Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 03/27/2004 View Fri 03/26/2004 View Thu 03/25/2004 View Wed 03/24/2004 View Tue 03/23/2004 View Mon 03/22/2004 View Sun 03/21/2004
1
2004-03-27 Home Front: Politix
Retired top brass say no to ’missile shield’
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 JAB 2004-03-27 9:51:47 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 let me guess: Shinseki and friends? All the money in the world can't stop every attack if a rogue country makes nuke materials available to AQ. Shipping is just too extensive to inspect every package and container. A shield allows our opponents to worry that they can't retaliate should our "sea of fire" rain down on them....right Kimmy?
Posted by Frank G  2004-03-27 10:17:33 AM||   2004-03-27 10:17:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 OK, retired brass, I'll one-up you: let's do both. OK, next question?

Is there something in the water in Tampa? This is not too wacky of Hoar, but Zinni has been a reliable source of the silliest comments about the MidEast for some time now. My favorite was his insistence that the Paleo-Israel thing be solved before we deal with Iraq. State/NEA has never come out with anything more idiotic than that.
Posted by IceCold  2004-03-27 10:54:35 AM||   2004-03-27 10:54:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Crowe, Shinseki, Zinni, Hoar, Clark, etc....

We'll be seing lots from these guys on the way to November. The media will eat it up and the left will all of a sudden become huge fans of military men.

Bush has made the military do lots of things it did not want to do and Rumsfeld, and his often arrogant staff, has been particularly hard on the general officers. While this might be necessary in a time of war, the press releases from disgruntled brass and sad stories of soldiers buying their own gear are going to be deadly politically for Bush.

Zinni is the one who ticks me off the most. He has been treated well, yet constantly undermines our strategy with pronouncements that boil down to a pro-Soddy, anti-Israel views. Shinseki is a jerk, but has been partially vindicated by the performance of Stryker Brigade and the difficulties we have experienced with the Iraqi occupation.
Posted by JAB 2004-03-27 2:38:18 PM||   2004-03-27 2:38:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Bush needs to tell the brass what Bradley told Patton: "Soldier, shut up and soldier".

It's not up to the brass to make policy decisions. They can offer suggestions, but the guy at the top makes the decisions. Once he does, they need to shut up and make those decisions work. That's how our system works. Those senior officers that don't understand that need to stop getting paychecks each month - they don't deserve them.

One of my major pet pieves with the military is that it doesn't understand, and doesn't teach or promote, the fact that it's NUMBER ONE JOB is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and to bear true faith and allegience to the same". That is JOB #1, yet half the people in the military don't understand that, and don't know diddly about the Constitution. Apparently, that reaches to the highest ranks of our Armed Forces.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-03-27 3:01:05 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-03-27 3:01:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 It's Untested! It's Untested! It's Untested Havent' got a chance to test these sucker's eithers. It's difficult to test the end of the world.
Posted by Shipman 2004-03-27 6:01:28 PM||   2004-03-27 6:01:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Say what you like about Zinni, but he was a great fucking leader of Marines and a damn hero. He's retired and can say whatever he likes as we do. He says what he thinks and is not someone's pundit. If something's dicked-up that crusty old bastard's gonna bitch about it. I've met the man, great American, I'd wager he's been shot at more then anyone on this blog. Take a look at what he says w/an open mind before you just start bitching about it from an ideological standpoint because it doesn't go along w/your views on the Israeli/Paleo conflict. BTW - y'all know I'm definitely not the most liberal person in the world.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-27 7:29:01 PM||   2004-03-27 7:29:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't question that Zinni has more than earned the right to sound off. I wish he'd have run for President instead of Wes Clark if had to be a Dem general in the race. That would have been an appropriate forum for doing so.

My particular problem with Zinni that he had been sounding off while serving in an official capacity as the admin's roving mideast representative (can't remember the exact title). If you don't like the policy, quit first before you criticize your boss. He finally did.

In contrast, Shinseki kept his criticisms of our strategy to official forums like when he was testifying before congress -- an official duty that came with his job.

BTW, I am glad that there are left wingers in the military. It would be a a bad day for the republic if our military became ideologically homogeneous.

I posted this story because I believe that attacks by guys like Zinni will be very effective against Bush and this is relevant to those of us who want to see the WOT strategy carried out towards completion rather than be abandoned and reversed.
Posted by JAB 2004-03-27 7:42:08 PM||   2004-03-27 7:42:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Ideology be damned! I bow to Jarhead's respect for Zinni, but I want SDI and I want it now!
It has nothing to do with how Zinni handled the Israeli/Paleo conflict: I don't want this country to be hit by nuke-tipped missiles from the Norks or even the Iranians, should they get better, or Russia, if Putin goes completely crazy!
Put up the defenses and get them operative ASAP!
Posted by Jen  2004-03-27 8:10:58 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-03-27 8:10:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Highly doubt any of these guys are true left wingers. BTW - Zinni voted for Bush in 2000 & is a Republican. So is Norman S. and many others. Bottomline - if 49 retired professional warriors tell you something you don't like, I'd take it as something you may want to look into or re-think your strategy. It's just logic; these guys got shot at, led men in battle, defeated our enemies, seen it up close, and have been getting paid for the last 30 years to be the absolute experts at this. If you read the whole article you see what their point is. Shift assets and money to securing better sea port, air port and border control then spending billions on an untested and unproven missile system. I don't know enough about either to lean one way or another. GWB can do whatever he likes, but for anyone just to dismiss 49 proven military officers and call them left wingers or worse-yet undermining America is pretty stupid imo. You may not like what they have to say, that's fine, debate the merits of the argument or the idea, win the logical game, but flinging names is a LLL tactic that we should be above, especially when it comes to our decorated vets like Zinni et al.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-27 9:38:46 PM||   2004-03-27 9:38:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 One more thing while I'm at it. It's our duty imo as citizens, Patriots, and basic conservatives to not only pat our leaders on the back when they do good, but also to point out where we need to improve. I voted for Bush, will again, but I'm not going to jerk myself off to every decision he makes if I think it's not serving the best interest of this country down the road, i.e. immigration, mars, etc. Our side of the house needs critical thinkers to make us better and more secure, not just talking heads who spew shit and play into the hands of the LLL.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-27 9:46:11 PM||   2004-03-27 9:46:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Your point is taken, Jarhead. Obviously the Dems don't have much to bring to the conversation of national security, but of course we must have a dialogue (about everything) here in the USA.
That being said, I've seen too many newspapers with an anti-Bush, Leftist agenda to trust the Boston Globe to tell me the "truth" about this or any other situation and I think that even this discussion at top levels of the Pentagon (and ex-military staffers) should have been CLASSIFIED and stayed that way.
I'm fed up to the back teeth with the President's enemies (or disgruntled "insiders" that were in the abyssmally awful Clinton Administration who are making excuses) taking their "side" of an issue to the press and the thereby supposedly to the public!
Posted by Jen  2004-03-27 10:20:11 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-03-27 10:20:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh, and Jarhead, I don't think it's an either/or situation either:
I think that the Bush Administration is working on SDI, securing foreign nukes (through the new Proliferation Initiative) and has Homeland Security working on securing our ports.
In point of fact, the Left wingers (including the EUrowhiners) have been knocking SDI since President Reagan because they secretly know it will work!
(What's the point of Kim Jung-Il or the Iranian mullahs or the Chicoms building a bunch of missiles armed with nuke warheads if they can't get to the United States or our friends and allies like Japan and Australia?)
Leading men into battle with courage and valor is one thing, but an adequate defense of our nation from nuclear missiles launched by rogue régimes is another thing altogether.
Only someone like SecDef Rummy can see the big picture, but I'm sure he regards the input of these 49 "dissenters" as "helpful."
Posted by Jen  2004-03-27 10:28:10 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-03-27 10:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I should not have assumed Zinni's political affiliation. My bad.

Still, I was making a narrow point regarding his criticism of our strategy while he responsible for helping to implement it. I agree we need to take the opinions of these people seriously for the reasons Jarhead mentions.

In posting the article, I also pointed out that Bush made a campaign promise to deploy BDM during his first term and he is fulfiling it. In this sense, the deployment timing is certainly affected by political considerations but so is this letter from the brass.

As a party, Dems have consistently questioned BDM for being a) destabilizing and b) unfeasible.
They lost their 1st argument when Russia yawned after we pulled out of the ABM treaty and Kimmie started banging his spoon on his high chair again. They are sticking to the 2nd argument and have enlisted the help of the retired brass in making this case. Regardless of whether their argument is right on the strategy, this letter is clearly a political document intended to support the Dem position on BDM. It is naive to assume otherwise.

Still, we need to consider it on its merits. So, here goes:

I am surprised that the brass did not recommend "IceCold's" approach of having both BDM and counterproliferation and port security. The letter is based on a false dichotomy. Bad logic.

I also am surprised they did not distinguish more between BDM programs. For instance, the Aegis based system builds on a proven platform. Do we want Japan rearming to the degree it would need to in order to match the nuke threat from NK? If they did, do we also approve how the rest of Asia would respond? I would like the brass to explain why it's not worth 0.1% of anticipated GDP over the next 5 years to deploy a system to counter the threat from NK.

I certainly think it is worthwhile primarily because it would protect the servicemen and women we have deployed in the region who would be NK's prime targets.
Posted by JAB 2004-03-28 12:37:26 AM||   2004-03-28 12:37:26 AM|| Front Page Top

22:27 Anonymous
22:27 Anonymous
22:24 Anonymous
22:24 Anonymous
00:00 Anonymous
10:28 Anonymous
10:28 Anonymous
10:27 Anonymous
10:27 Anonymous
10:23 Anonymous
10:23 Anonymous
10:18 Anonymous
10:18 Anonymous
10:16 Anonymous
10:16 Anonymous
10:10 Anonymous
10:10 Anonymous
09:57 Anonymous
09:57 Anonymous
00:00 Anonymous
09:30 Anonymous
09:30 Anonymous
09:27 Anonymous
09:27 Anonymous









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com