| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| VDH on Rumsfeld Brouhaha: "Rumsfeld's resignation would be a grave mistake" |
| 2004-12-24 |
| Hanson bases his argument on three legs: First,... [t]hat the fluid lines in Iraq are different not just from those in World War II or Korea, but even Vietnam, Gulf War I, Mogadishu, and Afghanistan became clear only over months. ... Would that World War II Sherman tanks after three years in the field had enough armor to stop a single Panzerfaust: At war's end German teenagers with cheap proto-RPGs were still incinerating Americans in their "Ronson Lighters." Second, being unprepared in war is, tragically, nothing new. It now seems near criminal that Americans fought in North Africa with medium Stuart tanks, whose 37-millimeter cannons ("pea-shooters" or "squirrel guns") and thin skins ensured the deaths of hundreds of GIs. Climbing into Devastator torpedo bombers was tantamount to a death sentence in 1942; when fully armed and flown into a headwind, these airborne relics were lucky to make 100 knots — not quite as bad as sending fabric Brewster Buffaloes up against Zeros. Yet FDR and George Marshall, both responsible for U.S. military preparedness, had plenty of time to see what Japan and Germany were doing in the late 1930s. Under the present logic of retrospective perfection, both had years to ensure our boys adequate planes and tanks — and thus should have resigned when the death toll of tankers and pilots soared. Even by 1945 both the Germans and the Russians still had better armor than the Americans. In the first months of Korea, our early squadrons of F-80s were no match for superior Mig-15s. Early-model M-16 rifles jammed with tragic frequency in Vietnam. The point is not to excuse the military naiveté and ill-preparedness that unnecessarily take lives, but to accept that the onslaught of war is sometimes unforeseen and its unfolding course persistently unpredictable. Ask the Israelis about the opening days of the Yom Kippur War, when their armor was devastated by hand-held Soviet-made anti-tank guns and their vaunted American-supplied air force almost neutralized by SAMs — laxity on the part of then perhaps the world's best military a mere six years after a previous run-in with Soviet-armed Arab enemies. Third, the demand for Rumsfeld's scalp is also predicated on supposedly too few troops in the theater. But here too the picture is far more complicated. Vietnam was no more secure with 530,000 American soldiers in 1968 than it was with 24,000 in 1972. How troops are used, rather than their sheer numbers, is the key to the proper force deployment — explaining why Alexander the Great could take a Persian empire of 2 million square miles with an army less than 50,000, while earlier Xerxes with 500,000 on land and sea could not subdue tiny Greece, one-fortieth of Persia's size. Offensive action, not troop numbers alone, creates deterrence; mere patrolling and garrison duty will always create an insatiable demand for ever more men and an enormously visible American military bureaucracy — and a perennial Iraqi dependency on someone else to protect the nascent democracy. Thus if the argument can be made that Rumsfeld was responsible for either disbanding the Iraqi army or the April stand-down from Fallujah — the latter being the worst American military decision since Mogadishu — then he deserves our blame. But so far, from what we know, the near-fatal decision to pull-back from Fallujah was made from either above Rumsfeld (e.g., the election-eve White House) or below him (Paul Bremmer and the Iraqi provisional government). Fact-based arguments with airtight logic supported by a thorough command of history both ancient and recent: obviously, this man cannot be an MSM journalist. |
| Posted by:lex |
| #8 I also don't recall any howls for Eisenhower's or Marshall's heads because of the numerous screwups on D-Day, or for Montgomery's head after the Operation Market Garden debacle. War is a rough business. Mistakes are made, things almost never go as predicted, necessities are overlooked, and no matter how skilled and well-equipped we are or how cleverly and bravely we fight, the enemy will always manage to get in a few punches anyway. Just a bit of trivia, for some perspective on just how "badly" things are going in Iraq: if things continue there the way they have been for another 31 years, we will have racked up the same number of casualties as we had IN ONE DAY, on September 17, 1862, at the Battle of Antietam. Hang in there, y'all. As Rummy said, it's gonna be a long, hard slog. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-12-24 5:19:01 PM |
| #7 what davemac said. rumsfeld's not very tactful but he's usually right on the money: since time immemorial, generals have gone with the army they had rather than the army they wished they'd had |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-24 4:08:27 PM |
| #6 >The fate of the crews of those M4s was never a serious consideration for the admin guys back in Washington.< I think George Patton had a lot to do with the decision to go with the Sherman over the Pershing. (IIRC, it was a major point in the book 'Deathtraps' by a tank repair guy.) |
| Posted by: davemac 2004-12-24 11:03:44 AM |
| #5 During WW1,the U.S. had thousands of BAR's(Browning Automatic Rifle)stored in warehouses.They military refused to issue them to the troops,Why,because it was such an effective weapon it was feared it would fall into German hands.This forced our troops to use some French POS. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-12-24 10:41:08 AM |
| #4 60 years ago today, Americans fought in the Battle of the Bulge and died in the M4 Shermans with inadequate armor and weapons against some of the best German tanks fielded in WWII. Sitting stateside were newer T/M-26 'Pershing' tanks which were as good if not better than the German equipment. They sat because the bean counters calculating weight in shippage, could ship two M4s for every M26. The fate of the crews of those M4s was never a serious consideration for the admin guys back in Washington. |
| Posted by: Whaing Wherong1888 2004-12-24 9:21:09 AM |
| #3 The MSM loves dead Americans, especially dead American soldiers. Conversely, the MSM hates live Americans, especially American soldiers. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-12-24 4:46:56 AM |
| #2 It always boils down to "Who do you trust?" I do NOT trust the MSM, the partisan political hacks, or any foreign entity outside the coalition. Their stake in this effort lies in failure. Where they want to go is a crazy mix of isolationism and multiculti New World Order - neither of which are good for American interests. IMHO. Their way sucks, so fug 'em. I DO trust Bush, and by extension, Rummy, the Military Commanders, and certainly the troops. Their stake lies in success, defined as the Iraqis running a bona-fide Republic and handling the nasties as they see fit but, indeed, handling them. That is where we're headed and it makes sense to me that we should go that way. So rock on. Everybody calling for someone's head is living down in the dirt, playing partisan games for temporary political gain. They are despicable to me, when so much is on the line. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-24 3:45:24 AM |
| #1 Every time I listen to Rumsfeld and Bush's hyperventilating critics on the war's course I'm reminded of Joe Kennedy Sr.'s vile fulminations against "that crippled bastard [Roosevelt] who killed my boy Joe." Get some perspective, folks. And a little moral decency while you're at it. There's a war on, and we and Rummy and Bush intend to win it. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-24 12:44:01 AM |