Article

2004-12-20 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-20 10:13|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Tipper, Thanks but I don't need to read the article. There is no reason what so ever for Bush to dump Rummy. So Bush will not dump him. Not matter what a the left and a few Republicans say.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-12-20 10:38:21 AM|| 2004-12-20 10:38:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Asia times is run by pro-bin ladenist paks and malaysians and various other anti-american south asians. Its funny how anything the US says, the Asia times says its bad. When a few US politians say Rumfeld should go, they now say he must stay, thinking it will hurt the US. Asia times is sh*t.

Posted by Spemble Ulains4686 2004-12-20 10:39:47 AM|| 2004-12-20 10:39:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 If Hagel and McCain say he should go, another reason to keep him.

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-20 10:42:44 AM|| 2004-12-20 10:42:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Cyber Sarge, I agree 100% with your sentiments.
I simply posted the article to show the thinking behind the morlocks. Forewarned is forearmed.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-20 10:49:08 AM|| 2004-12-20 10:49:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hagel, Warner and Lott are some of the biggest grandstanding empty suits in the Republican Party. They have devoted their energies to slamming Bush and Rumsfeld instead of making any useful proposals. Bill Kristol and some of the people at the Weekly Standard who are stomping on Rumsfeld are a bunch of ivory tower eggheads who unnecessarily raised expectations and are partially responsible for the public relations debacle in Iraq. (Militarily, it is a minor guerrilla war, but PR-wise, it is Vietnam-like, even though the military intensity of the war is far below Vietnam's levels).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-20 11:03:16 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-20 11:03:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Those of you who are predisposed to dislike Rummy, like I used to be, you should take note of the fact that the MSM is in an all out PR push to cut him to death with a thousand small and insignificant cuts.

For those of you who missed the up-armoring discussion at Powerlineblog, it was revealing in that it was, in fact a bogus issue. The real story was that the MSM ignored the fact that the military had already addressed the issue of uparmoring, with 784 out of 804 of the vehicles having ALREADY received the kits. Remember that the kids that cheered were in Kuwait, and were probably unaware that this had been accomplished. Did Rummy blow the question? Yes, but he was set up by the reporter to do so, and the MSM perpetuated the falsehood by refusing to disclose the real facts.

So the lasting story was not that the vehicles were up-armored, or that Rumsfeld stumbled on the question, but that the MSM refused to disclose that the Army had ALREADY uparmored those vehicles. Typical.

Then, yesterday, there was the media PR blitz abou the fact that the sympathy cards were autosigned instead of personally signed by Rumsfeld. As if that hasn't always been done in war.

One thing after another, after another. If the MSM is out to get Rumsfeld, then he must be doing something very, very, right.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-20 11:10:17 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:10:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Me again,

I just looked at Asia times, geez their articles are horribily anti-us. Don't be fooled but check out some of their articles...including

The US's failure in Fallujah
Neo-cons on the road to Damascus
Bin Laden: An open letter
How Iran will fight back
Odds even in 'info' war
Fallujah, Iraq's Tora Bora
Beware al-Qaeda watchers
Twelve years of CIA discontent
Al-Qaeda on the march
Evildoers, here we come

Sh*t I tells ya!

Posted by Elmaing Hupoluting4412 2004-12-20 11:12:19 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:12:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 True the reporter set up the soldier and fed off the troops worries. Rumsfeld is the guy who will always serve his country the best he can. I remember 9/11 where he was pulling fellow workers out of the pentagon. He'll give his life for America, and we shouldn't turn our backs on someone so easily. He's as deadly to the enemy as a billion suicide bomber, but not as stupid.

Posted by Elmaing Hupoluting4412 2004-12-20 11:15:27 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:15:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 well said.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-20 11:18:56 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:18:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I am reminded of what Lincoln said when his advisors criticized US Grant: "I need this man because he fights." This is why the MSM and the LLL's hate him.

Posted by SR71 2004-12-20 11:40:16 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:40:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Asia Times has one of the best essayists out there, 'Spengler", who is definitely NOT anti-American. Otherwise, it is good material for the loo.

Posted by Brett_the_Quarkian 2004-12-20 11:47:43 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:47:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Brett_the_Quarkian: if you don't mean in terms of reading, I agree.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-20 11:49:15 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:49:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I only read Spengler (and just noticed his most recent article posted here) and find him interesting. Otherwise, Asia Times is only good for wiping, not reading.

Posted by Brett_the_Quarkian 2004-12-20 11:51:26 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:51:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 How about Pepe Lopez and Nir Shultz, definality not a Hispanic or a Jew, as their alias suggest, unless they converted to Islam because they spit fire at the US in each article..

Very sickning how Nir Shutlz got embedded by the 3rd Cavelry and then tore them apart in a 6 piece essay. It's all about bringing our moral down with bullshit.

Posted by Jealet Omeating8745 2004-12-20 11:52:28 AM|| 2004-12-20 11:52:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 1. Its not about armored humvees. Its about whether we have the overall resources in Iraq that we need.
2. A minor guerilla war? With over 1000 US combat deaths, DESPITE body armor and improved medical care? Read the pro-US iraqi blogs, about what life is like in Baghdad now. 150,000 US troops. This may not be ww2, but its hardly minor.
3. Lott, Hagel, Warner, Lugar, McCain, Collins are ALL untrue GOPs???!!!!thats over 10% of the GOP Senators right there. !!!!

See Belgravia Dispatch

"Recall, Rumsfeld is not an Irving Kristol style neo-con (think Wolfowitz) or, alternately, a "national greatness" conservative (think McCain). He's pretty much an American nationalist of Jacksonian stripe and, deep down I suspect, he doesn't really care whether a true democracy takes root in Iraq. Indeed, his stewardship of the Pentagon is, increasingly, manifestly showing that."

He'll be left in till after the Iraqi elections at a minimum. Maybe till mid or late 2005.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 3:08:49 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:08:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I suspect it will depend on how the elections go. If they go well, Rummy stays as long as he likes. If they go poorly, Rummy and the JCS will agree the military needs to be expanded. The minority and their RINO coleagues in the Senate will demand Rummy's head and get it as the price of expansion. It will be unfortunate becasue Rummy is doing a god job of transformation and I doubt any nominee will do better. But if the elections are a blood bath, he's the scapegoat.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 3:29:05 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:29:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 But if the elections are a blood bath, he's the scapegoat.

We shouldn't be silent about or tolerant of letting ANYBODY be a scapegoat.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-20 3:31:56 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:31:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 good analysis Mrs D, though i think its more than the Senate dems and "RINOs" (Warner? Lott?) - its ALSO most of the senior officers in the US Army, IIUC. And a growing body of neocons.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 3:41:58 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:41:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 LH it's a minor guerilla war... it's a major PR conflict. 19,000 dead in the Battle of the Buldge which was just a battle.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-20 3:46:48 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:46:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 the Weekly Standard:

'At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task--and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.'

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 3:48:02 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:48:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 ship WW2 wasnt a guerilla war. Like I said, this aint WW2. By historical US standards this is a major insurgency. Yes, we're finally getting it under control. Thats good. Its taken 130000 US troops to do it, and we needed Brit back up in the triangle of death at that. Despite a much better friendly Iraqi force than we had in April.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 3:51:08 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:51:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 a different Weekly Standard article from an AEI guy (another nest of RINOs, I suppose)

'Nor is it Donald Rumsfeld's war, or at least not the war he wants. Even longtime supporters and transformation advocates have begun to recognize that Rumsfeld is now a large part of the problem. Loren Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a defense think-tank long supportive of the secretary, told the Washington Post on Monday that Rumsfeld won't face reality: "He knows what the situation is, but he has been unready to change his plans." '

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 3:56:22 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:56:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 The only General who spoke out against troop levels that I recall was Shinseki and he had knives out for Rummy before the war. So where are you geting "most of the sentior oficers in the Armmy" being ready to push Rummy out because of conduct of the war? The BIG lesson of the Vietnam war was that the military has to follow civilian direction of the war only so long as it makes sense. If generals had serious reservations about the way the war was fought and did not resign, they are fools, cowards and wastrels of the lives of the GIs they sent in danger's way. I don't believe that's true, but it is the implication inherent in your statement.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 3:58:41 PM|| 2004-12-20 3:58:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 64 dead yesterday. No, it's not WW2 with tens of thousands of casualties, but we don't have six million under arms, either. OBTW, by simple math, 60+ civilian casulties in a country of 23 million is the equivalent of 780 dead here. That's a rather bad day. It's coming under control? Do you think that's air you're breathing?

Posted by Weird Al 2004-12-20 4:02:23 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:02:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Weird Al, This isn't about body counts, it's about election turn out. Lotas people are going to die between now and January 30, that's a given. The question is how much the Iraqis want responsibility for running their own country. That's what we're going to find out.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 4:06:39 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:06:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 ...his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available.

Hmmm...most arguments seem to eventually circle back around to "allies" who didn't give a shi*t about mass graves or psychotic, sanctions-defying, weapons seeking maniacs before the war and wouldn't do a thing to stop them--many of them the same "allies" who don't give a sh*t about lots of dead people in the war now, Iraqi or American. Oh those empathetic, altruistic French, Spanish, Russians, Germans-what models of humanity. As long as their self-serving hides are safe, they are content to let Americans put out fires all over the earth and die doing so.

Besides, there haven't been enough dead Americans chalked up on their justice scorecard yet TM.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-20 4:07:55 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:07:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Where do i get that from - just about everyone informed on military affairs in the MSM, in blogs, etc says that Rummy is disliked in the Army, most of whom liked Shinseki and shared his opinions on the size of the army.

Resign - its not up to officers to resign when someone above them has made a call, its up to them to do the best with what they have. Look Im not saying that they were all up in arms about the size of the force, but it certainly wasnt their call. It was Rummys call, and they went along. Doesnt mean they didnt want a larger force. And, BTW, you will not that Franks said he was promised international forces to make up the difference. That wasnt his job to dispute. And it certainly isnt up to officers to resign when they think their service hasnt been given enough resources, or we'd have had massive resignations for decades. Do you think the officer corps (and not just the army) wasnt unhappy with Clinton? Do you fault officers who didnt resign then? Thats just not the way things work at the Pentagon.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 4:10:48 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:10:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Jules - yeah the french etc were shits. But we KNEW that in March 2003. It was Rummys decision to go with the force he did, and to tell Franks the international troops would make it up. The implication is he KNEW there werent going to be many foreign troops, but said otherwise to Franks

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 4:13:05 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:13:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Rummy won't go. There's a meeting at the Munich Security Conference in Munich in February he promised to attend. And Rummy keeps his word.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-12-20 4:19:02 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:19:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Lots in the Army dislike Rummy because he has pushed them so hard for transformation, cancelling Crusader, supposedly favoring the AF.

Size of the Army was not an issue with Shinseki, size of the invasion and occupation force was. I know of no others who disagreed nor have I read anything that leads me to believe there was widespread disention prior to the invasion about force size.

The Nuremburg defence is not operative for U. S. military. If they are in the chain of command and give the order, it is indeed their call. If Tommy Franks did not have the soldiers he needed, he should have resigned. Generals never think they have enough resources and never will. But there's a point where there's too little. That's the charge that's being made against Rummy and you are enlisting the generals as part of the cabal. I'm saying if they want to come out now and claim the force sent was smaller than they thought prudent then they should have said so and resigned then, not stab the guy in the back now.

I don't recall military personnel having to make decisions about sending military troops into combat after Mogadishu. I suspect there was a discusion with Mr. Clinton about exactly that topic and that is why he was so adamant about bombing the Serbs into submission instead of using ground troops.

If the Generals are such wusses they can't stand up to "bullies" like Rummy and Bush then we are unlikely to prevail in the war on terror.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 4:25:03 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:25:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Liberalhawk, busy beating himself over woulda coulda shoulda's and saying "everyone in the know" thinks like he does. Yawn. So boring.

Posted by anon 2004-12-20 4:26:37 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:26:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Body counts and the upcoming elections are intertwined beyond any hope of our separating them. Tet was a military disaster, but a PR coup for the NVA. The american civilians perceived it as showing the North could fight when and where it wanted. The violence in Iraq is indeed at a lower level, but we make a mistake if we think it is meant to demoralise us. The Iraqis are also civilians. It is meant at this point to demoralize them, to show violence has the potential to go on more less indefinitely. Will it work? We shall see. So it goes.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-12-20 4:36:05 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:36:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 How much psychic ability should we expect in SoD?
Is it a best judgment (estimate) or an exact judgment (prescience) that we are measuring him by?

Either we gave it our best and most logical estimate but were wrong on some things, or, with foreknowlege of little allied support and hostile Iraqi reception (which has been the argument of the "you-shouldn't have-gone-in-without-allies" folks), we knowingly proceeded with insufficient forces to succeed. Are you saying there was willful ignorance or duplicity on the part of Rumsfeld?

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-20 4:42:14 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 LH I consider the Phillipine insurection a major guerilla war..... 4000 US dead.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-20 4:58:54 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:58:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 2b,

"#6 Those of you who are predisposed to dislike Rummy, like I used to be, you should take note of the fact that the MSM is in an all out PR push to cut him to death with a thousand small and insignificant cuts."

Like you, I was also on the "rid Rummy" bandwagon. I couldn't find a one stop shopping location to get to the truth. Your detailed thread has convinced me to abandon the wagon. There is good information in this thread as a whole. Sorry, LH.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-12-20 4:59:23 PM|| 2004-12-20 4:59:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Well, that settles it then. Due to an overwhelmingly favorable opinion of Rummy (as expressed by us Ranters) I will tell President Bush to retain the services of one SoD Donald Rumsfeld.

Did anyone see how Brit Hume on Fox New Sunday nailed the incoherent Billy Kristol? It was truly outstanding.

Posted by Capt America 2004-12-20 5:34:31 PM|| 2004-12-20 5:34:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Could it be that there are two (or more) groups of military officers leaking to the press: Pentagon brass and brass at various commands, bases, and in the field? Likely each would see Rummy from a different POV, depending upon how responsive they deem DoD to be to their particular concerns, issues, and needs. And no, I do not claim to know who's for or against, why, or if it is legitimate praise / beefing.

Rummy has done what was asked of him, I presume, or Bush would fire him. He is not an independent operator, though I'm sure Bush's style is to give orders in the form of a desired outcome - and do it with what you have or is in your power... or I'll find someone else who can and will.

Posted by .com 2004-12-20 8:08:28 PM|| 2004-12-20 8:08:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Sounds like an MBA to me.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 8:58:30 PM|| 2004-12-20 8:58:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 .com,

Please don't tell me you are blogging on your "date"?

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-12-20 9:12:41 PM|| 2004-12-20 9:12:41 PM|| Front Page Top

00:42 Billy Hank
00:02 True German Ally
23:59 True German Ally
23:53 Grolurt Shutle8331
23:49 Grolurt Shutle8331
23:46 Aris Katsaris
23:38 Ady
23:35 True German Ally
23:17 Mike Sylwester
23:15 Mike Sylwester
23:03 cingold
23:00 Bomb-a-rama
22:52 Aris Katsaris
22:50 Poison Reverse
22:47 Asedwich
22:46 Asedwich
22:44 Aris Katsaris
22:44 Poison Reverse
22:40 Atomic Conspiracy
22:39 True German Ally
22:36 True German Ally
22:36 jackal
22:33 Frank G
22:33 Poison Reverse