• 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.

PBS Frontline: Rumsfeld's War

it's really more than iraq. it's really interesting, although one sided since no one on the inside agreed to interviews, understandably since they're still employed. basically just depending on bob woodward's account and tying in people with his view.

i do wonder where the col with the 50k estimate came from, seems he just appeared out of nowhere and talked to newt. he only had a few brief statements, and i feel they edited more of his conversation that might have explained more details.

most of it makes sense. it's interesting how this administration said it would not interfere in the decision of the generals, after the vietnam experience. yet they did the same thing. and the generals who lived through vietnam, just let it happen. i guess that's the difference between idealism and pragmatism. each party was forced to do, like that old gen supporting kerry said.

i didn't tune in until later, so i'm not sure how much they concentrated on the transformation the army is going through. i'm guessing very little, since the general public doesn't care about the intracacies of the dod bureaucracy. plus that wasn't the point of the piece.

pieces like this are good and bad, since they warp the view of what has and is occuring without getting the full account, which won't be known until 30-40years later.

i'd rather have a show on how to get back on the right path. say interview a bunch of generals, british, think tanks, so on...
 
We changed the status quo from weakness and appeasement to strength, honor, determination. Damn those naysayers who are second guessing this war.



Freedom. USA USA USA!!!!
 
I don't get why Rumsfeld would go along with the invasion of Iraq if his "agenda" was to build a "small, fast, hi-tech" army. I think invasion/occupation of a country is a considerable challenge for this type of army. One that it is not really suited for. The military was pushing for a few hundred thousand soldiers, and Rumsfeld wanted about 50,000. He must have known that it would be a tougher situation in the aftermath with less troops. In spite of that, I think he just didn't want to give in to the idea of the larger force. That would be contrary to his goal of a civilian controlled, smaller military.
 
I've obsessed over the current misadministration far too much over the past months. I spent the evening watching something uplifting.

Sox 3-0 in the World Series! WOOT! :beer:😀:beer:
 
I missed it. The full program will be available online beginning tomorrow according to the site.

 
One-sided? Yes. But a good and as fair as possible report? I think so. It demonstrates that our leaders had taken on an almost corporate view to government. They were so insistent in advance on going to Iraq that they would believe anyone would told them what they wanted to hear and condemn as "not a team player" anyone who took a contrarian view. Such ideals may work well in the corporate world, but not when running the government responsible to 300 million people.
 
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
I don't get why Rumsfeld would go along with the invasion of Iraq if his "agenda" was to build a "small, fast, hi-tech" army. I think invasion/occupation of a country is a considerable challenge for this type of army. One that it is not really suited for. The military was pushing for a few hundred thousand soldiers, and Rumsfeld wanted about 50,000. He must have known that it would be a tougher situation in the aftermath with less troops. In spite of that, I think he just didn't want to give in to the idea of the larger force. That would be contrary to his goal of a civilian controlled, smaller military.
Click to expand...
I think his neocon/PNAC ideology has really gotten to him. He's convinced a war can run on the cheap (in terms of forces and resources.)

I think I had really misunderestimated Rumsfeld in his drive to run this war on the cheap. It's very apparent now, after having seen this and having reads Woodward's Plan of Attack that Rumsfeld was really pressing Gen. Franks for the least possible # of troops to win the war. It's plain as day these ideologues truly thought Iraq would roll over like a puppy and embrace "freedom" and all would be well.

I think the entire administration needs some serious doses of Seroquel and some electro-shock therapy!!


And Powell selecting Armitage for State? I never realized Powell had selected him. Armitage is one of the key PNAC neocons. Powell certainly did himself no favors in that regard.
 
Well you're giving Rumsfeld and his thinktank the benefit of the doubt by saying they actually believed Iraq would welcome us with open arms. He's a smart guy, and he had some qualified people telling him that it would be a quagmire. Which leads you to the conclusion that he was willing to accept an X amount of civilian and military casualties just so he wouldn't lose ground on his agenda of creating a smaller civilian controlled army. And think about this... So what if we did involve 300,000 troops like the military wanted? How much more in debt would we be now? So if we were to invade the "right" way, our national debt would be even more ridiculous. WHY WAS INVADING IRAQ SO DAMN IMPORTANT?!?!
 
I think the show was really interesting and enlightening, and people on both sides of the argument should really watch it to get a better understanding of whats going on. I don't have a lot of time to write, but I do want to make one argument. The war to overthrow Saddam was successful. It was over in two weeks, with minimum casualties. So its hard to argue with Rumsfeld's plan of attack. The crucial mistake that he and the neocons made was to underestimate the post war uprising in Iraq. Having more troops on the ground would have definitely helped restore immediate order.

With all that has happened, I really want to see rumsfeld let go or quit. But that has not happened, and I think this is my biggest gripe with the current administration. You cannot blame Bush for what has happened in Iraq, because he is just a monkey, and listens to his aids. But you can certainly blame him for keeping his staff employed after all of this. I think if Kerry will bring anything to the table, the biggest difference would be to bring different people to the administration, and a different way of thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top