I don't understand the anger over this statement. I think its true. Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with this statement?
I also think Rumsfeld needs to go. I don't like his go lighter go faster philosophy. While I agree with his idea of reducing our large bases in Western Europe for more smaller bases scattered around the world to increase our deployment time to any hot spot, and his reduction of front line troops in South Korea so that they can be moved quickly to another developing hot spot. I think he is going too far in sacrificing safety for speed. I am still not convinced of the performance of the light Stryker vehicles and Iraq has shown a need for heavy armor such as M1 tanks and Bradleys. I remember earlier in the year many units had left their tanks behind to deploy in Iraq only to find the insurgency spreading and tankers without their tanks facing hostile fire. I also think he's relying on the Special Forces too much. They can only do so much. These are some of the reasons why I think Rumsfeld needs to be replaced.
maddogchen
Well put, but I still feel that Rumsfeld is still doing the right thting as far as making the Armed Forces of he United States more flexible. One reason in my opinion, is that now as the units become more self-sufficient, there is less waiting for the support troops to assist in the missions (the units support themselves). Years ago you would need to wait for the various ther units to arrive to complete the team, and then upon getting together, find that you need ways to work things out to perform as a cohesive unit. Under today's system, you deploy as a unit with your support already set up (they are part of your unit). The vehicles and equipment that you have is the self-same gear you war with.
It makes for very rapid transitions and relocations is necessary, and speeds not only the deployment process, but the recovery as well. As a side-effect, you can have fewer troops to perform the job needed.
As far as SOF, they are sorely needed, but not well utilized I feel. The CA units are over tasked and under trained to support the Line units in my opinion. They lack the combat skills of their line unit brethren, and seem to focus far too much on the "little picture" instead of he "Big" one. The SF units have too many missions and not enough time, or support from the undertrained CA who support them. Rangers are being asked to ask more as police than their intenioned jobs would suggest.
Something will have to change, and I truly hope that it is the use of the SOF, instead of their chain of command.
Well put, but I still feel that Rumsfeld is still doing the right thting as far as making the Armed Forces of he United States more flexible. One reason in my opinion, is that now as the units become more self-sufficient, there is less waiting for the support troops to assist in the missions (the units support themselves). Years ago you would need to wait for the various ther units to arrive to complete the team, and then upon getting together, find that you need ways to work things out to perform as a cohesive unit. Under today's system, you deploy as a unit with your support already set up (they are part of your unit). The vehicles and equipment that you have is the self-same gear you war with.
It makes for very rapid transitions and relocations is necessary, and speeds not only the deployment process, but the recovery as well. As a side-effect, you can have fewer troops to perform the job needed.
As far as SOF, they are sorely needed, but not well utilized I feel. The CA units are over tasked and under trained to support the Line units in my opinion. They lack the combat skills of their line unit brethren, and seem to focus far too much on the "little picture" instead of he "Big" one. The SF units have too many missions and not enough time, or support from the undertrained CA who support them. Rangers are being asked to ask more as police than their intenioned jobs would suggest.
Something will have to change, and I truly hope that it is the use of the SOF, instead of their chain of command.
I already posted the answer to that, but just to save you the trouble of going back a page to my first post
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we went to war with the army we had because we had no choice. War came to us. This was the Bush administration's ELECTIVE war. We were already fighting the right war in Afghanistan. These monkeys screwed the pooch by diverting resources from that battle to Iraq, and even if you agree with the general idea, they didn't have the sense OR the available resources to do it right.
Now we're beyond fscked. If there's another crisis anywhere, we're already stretched too thin to deal with it. We couldn't consider taking on Iran or North Korea over their nuculear development or a little humanitarian ass kicking to stop the genocide in Darphur, Sudan, even if it could be justified.
Thanks to Bush's idiots, we're now sitting ducks for whatever the next bad guys want to throw at us. :|
yes I remember reading your earlier post, but I felt he was talking about something different. I thought he was stating the simple fact that generals plan for wars with the equipment and units they have, not the ones they want.
Like for instance in the first Gulf War(which I think falls under your Elective war) they wanted a anti-missile system that would shoot down any Scud missiles sent their way, but instead they had a faulty Patriot I missile system. Because the technology was new and had not been tested successfully.
Or WW2 where I'm sure all the generals wanted a tank that could go toe-to-toe with a German Tiger tank but instead they had only the light Sherman tanks so they had to adjust their tactics to outnumber and overpower the Tigers. They had tanks that could go toe-to-toe but they took longer to build than the Shermans and so the qty was too few to make a difference. They only got a significant # of better tanks near the end of the war when the outcome was already decided.
So in many cases the army that you want is either not yet fully developed or tested, or you can't mass produce it fast enough because of limited resources. So if you want to go into an Elective war or any war for that matter with the Army you want, you'd probably be waiting a long time for it to arrive. So if Rumsfeld had waited for all the Army and National Guard humvees to be uparmored, he'd still be waiting right now.
So I don't fault the Bush administration for going to war with the Army they have, I fault them for using what they have ineffectively. In any war, you will have needs and you won't have everything, its how you deal with the situation, what you do with what you got that counts the most, and I don't think they are doing a good enough job.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
A problem with this statement is that there has been a large amount of time spent ignoring problems that have been discovered by the troops with respect the the way equipment was operating/utilized.
Most of those problems could have been corrected if the administration had been willing to acknowledge the problems, however, to acknowledge them would play into the hands of the nay-sayers.
Politics were initially killing the troops.
Now to correct the problems (as should have been done 6-12 months ago), the US industry neads to gear up to provide what is needed. Until the orders are let, people will still become casualties.
No, the problem is, the administration dickwads didn't anticipate the insurgency and chaos that followed, and they did not provide for it. Here's Colin Powell's statement on November 23
Dumbsfeld insisted they could do this war on the cheap. He said they could pull off this fiasco with 50,000 troops. At the risk of again repeating from my previous post
We're heading toward that number, now, through the "stop loss" backdoor draft.
If they thought they could justify this ELECTIVE this war, they should have fully prepared for it with sufficient manpower, equipment and logistical planning. They failed dismally with all of them. :|
Everything GWB has ever achieved was via the bluff, and if he had any military experience, he would know that the bluff doesn't work in combat.
actually it took quiet awhile before we started really going after Japan after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor.
They've been working on the problem since at least August of 2003 to build enough uparmored Humvees.. it does take some time to get things up and running.. doesn't happen over night.
There is no uparmored Humvee that is made to survive a IED, when a 155mm artilary round turned IED explodes your going to be in a world of hurt.
This unit that is talked about is still in Kuwait.. they certainly don't meet any tactical priority for getting the best equipment.. historically the National Guard and Reserves didn't get the latest and greatest equipment, because the front line units got it first.. ie the Active Duty military.. another thing, when troops go into Iraq, it's by orders from the Top down.. that unarmored Humvees get transported on the back of cargo carrying trucks.. and that you have to have at least Level 3 armor on your vehical. So it's unlikely (unless their unit commander disobayed his orders) they would go North into Iraq in unarmored humvees.
I'm sure you libs would love to believe that the CINC and Sec of Def would just send out troops into Iraq and not care about them, but the fact is they do. When the Sec of Def learned of the problem, instead of whining about it and making excuses he went to work to solve the problem.. ie he doesn't know EVERYTHING that goes on, so he had his people look into the matter to first see if it was even true, that the unit was indeed without uparmored vehicals or if the trooper was lieing, and coming up with a solution of the problem.
Humvee's have been used in the First Gulf War, Mogadishu, Hati, Bosnia and Kosovo.. and yes the troops then did see mines that blew their vehicals apart.. yet Mr Clinton never had the military go out and buy uparmored Humvees, instead he sent US Forces all over the damn place on "Peacekeeping" missions, delpleting their stocks of spare parts, and burning up their money. He also downsized the Military, and gave alot of critial jobs to the National Guard and Reserve, making it now necessary to use the Reserves a heck of alot. If the Military didn't think the President or the Sec of Def cared about them, there would be a HUGE shortage of men and women signing up to join the US Miitary, but there isn't.
Yes, and we went with what we had as fast as we could because that was all there was at the time. Dumbsfeld and the Bushwhackos had the advantage electing to go to war when it was not brought to them. They had plenty of warning about what would be necessary to do the job, and they ignored all the good advice they got because they couldn't bring it in under their projected budget. Now, we're still going to be burdened with the same costs for generations, and there's no way around it. They also ignored all the warnings that their entire rationale for going to war was based on lies.
AFIC, the entire crew should be tried for treason. :|
And what we had at the time was the most powerful, best trained, all volunteer, rediculously mobile, and best led military in the world. Certainly they could have waited a couple extra months and brought in a couple hundred thousand more troops and do it like they did in the first gulf war but that would lose them the element of surprise which was the overlapping strategy behind the entire operation. there were also many operational problems with brining in a force any bigger then they did, in short, kuwait can only base so many troops.
Had turkey allowed us to base anything other then "humanitarian" (SOF) on their borders then we certainly would have had a much larger amount of troops in the initial strike. It worked out well though, Iraq thought we did have those troops and the entire republican guard was waiting on the northern outskirts of Baghdad for that attack.
I guess that makes a whole boatload of democratic senators and congressmen "bushwhackos" then seeing as how a very large number of them approved the war in iraq and the money necessary for the operation. It should also be noted that these democratic senators were privvy to the same information about iraq that our president was at the time, and felt the war necessary.
They had plenty of warning from washed up TV Generals who were more often then not, never in a position of real "war planning" in the first place. Tommy Franks was no TV General, he was the CINC for the most dangerous and actively hostile region of the world. President Bush, Don Rumsfeld, and the troops in the US Military do not take advice from the media, TV Generals, or loud mouthed senators who think they know how to plan a war. They take their advice from the CINC, his staff, the cheifs, and the defense department.
Furthermore, to actually think that the plan for Iraq was flawed is just a total and utter neglect of the facts. The entire operation from the first day of buildup to the day that Baghdad fell was the most successful and impressive operation in the history of warfare.
Our troops marched into a country and took its capital in a almost exactly 9 weeks. The war started in the third week of March 2003 and major combat operations ended May 02, 2003. In that time we lost a mind boggling small number of troops while inflicting heavy damage on the enemy. We lost no major Oil fields (a critical point for the future of Iraqs interior), no Scud missiles made it past our Patriot defense systems keeping cross border hostilities from occuring. Most importantly, Baghdad was not the fortified city of hell that the naysayers said it would be. Why not? Because Tommy Franks' plan was perfect. It was fast, it was furious, it surprised the enemy. The enemy could not react.
This was also the most impressive operation to date in terms of military cooperation and organization. Every branch of the military worked togethor as one unit without the usual "power hunting" that takes place at the cheif of staff position on down the ranks. Franks led Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and many small SOF units into a cohesive victory in a matter of weeks. Not to mention the incredible help and support from our friend nations.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed the way modern warfar is fought. No longer is volume of troops the deciding factor. The factors are now technology, communication, and mobility. History will show that it was Tommy Franks and Don Rumsfeld who masterminded this new kind of warfare.
The same costs that democrats voted in favor of in early 2003. Furthermore, that's a pretty blanket statement you have there. If you really want to make that statement effective then maybe find out exactly what costs you are talking about and just how it is going to burden us for generations. Generations are a long time.
Their entire rationale for going to war was to rid the country of a terrible dictator. I won't sit here and tell you that the information going into the war was perfect because it wasn't. The CIA, FBI, and many foreign intel agencies provided bad information. At the time though, that was the information we had and we are a safer country today because Sadam is gone. The next step is to make it even safer by fixing the faults in our intel agencies, continuing to fight the insurgents in Iraq and help build a democracy, and to continue knocking on the front door of terrorist nations.
Thats just a silly comment.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I see no more reason to toss Rumsfeld than before the war. Nothing has changed, other than some people are starting to notice his tin star is beginning to tarnish.
Reporter Planted Armor Question for Rumsfeld
The reporter must have been expecting a negative response from the Secretary. Unfortunately for the reporter, the Secretary was not upset at all Rumsfeld: Airing Concerns Was Healthy . And this is what Sgt. Missick said about the visit by theSecretaryRumsfeld Grilled By Soldiers?
The reporter must have been expecting a negative response from the Secretary. Unfortunately for the reporter, the Secretary was not upset at all Rumsfeld: Airing Concerns Was Healthy . And this is what Sgt. Missick said about the visit by theSecretaryRumsfeld Grilled By Soldiers?
"But late night television comedians seized on the issue, and comic Jay Leno poked fun at Rumsfeld for saying that armour did not always provide protection. "Then he got in his armoured car and left," said Leno to laughs from his audience." lol
LMAO
No wonder Rumbo was caught grasping by the questions - he wasn't prepared for hardball questions from the soldiers.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
I think if were going to get rid of rumsfeld, might as well take bush along with him....
Kill two idiots with one stone. After all it was BUSH who protected the a$$hole when he first got into trouble... Now Bush will do the same. Again... Wait and watch Bush defend him again.
This sh!t was BAD a long time ago. And now.... It's only starting to pile up? Let's just say it's not going to get any better.
Kill two idiots with one stone. After all it was BUSH who protected the a$$hole when he first got into trouble... Now Bush will do the same. Again... Wait and watch Bush defend him again.
This sh!t was BAD a long time ago. And now.... It's only starting to pile up? Let's just say it's not going to get any better.
Harvey,
You keep on talking about Pearl Harbor like we did good....
We should have EXPECTED PEARL HARBOR. We went to war against Japan via the Flying Tigers, who supported the Chinese. We cut off all steel trade with Japan while they were fighting China, and then were surprised when they attacked us???
We had no Navy, our Army was already stretched across Europe and the Near-East, so we go and kick Japan in the teeth.................Stupid, and we paid dearly for it at Pearl Harbor.
ericlp,
The fact that the United States overthrew two governments in record time. The fact that the armchair generals claimed the that those nations would offer strong resistance and we would suffer heavy caualties.....we didn't, and the situation isn't getting worse, it's improving according to the Iraqis and the Afghans (who know more than Dan Rather about it) doesn't change your tune? Has CNN reprogrammed you higher functions?
If you actually speak with soldiers who know (SOF, and combat MOS troops) they will happily tell you about things. Most reporters hang with the REMFS for the most part, and only rarely do they get to even speak with a Line unit soldier. Taking info from them is hit and miss at best. Talking to REMFS is most of he time counterproductive when asking about combat related info. The Army has a good saying "Stay in your lane". It means that you should concentrate on what you KNOW, and stay away from what you think you know when giving information.
You keep on talking about Pearl Harbor like we did good....
We should have EXPECTED PEARL HARBOR. We went to war against Japan via the Flying Tigers, who supported the Chinese. We cut off all steel trade with Japan while they were fighting China, and then were surprised when they attacked us???
We had no Navy, our Army was already stretched across Europe and the Near-East, so we go and kick Japan in the teeth.................Stupid, and we paid dearly for it at Pearl Harbor.
ericlp,
The fact that the United States overthrew two governments in record time. The fact that the armchair generals claimed the that those nations would offer strong resistance and we would suffer heavy caualties.....we didn't, and the situation isn't getting worse, it's improving according to the Iraqis and the Afghans (who know more than Dan Rather about it) doesn't change your tune? Has CNN reprogrammed you higher functions?
If you actually speak with soldiers who know (SOF, and combat MOS troops) they will happily tell you about things. Most reporters hang with the REMFS for the most part, and only rarely do they get to even speak with a Line unit soldier. Taking info from them is hit and miss at best. Talking to REMFS is most of he time counterproductive when asking about combat related info. The Army has a good saying "Stay in your lane". It means that you should concentrate on what you KNOW, and stay away from what you think you know when giving information.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,864
- 136
I just heard on the radio on the way in this morning that the company doing the armor plating for the Humvees said Rumsfeld is quite mistaken. He assured the troops that the armored vehicle production was in it's highest gear, that they are cranking them out as fast as they can. The company said they are operating at about 80% currently.
Sorry Dumbsfeld, you're still fulla sh!t.
Sorry Dumbsfeld, you're still fulla sh!t.
These guys are liberals. They have proven time and again that when facts are absent, opinions will do nicely! This thread proves that once again.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,864
- 136
We DID expect Pearl Harbor. Our government at the time wanted a way to enter the war so it could aid the Allies more overtly, but it didn't want to throw the first punch. We kept kickin the dog until it came after our foot. And we did have a Navy btw, it was our ground forces (particulary armor) that were behind the times and insufficient in quantity at the beginning of the war.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,864
- 136
I love how guys like you harp about "proof." You wouldn't know proof if it bit you on the ass. You going along with his quite naive and ignorant speculation just shows us you've got your head stuck in the sand the same way. Please return to your normal admin fluffing.
I think you liberals put millions into doing just that in October/November. How good was your planning? It seems to have been pretty terrible. Now, see how difficult it is to actually plan. After the Democratic plan to take over the government with Kerry at the ehlm failed so dramatically, how can any of you criticize any other planning. You weren't even planning a war, just a political campaign!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter