Check this out:

Rumsfeld Seeks Broad Review of Iraq Policy By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER, The New York Times   Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told military aides he wanted a review of all areas of operation in Iraq.     WASHINGTON (Jan. 6) - The Pentagon is sending a retired four-star Army general to Iraq next week to conduct an unusual "open-ended" review of the military's entire Iraq policy, including troop levels, training programs for Iraqi security forces and the strategy for fighting the insurgency, senior Defense Department officials said Thursday. The extraordinary leeway given to the highly regarded officer, Gen. Gary E. Luck, a former head of American forces in South Korea and currently a senior adviser to the military's Joint Forces Command, underscores the deep concern by senior Pentagon officials and top American commanders over the direction that the operation in Iraq is taking, and its broad ramifications for the military, said some members of Congress and military analysts. In another sign that the Iraq campaign is forcing reassessments of Pentagon policies, Army officials are now considering whether to request that the temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers approved by Congress be made permanent. One senior Army official said Thursday that the increase is likely to be needed on a permanent basis if the service is to meet its global commitments - despite the additional cost of $3 billion per year. At a meeting Thursday with his top military and civilian aides, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instructed that General Luck look at all areas of the operation, identify any weaknesses and report back in a few weeks with a confidential assessment, senior defense officials said. "He will have a very wide canvas to draw on," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman. Mr. Di Rita emphasized that Mr. Rumsfeld was very satisfied with his commanders in Iraq, but wanted to give them all the help they needed in assessing "the very dynamic situation."   General Luck, who was a senior adviser to Gen. Tommy R. Franks at his war-time headquarters in Qatar during the Iraq campaign in 2003 and knows the operation in Iraq well, will lead a small team of military specialists. A principal focus will be to address one of the biggest problems facing the military in Iraq today: how to train Iraqi soldiers and police officers to replace the American troops now securing the country. Commanders have expressed disappointment in the performance of many of the Iraqi forces. The assessment of how rapidly Iraqis can begin shouldering the security burden is driving a separate set of painful, high-level discussions at the Pentagon, where senior officials are calculating how to sustain a large force in Iraq. The number of American military personnel in Iraq rose this month to 150,000, the largest deployment since Baghdad fell. In another move that could affect hundreds of thousands of members of the National Guard and Reserve, the senior Army official said the Pentagon leadership was also considering whether to change mobilization policy to allow reservists to be called up for more than 24 months of total active service, which is the current limit.   The policy change under consideration would allow the Army to call up members of the National Guard and Reserve for duty as many times as required, but not for more than two years at a time. With American commanders in Iraq voicing growing concern over the increasingly sophisticated insurgency and gaps in Iraqi leadership, General Luck's assignment is tacit acknowledgement that the Iraq operation, including the training program, has reached a crossroads. "This is evidence that the training is not going well," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who visited Iraq recently and was an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division. General Luck, who commanded the XVIII Airborne Corps in the Persian Gulf war in 1991, is a revered figure among soldiers and a mentor to their officers, a senior figure who in a disarming, low-key way makes suggestions and recommendations that do not threaten a commander's authority, say Army officers and other people who know him. For that reason, defense officials say General Luck's review will cast a wide net. "General Luck has an awful lot of stored knowledge about the operation in Iraq," Mr. Di Rita said. "He will certainly have the opportunity to offer his insights on anything he sees." Mr. Di Rita said General Luck's assignment was welcomed by Gen. John P. Abizaid and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the two top commanders in the region. General Luck's mission is a more open-ended version of other spot assessments the military has conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the training program in Iraq to the enhancement of intelligence collection. Early last year, Maj. Gen. Karl Eikenberry recommended that the Pentagon slow down fielding the new Iraqi army to focus on building adequate militia units of what is now the Iraqi National Guard. Last April, the Pentagon sent then-Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who had just completed his command of the 101st Airborne Division, to help step up the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. Soon after, he was promoted to lieutenant general and put in charge of the training program. The success of that program is the linchpin to America's exit strategy from Iraq. The active-duty soldiers and reservists of the Army are the military personnel most under strain by the commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and for homeland security. The service ended 2004 with 499,500 active-component troops supplemented by 160,000 members of the National Guard and Army Reserve on duty. A temporary, year-long increase of 30,000 soldiers approved by Congress would allow the Army to officially grow to a strength of 512,400 this year. A senior Army official said the question of a permanent increase in active-duty personnel would be part of the sweeping review of strategy, budgets and weapons now under way and called the Quadrennial Defense Review. It is mandated by Congress and due in December. "As we have gone through this process, it is apparent to us that we're going to have to address whether we can get back down off the 30,000," the senior Army official said. "I don't think we will be able to." The Army official discussed the service's current thinking on condition of anonymity, because no proposals have been offered. The Army is restructuring its combat brigades and its division and corps headquarters during the next few years to increase the number of combat brigades to 43, and perhaps to 48, from the current 33. As part of that program, the Army is seeking to find efficiencies, is rebalancing missions between the active force and the reserves and has shifted a number of administrative duties to civilians to free up personnel in uniform for jobs in the field. But in this rebuilding, "the active component formations may have to be more robust," the senior Army official said. "That means we may have to hold on to more end strength." In the Army, planners have debated many personnel numbers, with one official involved in the review saying that the debate has ranged from 575,000 active-duty personnel to fewer than 500,000. The senior official who spoke Thursday gave no indication of a request larger than 30,000 additional personnel. The official said that although the current mix of Army forces in Iraq is nearly a 50-50 split between active-duty soldiers and reservists, the active-duty share of the next rotation will grow to 70 percent because the Army is simply running out of reserve units to call up, given the current 24-month limit on active duty. The Army will decide in weeks whether to ask Mr. Rumsfeld to change Pentagon mobilization policy to expand the limit on how often and how long members of the Army National Guard and Reserve may be called up. "That's going to be one of the issues we'll have to bring forward," the official said. "We have to plan."

An investigation, it seems that the difference in security in the British and American zones, the lack of progress in getting the Iraqi police and security forces to stand on their own has been noticed.  Also the escalating costs and amout of resources this is absorbing is threatening future plans- both in the long term (the damage its threateneing to do to new weapons procurement plans) and the near term (the Bush administration still is interested in overthrowing Iran).

Rumsfeld needs to be fired!  He's has blundered his way through this whole conflict and still doesn't seem to have control of it.  Plus I don't like his attitude lately.  He said "you have to go to war with the army you have".  Well no shit, he's been in charge of the military for over 4 years now and one of the things he did when he first got appointed was to change the military policy of being able to fight two wars at the same time to being able to fight one war and a bunch of conflicts at the same time.  He was going to make the military faster and more effective.  Well Rumsfeld, you have the military you wanted...the bull shit excuse you have to use what you have as a way to dismiss the problems is not valid because you have exactly what you wanted.  You're Fired!

Quoted: Rumsfeld needs to be fired!  He's has blundered his way through this whole conflict and still doesn't seem to have control of it.  Plus I don't like his attitude lately.  He said "you have to go to war with the army you have".  Well no shit, he's been in charge of the military for over 4 years now and one of the things he did when he first got appointed was to change the military policy of being able to fight two wars at the same time to being able to fight one war and a bunch of conflicts at the same time.  He was going to make the military faster and more effective.  Well Rumsfeld, you have the military you wanted...the bull shit excuse you have to use what you have as a way to dismiss the problems is not valid because you have exactly what you wanted.  You're Fired!

First off, you need to take a deep breath.  Rumsfield is very liked by the troops, does that tell you anything?  Second his quote is the absolute truth, he was referring to the military that bush inherited from clinton after clinton gutted the military for 8 yrs.  You need to always be very suspicous of anything that the media goes on a rampage about in this instance Rummys quote.  This is pure partisan politics, because what he said was a slap to their liberal god clinton.  He has made the military faster and more effective if he hadnt it would be 10 times worse in Iraq right now.  

Cross refrence this: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=311652&page=1

SWIRE how do you know its Rumsfelds fault and NOT the fault of the local commanders?
The British seem to think that our local commanders ARE doing a lot of things wrong- and they can back up their talk by pointing to how comparitively quiet their AO's are.

The movement of the Black Watch north MAY have been a test...

And for a lot of our General officers, they have been able to go their whole carrers many of them without ever commanding troops in combat, this is the first sustained combat the US Armed forces have been engaged in since 1972.  We have never had to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

this is simply examining our situation and making appropriate adjustments.  wars never go exactly as planned; one must adjust accordingly.  we will successed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we desperately need to boost the US Army back up to a full 18 divisions at a bare minimum. The Cold War may indeed be over. But there's a helluva lot of small hot ones ongoing and possible in the near future. Sometimes a bunch of wars and deployments (see peacekeeping) can create a bigger burden on the system than one large one. That's especially true when you are stretched to the limit in many regions of the world.

As far as the Iraqi forces, I'm not sure what needs to be done. But here are some suggestions:

1. Rigorous training. If necessary, take the recruits into a safe area and train them until they are proficient and motivated. Their officers need to be double tough and competent.

2. Make sure they are well equipped and paid. If these Iraqi soldiers see US troops with all sorts of goodies such as body armor and armored vehicles while they are running around in Toyotas, that's probably not going to boost their morale. In fact, it will likely give them a "to hell with this, they have the equipment and we don't.....let them do the fighting" attitude.

3. You need to make sure you don't have insurgents infiltrating the ranks of the Iraqi military. I wonder if it has occurred to use a polygraph test as a standard procedure when selecting new recruits? Such a simple measure could really save them lots of trouble down the road.

4. We need to figure out a way to improve the quality of the training the Iraqi's get while also boosting the number of guys we are training. Unless this happens, we'll still have the same number of troops there 10 years from now. The goal is to get an Iraqi military in place that's strong enough we can start to withdraw our forces.

Just my opinion.

-CH

Quoted: SWIRE has been swept in by the media's edit of Rumsfeld's comments. Read the entire statement. "I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place where they are needed. I'm told that they are being ... I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter, on the part of the Army, of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate they believe ... it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. "I can assure you that Gen. Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly Gen. Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip." And so on for another 117 words.

All of which is, according to the British, a waste of time... who should we beleve?

Seems I was right all along

Quoted: Seems I was right all along

That is very doubtful...

Quoted: Quoted: Seems I was right all along That is very doubtful...

Again ---------- time will tell.

It always does...................

Quoted: Seems I was right all along

Bless his heart.

Remember that Rumsfeld's plan for taking out Iraq was just like Afganistan--use air power and SF to knock down the Saddam government and put in a friendly local chieftain.  

GunLvr

Quoted: Quoted: SWIRE has been swept in by the media's edit of Rumsfeld's comments. Read the entire statement. "I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place where they are needed. I'm told that they are being ... I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter, on the part of the Army, of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate they believe ... it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. "I can assure you that Gen. Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly Gen. Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip." And so on for another 117 words. All of which is, according to the British, a waste of time... who should we beleve?

A very valid point. I mean afterall, the British are running around on foot or riding bicycles. Perhaps the problem isn't that we aren't armored enough. Maybe the real problem is we are too heavy now!

And think of where most of our deaths are happening.......vehicles! The 7 troops yesterday were killed in a Bradley by an IED.

Folks, vehicles can put you in a very serious disadvantage when it comes to such booby traps. Vehicles require roads and clear areas to travel. Therefore it's easy for the enemy to place his explosives and hard for us to defend against.

Light forces that move on foot or by air would be much harder for the Iraqi's to hit with IED's because they aren't limited in the same sense vehicles are. Foot soldiers can travel through buildings, over buildings, around buildings, through narrow alleys, passageways and backyards. The enemy would have no idea which way to direct his explosives because he has no idea how you might approach. But when everyone is running around in AFV's and Hummers, it's pretty damn easy to determine exactly where the target will pass and where to set up your killzone. It's very simple really.

I think you just made one hell of an observation there ARMDLBRL. Good eye.

-CH

Right about what?

What exactly in that article justifies your response?
Quote.



I suspect that you just posted without reading it, because the article is not anti-rumsfeld.

Quoted: Quoted: Rumsfield is very liked by the troops, does that tell you anything?

It's true.

The troops like Rumsfeld, they were indifferent about Cohen, they did NOT like Aspin, and they liked Cheney.
Troops aren't stupid.  They can read, too.

Oh so just because I don't tow the kiss Rumsfeld's ass view "I've been brain washed by the media".  That's bullshit.  I never mentioned the media, I didn't take their spin on it, I heard Rumsfeld say it for himself.

For the last 4 years Bush has said whatever Rumsfeld ask for he will get.  Rumsfeld has always said Bush has been 100% behind him and he get's what he asks for.  Now the big question is do you believe this or not?  I believe it...the media doesn't.  The media has been trying to blame Rumsfeld and Bush for not doing anything.  So if I've been "suckered in" by the media why is my view the exact opposite of what they have been saying?

As for the degraded military under Clinton.  Damn get over it already, yeah Clinton fucked the military, that was 5 years ago.  Since then, in their own words Rumsfeld has had full support of the President to get what he wants.  Soldiers that joined the military when Rumsfeld was appointed have completed their 4 years and now out of the military.

What everone seems to be saying is that Rumsfeld with the full support of the President has not been able to make any effective changes in the military in over 4 years.  I call bullshit on that.  Rumsfeld has had the time, the resources, the support of Congress, and the President to make his changes.  It's not like Rumsfeld has been having to battle Congress for funding, he's gotten it every time.  

Sure there are a lot of people that support Rumsfled, there are a lot of American's that support Kerry, what's your point?  There are also a lot of soldiers wives that voted for Kerry because they wanted their husbands home.  What does that tell you?  

Quoted: Seems I was right all along

Uhhhhhhhhhh, no.

Your assessment all along has been that the war is wrong, we will lose, yadda yadda yadda (insert leftist agenda material here).

Our assessment isn't the gloom and doom you liberals are painting. We are simply looking at ways of improving how we operate there.

The coach of a football team who's tied, slightly behind at halftime, or struggling in some manner of the game, doesn't give up or quit on his team. No. He looks at what the team can do better and then comes out in the second half ready to kick ass.

That's the difference between us Cyanide. You are always expecting (and it appears sometimes hoping) for the worst.

We on the other hand (we as in most arf.com members) are still very much in the game. We are just looking to see what adjustments can be made to give us more of an edge.

So please, don't flatter yourself.

-CH

I knew if I looked in this thread I would find [cyanide] here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rumsfield is very liked by the troops, does that tell you anything?   It's true. The troops like Rumsfeld, they were indifferent about Cohen, they did NOT like Aspin, and they liked Cheney. Troops aren't stupid.  They can read, too. thats not the vibe around the 1CD AO

I suppose there are different attitudes in different units.

The Marine Corps seems to feel this way. (at least according to everyone I've spoken to, in my unit and in others across the Corps)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rumsfield is very liked by the troops, does that tell you anything?   It's true. The troops like Rumsfeld, they were indifferent about Cohen, they did NOT like Aspin, and they liked Cheney. Troops aren't stupid.  They can read, too. thats not the vibe around the 1CD AO I suppose there are different attitudes in different units. The Marine Corps seems to feel this way. (at least according to everyone I've spoken to, in my unit and in others across the Corps)

The Marines also have better control of their AO in the country.
As usual, as with just about every war in history, the view of the troops on their ground towards their leadership corrisponds to how well their operations are going.

Hence the investigation into the differences that has been started...

Quoted: Sure there are a lot of people that support Rumsfled, there are a lot of American's that support Kerry, what's your point?  There are also a lot of soldiers wives that voted for Kerry because they wanted their husbands home.  What does that tell you?

That tells me that there are a lot of wives who wanted their husbands home.

And that's a perfectly natural and typically emotional reason by which to cast one's vote.

It's not a good way to run your foreign policy, or to fight a war though.


The people of Iraq felt the same way as these wives of whom you speak.
THEY knew that if Kerry was elected, he'd pull us out of there (according to one of his statements).
Guess which statement Al Jazeera pushed?
This leaves the Iraqis with the feeling that if they HELP the Americans, they'd catch hell from the Terrorists when the Americans are gone.  (That's why promising an early withdrawal was so irresponsible of Kerry).
Because of this, many Iraqis who might have helped us, waited to see how the election went.
How many troops died because of this?
Who knows....

Quoted: Oh so just because I don't tow the kiss Rumsfeld's ass view "I've been brain washed by the media".  That's bullshit.  I never mentioned the media, I didn't take their spin on it, I heard Rumsfeld say it for himself. For the last 4 years Bush has said whatever Rumsfeld ask for he will get.  Rumsfeld has always said Bush has been 100% behind him and he get's what he asks for.  Now the big question is do you believe this or not?  I believe it...the media doesn't.  The media has been trying to blame Rumsfeld and Bush for not doing anything.  So if I've been "suckered in" by the media why is my view the exact opposite of what they have been saying? As for the degraded military under Clinton.  Damn get over it already, yeah Clinton fucked the military, that was 5 years ago.  Since then, in their own words Rumsfeld has had full support of the President to get what he wants.  Soldiers that joined the military when Rumsfeld was appointed have completed their 4 years and now out of the military. What everone seems to be saying is that Rumsfeld with the full support of the President has not been able to make any effective changes in the military in over 4 years.  I call bullshit on that.  Rumsfeld has had the time, the resources, the support of Congress, and the President to make his changes.  It's not like Rumsfeld has been having to battle Congress for funding, he's gotten it every time.   Sure there are a lot of people that support Rumsfled, there are a lot of American's that support Kerry, what's your point?  There are also a lot of soldiers wives that voted for Kerry because they wanted their husbands home.  What does that tell you?

Dang where do I begin?  Okay its not about kissing Rummys ass, its about realizing that he has one of the hardest jobs in the whole FRIGGEN world to.  You obviously didnt hear ALL that he said if you had you would see how the media completly distorted it to attack him.  As much as I would like to "get over it" about how clinton fucked the military you just cant rebuild a org like the U.S. Military back up to peak pwr in 4 yrs.  Its much easier to cut down the military then it is to build it up.  Building it up takes trng, investment, recruiting, supporting etc etc etc.  Cutting down just takes a damn Reduction In Force paper saying your services are no longer required and BAM your out the door.  

Again Rummy has done a lot of changes and has brought the forces way back from were they were 4 yrs ago.  Thats why we rolled over Afgan like in a matter of months, newsflash!  Afgan is a back water theater now because of how good we are.  The Terroists are in vastly bigger #s in Iraq, that is why its going to be a lot harder and longer.

So I gues my point is that anybody who voted for Kerry is a friggen idiot! including the so called military wives if they think that getting kerry in office would have made things better.  That is exactly what the Islamic nutbags want is somebody liberal and weak running the "Great Satan".  

Dude you are making KY look bad so why dont you take it somewhere else!