think most of them won't hate the US anymore but rather a certain circle of like minded people who caused that pain on them.

That's the sort of scar that will never heal. Not for hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years. Food for thought from someone who comes from a nation that has been completely levelled to the ground to the very last stone at least once in its history by invaders. I suspect that Hungary is against Turkey joining the EU even if the government is for it. 150 some years of occupation, slavery, persecution, torture, and religious fanaticism leaves a mark that some still recall you know.

 

[AndrewR]

I think at this point that it would be better for the administration and the Defense Department if Rumsfeld stepped down. Now, I say that not because of anything that he has done or has failed to do but because he is such a lightning rod both within the public and on Capitol Hill that it has a negative impact on the administration of DoD. Even if his ideas are good and essential, they will be questioned and challenged at this point, which benefits no one. It's a situation, as I see that, that he has to fall on his sword to let the work continue.

I do think Rumsfeld has done some very good things for the military, particularly with starting the move away from Cold War thinking in many ways. I cannot say that I have agreed with every decision that he's made, but it's also been a particularly difficult time. I doubt many of the past SecDef's would have fared much better. He's definitely not been a wallflower!

 

[forpey]

I think the fact Colin Powel has stepped down signalled the fustrations most people have with Rumsfeld. The problem is Bush would just appoint someone as far right as rusfeld.

I don't think the American government needs any more of Bush's cronies. Its needs someone more moderate - like Powel, who even if he disagreed with the police, would have at least seen it through in the right way.

Don't get me started on the 'There are things we know..' speech. What a jerk.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Of course he should have already been fired, but Dubya is just too stupid to actually fire anyone.
So that means he needs to resign, but I guess he just doesn't feel like it.

Where's Donald Trump . . . when we REALLY need him ?

 

[conjur]

His time to be fired was at least a year ago.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Dari
Too many mistakes in only four years. One that caused my jaw to drop was sending so few troops during the initial invasion.

But the one that caught me completely off guard was when he disbanded the Iraqi Army. That's something you simply don't do. The military of any nation is the only institution, aside from organized religion, that can keep a nation intact no matter what, making the difference between anarchy and civilization. To disband it is to assume that the invading Army can take its place in no time. Furthermore, the majority of the Iraqi military was not part of the decision-making process that caused the illegal activities for which we invaded. Sadly, our troops are paying for that mistake today with their lives.

Rumsfeld goal of making the military more efficient (do more with less) may look good on paper, but its execution has been nothing short of dismal. Bush may value loyalty, but common sense and the righting of wrongs should top that.

How would YOU have done it?

With less idealism and arrogance.

 

[biostud]

A captain goes down with his ship.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: biostud
A captain goes down with his ship.

. . . but a good captain dosen't drive his ships deliberately into the rocks

 

[burnedout]

Rumsfeld may be thinking retirement.

Julia Roberts buys land from Donald Rumsfeld

(CNN) -- Actress Julia Roberts has purchased about 37 acres of land in Taos County, New Mexico, from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Taos County clerk's office said Friday.

The new deed for the acreage, seven tracts known as Des Montes, was filed December 15 by Roberts' Astral Trust, the holding company for her real estate.

The cost of the property was not immediately known.

Roberts already owns a ranch of more than 40 acres outside Taos, near the community of Arroyo Seco, where she had her wedding ceremony in 2002. Taos is in north-central New Mexico.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Dari
Too many mistakes in only four years. One that caused my jaw to drop was sending so few troops during the initial invasion.

But the one that caught me completely off guard was when he disbanded the Iraqi Army. That's something you simply don't do. The military of any nation is the only institution, aside from organized religion, that can keep a nation intact no matter what, making the difference between anarchy and civilization. To disband it is to assume that the invading Army can take its place in no time. Furthermore, the majority of the Iraqi military was not part of the decision-making process that caused the illegal activities for which we invaded. Sadly, our troops are paying for that mistake today with their lives.

Rumsfeld goal of making the military more efficient (do more with less) may look good on paper, but its execution has been nothing short of dismal. Bush may value loyalty, but common sense and the righting of wrongs should top that.

How would YOU have done it?

With less idealism and arrogance.

A very broad Generalization, Dari, but lets go with it.

Now, with your way, you will have Rumsfeld's example to create a basis for your way.

Also, you will have Rumsfeld's example to weigh against, the degree of success or failure of your way.

Tell me, Dari, What comparative model did Rumsfeld have to create a basis for his way?

Tell me also, Dari, What compariative model did you use to weigh the failure of Rumsfeld's way?

Tell me also, Dari, How are you able to make this assessment, given the fact that we are still engaged in the action?

 

[Dari]

I'm going to tread carefully here so as to not sound like an armchair general/quarterback/Secretary of Defense. Perhaps you could give some future scenerios.

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Dari
Too many mistakes in only four years. One that caused my jaw to drop was sending so few troops during the initial invasion.

But the one that caught me completely off guard was when he disbanded the Iraqi Army. That's something you simply don't do. The military of any nation is the only institution, aside from organized religion, that can keep a nation intact no matter what, making the difference between anarchy and civilization. To disband it is to assume that the invading Army can take its place in no time. Furthermore, the majority of the Iraqi military was not part of the decision-making process that caused the illegal activities for which we invaded. Sadly, our troops are paying for that mistake today with their lives.

Rumsfeld goal of making the military more efficient (do more with less) may look good on paper, but its execution has been nothing short of dismal. Bush may value loyalty, but common sense and the righting of wrongs should top that.

How would YOU have done it?

With less idealism and arrogance.

A very broad Generalization, Dari, but lets go with it.

Now, with your way, you will have Rumsfeld's example to create a basis for your way.

Also, you will have Rumsfeld's example to weigh against, the degree of success or failure of your way.

Tell me, Dari, What comparative model did Rumsfeld have to create a basis for his way?

Donald Rumsfeld got most of his influence from the various think-tanks within Washington DC and New York City. including but not limited to the Council on Foreign Relations, Project for a New American Century, and the Heritage Foundation. Most of these thinkers had never donned military gear and were speaking from a philosophically political point of view. Unfortunately, reality prove to be very different and nasty.

Tell me also, Dari, What compariative model did you use to weigh the failure of Rumsfeld's way?

I used history, sir. Even though I supported some of his initiatives, Rumsefld wanted very little feedback from the Generals in the military. Instead, he turned to his politicos for the most "efficient" way to lead America and the world in the New World. That arrogance cause several high profile resignations with the military brass. Rumsfeld also failed to take into account the assessment of most of our allies, except the Israelis. He turned his back to the Arabs, the Europeans, the Canadians, and the Japanese. Compared to other Defense Secretaries, this was unabashed arrogance.

Tell me also, Dari, How are you able to make this assessment, given the fact that we are still engaged in the action?

It doesn't hurt to analyze your actions every once in a while. Hiding from the truth and burning bridges is not the way to lead. Unfortunately, by not listening to others within and without the military, Rumsfeld has dug himself into a big hole, but insists on remaining the Secretary of Defense so he can finish revamping the military. From what I've seen, that means more "efficient" soldiers.

 

[Geardo]

I want Rumsfeld to be President in 2008!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Geardo
I want Rumsfeld to be President in 2008!

Umm - no. The left would just love the opportunity to drag our troop's name through the mud attacking him to regain power. They can't be allowed to do that to our servicemen and women. Rummy won't run.

CsG

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Geardo
I want Rumsfeld to be President in 2008!

Umm - no. The left would just love the opportunity to drag our troop's name through the mud attacking him to regain power. They can't be allowed to do that to our servicemen and women. Rummy won't run.

CsG

He's a good man but it must be hard for people to tell the elderly that they're wrong. Bush needs to step up to the plate.