[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rumsfeld = JACKASS (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/29/2003 4:49:33 PM EDT
|
This is unforgivable & a betrayal of our troops: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48265-2003Mar29.html[/url] |
|
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48265-2003Mar29.html]Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq[/url] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported. In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way. "He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground." It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance. "They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying. A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article. Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war. He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait. Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate. Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said. "The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said. The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory. Some 125,000 U.S. and British troops are now in Iraq. U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to bring in another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April. |
|
Link through Drudgereport, it's the main story. sgtar15, you won't be saying that after you read the article, so try reading it 1st before opening your hole. A huge split is brewing between the military & civilian leadership over how this war was planned & run. Richard Perle has quit too. Here's a synopsis: Reuters Saturday, March 29, 2003; 5:33 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported. In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way. "He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground." It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance. AND MORE: Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said. "The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said. The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory. |
|
From the article: He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait. If the guerrilla-style attacks were unexpected then he his way more than just a dumbass. |
|
Quoted: From the article: He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait. If the guerrilla-style attacks were unexpected then he his way more than just a dumbass. |
|
WTF people?!?!?! Sounds like some of you are signing on to the idea that we are [b]LOSING[/b] this war! Yes, we are meeting more resistance than originally planned, but thats war. 100,000 more troops are on the way. Is that enough or should we send in the Boy Scouts? I know that in war, definately the more troops the merrier, but enough of the doom and gloom shit... |
| How is it possible that in 10 days we have covered 250 miles, conquered 50% of the total terrain of the entire country, and it is described as a "stalemate". What a bunch of CRAP. We are ripping these bastards a new asshole, jumbo sized, and the libs keep trying to spin it into a "quagmire". F the criminal liberal media. Rummy is the man, and has the toughest job in the world right now. GO RUMMY!! |
|
In a nutshell, these guys (Rumsfeld, etc.) are trying to do this with as few soldiers as possible. This way is doesn't look like a MASSIVE US INVASION. IF they orginally sent a TON of troops then the Washington Post would be reporting the MASSIVE US INVASION of Iraq and the peacenics would be in a tizzy. So they try and make due with a smaller force, hoping on assistance from the oppressed Iraqi population and now the Wahington Post is trying to slam them force not sending enough guys. Bottom line, when you are dealing with The Washington Post, Duh.com, liberals and hippies it doesn't matter WHAT you do. They will find some way to criticize you. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: From the article: He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait. If the guerrilla-style attacks were unexpected then he his way more than just a dumbass. Please dont make fun of me, youre hurting my feelings. But you forgot to mention DU regular with an AR. Who started the thread about the sunset of the 94 crime bill? WHo? Anyone? |
|
Quoted: Larry G.=JACKASS Are you really that much of a schlong to believe that liberal rag??? Almost their whole editorial content is usually devoted to gay AIDS quilt fashion shows and how great Hillary Clinton is for NY!!!! You're calling larryg a jackass for what he wrote? Let me guess, you didn't score very high on reading comprehension tests, did you? |
| I agree with sgtar, this is monday morning quarterbacking. We will probably get much more of it as the war on the ground consolidates it's forces. TV is probably mulling over an awards show for this war at a later date too. Good taste may prevent it if there is any left in Hollywood or New York. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Larry G.=JACKASS Are you really that much of a schlong to believe that liberal rag??? Almost their whole editorial content is usually devoted to gay AIDS quilt fashion shows and how great Hillary Clinton is for NY!!!! You're calling larryg a jackass for what he wrote? Let me guess, you didn't score very high on reading comprehension tests, did you? |
|
First off, I want to say the Washington Post is a really good paper. It's probably the leading paper in the country now, since the NY Times went off the deep end and became very partisan and anti-Bush. Washington Post is a lot more balanced and objective. You might have noticed about hlf of Drudge's links are to the Post these days. Second, I think Rumsfeld's doing a decent job. The minor setbacks are NO BIG DEAL and I have complete faith the military will be able to cope with their challenges and that the administration will give the military anything they need to do their jobs. Finanlly, for a little perspective; what if we had today's media covering the Normandy invasion? "- The anti-aircraft fire disrupted the paratroop droppings, spreading them for miles, and causing great confusion. "- The initial landings on the Utah beach were off the mark by about a half mile as a I recall. The strong tides carried the landing craft from the correct landing point. "- The Army Air Force bombers dropped their bombs inland from Omaha Beach, missing key German positions that later lead to the death of so many American soldiers on the beach. "- Allied intelligence didn't realize the hedgerows were so tall, and would cause so much havoc. The initial breakout strategy was obsolete. "Many of today's media would sum this up as a complete failure of the invasion, but it wasn't. The paratroopers, in small groups adjusted to the situation. Patratoopers who didn't know even know each other began working together to achieve objectives. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. made a quick decision on the beach, saying "we'll start the war right here." He communicated back to the invasion fleet to bring troops to his position. Despite horrific losses, the troops on Omaha moved ahead and prevailed. Troops in the field developed tactics to kill Germans dug into strong defensive positions. This included mounting obstacles from the beach on the front of tanks to break through the hedgerows. So we now see D-Day for what it was, a tremendous accomplishment, in which the troops adjusted to the situation on the ground. Just like our troops are adjusting to the situation in Iraq." [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp[/url] |
|
Quoted: Maybe...just maybe Rummy is okay and the Post writer is a jackass. Ever think of that? Sgtar15 Right on the money. We don't need the news media telling how our military and Sec of Defense should run the war. Rummy has been around since Vietnam. The biggest problem that I've seen, (sitting back in my easy chair with my AR on the coffee table in front of the TV) was that "Turkey" wouldn't let the 4th Inf Div mount a northern offensive from their country. Turkey...their name should have given us a clue. |
|
Some of you may be mistaking my criticism of not having enough armor/more divisions there as opposition to the war effort. Gimme a break. If we had waited for the 4th & the elements of 1st Cav, etc that were supposed to have been there, this would have been over... |
|
Quoted: This is unforgivable & a betrayal of our troops: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48265-2003Mar29.html[/url] How is this a betrayal of the troops? That article is bogus--it says we are at a stalemate. Do you believe things are a tie right now? If no, then everything else in the article is irrelevant. If yes...we might as well end this thread now, because that would mean you are not intelligent enough for debate. Notice, it says: Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while [b]he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces[/b], a key component in the war. Why do you think that is? It should be obvious from the most cursory glance at history that the special operations folks like the guys who know how to win wars and dislike those who do not (insert Clinton reference here). |
|
We are 10 days into this war. [size=6]10 DAYS![/size=6] Two of those days were spent hunkered down while a MAJOR sandstorm blew through and at least half another day while we got all the sand out of the equipment. We are like 200 miles into hostile territory. Appromately 70 miles from their capital. We've killed hundreds of hostile troops, if not thousands. We've taken thousands of P.O.W.'s., fed them, clothed them and relocated them. We've captured two major airbases and fixed them and are now using Iraqi military airbases to launch our own bombers. I'd say this war is going very well. I'm extremely proud of our President, the Generals, our Air Force, our Navy and especially the troops on the ground. God bless them all. God bless our troops. God bless our President |
|
I don't understand why some are lambasting the Washington Post when it's a Reuters news report. Here's another slant to the same story. [url]http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/5472430.htm[/url] I suppose [url=http://www.lordly.com/talent/lordly/GallowayJoseph.html] Joseph L. Galloway[/url] the author is a DUng sympathizer too. |
|
Quoted: We're lucky the generls convinced Rumsefeld to send 250,000. He was thinking more along the lines of 50k-70k originally. |
|
Zonan: "Notice, it says: Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war. Why do you think that is? It should be obvious from the most cursory glance at history that the special operations folks like the guys who know how to win wars and dislike those who do not (insert Clinton reference here)." So by your reasoning the "Army folks" don't "like the guys who win wars" since THEY don't get along w/ Rumsfeld... Sure. Anyway, you guys do realize that it's entirely possible that even though the war is going pretty well, a lot of military people still might not like how the civilian leadership has handled & continues to handle this situation. Does anyone also care to address how we were so off on the "hearts & minds" issue, and how even the "liberated" Shiites despise our troops as occupying invaders? What makes me laugh is that only months ago we were talking about how islamic societies seem incapable of sustaining free/democratic style governments - all of a sudden the thinking was that they'd change into a federal system? It pisses me off - this kind of shit puts our troops in a world of hurt. You guys want everyone to walk in lockstep and turn a blind eye to these intelligence screw-ups that endanger our troops... |
|
Quoted: How is it possible that in 10 days we have covered 250 miles, conquered 50% of the total terrain of the entire country, and it is described as a "stalemate". What a bunch of CRAP. We are ripping these bastards a new asshole, jumbo sized, and the libs keep trying to spin it into a "quagmire". F the criminal liberal media. Rummy is the man, and has the toughest job in the world right now. GO RUMMY!! |
|
Oh, anyone care to respond to "LoginName's" post? I guess you guys think Joe Galloway is a liberal media plant too, huh? ...and as far as my comment about this thing being over if Rumsfeld's dumb ass had waited for the 4th Inf & the rest to get there - you guys are going on & on about how far our current force got - imagine where we would be if we had waited & DOUBLED that force as our military wanted to do. Would an extra 2-3 weeks of delay have been worth the extra American lives saved by going balls-to-the-wall, instead of piecemeal like we're doing now. HELL YES. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How is it possible that in 10 days we have covered 250 miles, conquered 50% of the total terrain of the entire country, and it is described as a "stalemate". What a bunch of CRAP. We are ripping these bastards a new asshole, jumbo sized, and the libs keep trying to spin it into a "quagmire". F the criminal liberal media. Rummy is the man, and has the toughest job in the world right now. GO RUMMY!! That may not be a valid comparison given our ability to resupply and the fact we won't be trudging through snow in -30 degree weather. There are other differences as well, most of which are fairly obvious. |
|
Quoted: Oh, anyone care to respond to "LoginName's" post? I guess you guys think Joe Galloway is a liberal media plant too, huh? ...and as far as my comment about this thing being over if Rumsfeld's dumb ass had waited for the 4th Inf & the rest to get there - you guys are going on & on about how far our current force got - imagine where we would be if we had waited & DOUBLED that force as our military wanted to do. Would an extra 2-3 weeks of delay have been worth the extra American lives saved by going balls-to-the-wall, instead of piecemeal like we're doing now. HELL YES. Yes he is a liberal plant. I seen him posting on the DU the other day. But really, you get no argument from me, waiting until we were ready sounds alot better than balls-to-the-wall, bringing my friends home in a bodybag. |
| I have 2 word for you, VICTORY. Wait, that was only one word. I must have gotten confused with all this anti-america, anti-Bush, anti-everyfuckingthingIlove bullshit every where I go that my brain has turned into coon shit. What the fuck does anyone of us realy know about our plan to victory? I dont have LEVEL I,II,IIIA,or IIIB clearance and neither does anyone here. So, all Im saying why dont we just watch the hour special on Discovery Channel,TLC, and The History Channel to go over what you would have done different. Jason |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How is it possible that in 10 days we have covered 250 miles, conquered 50% of the total terrain of the entire country, and it is described as a "stalemate". What a bunch of CRAP. We are ripping these bastards a new asshole, jumbo sized, and the libs keep trying to spin it into a "quagmire". F the criminal liberal media. Rummy is the man, and has the toughest job in the world right now. GO RUMMY!! |
|
Quoted: In a nutshell, these guys (Rumsfeld, etc.) are trying to do this with as few soldiers as possible. This way is doesn't look like a MASSIVE US INVASION. IF they orginally sent a TON of troops then the Washington Post would be reporting the MASSIVE US INVASION of Iraq and the peacenics would be in a tizzy. So they try and make due with a smaller force, hoping on assistance from the oppressed Iraqi population and now the Wahington Post is trying to slam them force not sending enough guys. Bottom line, when you are dealing with The Washington Post, Duh.com, liberals and hippies it doesn't matter WHAT you do. They will find some way to criticize you. Right onv SteyrAUG! Look the key concept that they are beating into the ground is FLEXIBILITY... That means they are dedicated to finding a solution, PERIOD! If President Bush said he was gonna send 500,000 troops in on day one, we probably wouldn't be there. But, now, if the Pres needs 500,000 troops he will DEFINITELY get them. It is the same way with the budget proposal. They refused to discuss it until we were ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED! Only a fool would have played his hand straight from day one! All of the intentions are broadcast straight to Sodomy... Not only are we waging a just war against a evil and brutal man, we are having to wage a war against the left wing political types whose only agenda is beating conservatives. In essence, GET A GRIP! Our men are dedicated to to this fight (from the Pres down to the ground-pounders). Yes, men will die. Yes, we will all ask, "Why wasn't Puff flyin' overhead? Where were the gunships? Why weren't there more pieces of artillery? etc etc" But the reality is, folks are still gonna die! We are fighting this war to win it, not to kill every soldier in Iraq. To do this, we will have to make strategic/political moves that will have little to do with the force on force confrontation. |
|
Quoted: ...and as far as my comment about this thing being over if Rumsfeld's dumb ass had waited for the 4th Inf & the rest to get there - you guys are going on & on about how far our current force got - imagine where we would be if we had waited & DOUBLED that force as our military wanted to do. Would an extra 2-3 weeks of delay have been worth the extra American lives saved by going balls-to-the-wall, instead of piecemeal like we're doing now. HELL YES. Wasn't that the same argument Montgomery used on Patton? You still have not demonstrated how doubling or tripling the force would have ended the war by now. What branch were you in? Did you study maneuver warfare? |
|
Guys...step back away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. This story is making the rounds on page one of the most liberal major print outlets in the country, led by the NYT and the WP, BOTH of which have a serious anti-Bush agenda. At the root of this is a long-time simmering, behind-the-scenes grudge match between certain of the senior officers in the Five Sided Wind Tunnel and Rummy. For several reasons, the Army has been loath to change certain things. Some of the generals are still pissed about losing the Crusader. Many really don't like the attention and budget that the special forces guys have seen go WAY up in the last couple of years. West Point is not necessarily Special Forces friendly. Some of the more disgruntled generals have obviously begun quacking to the media, now that the war isn't going according to their personal ideas of how it ought to be conducted. There may or may NOT be problems now in the field. There may or may Not have been some poor decisions made long ago. That does NOT give these Army prima donnas the right to go public..."ON BACKGROUND" though to protect their chickenshit careers. If they have a real gripe, a MAN of honor would make it known to the SECDEF and IF the boss chose not to follow this officer's advice, then that officer would either shut the fuck up and obey the orders, OR resign/retire his commission. Also, we must remember that the liberal media, military geniuses that they all are, are hyperventilating now about the war's progress. I am really getting sick listening to the reports on all the networks and NPR slant, spin, shade, and outright LIE about shit that they know absolutely fucking NOTHING about. Finally, I have a deep suspicion that the officers or senior civilian defense weenies who have talked to the press are holdovers from the Clinton administration and perfectly willing to hurt the war effort and our country in order to hurt Bush. They KNOW that this story will get legs in the Post and Times and be picked up by the major TV/radio media outlets tomorrow and be all over the Sunday talk shows. I'd love to find out who did this and make them back up their cheesy accusations. Lastly...I can almost guarantee that this info on planning and ops was classified, probably to the Top Secret level. I think it is time for some polygraphs. Oh...and FINALLY...(Really!), don't believe much of what you read in the Post or the Times. Neither of those rags does much of what I'd label as "objective" reporting any more. In Northern VA, if you want the NEWS, you read the Washington Times or watch FNC. |
|
The media has to put a spin on everything to sell. Notice how there hasn't been any body counts on the Iraqis? Thats because it is in the thousands!!!!! Ya! Let freedom ring!!!! If Iraq uses chem weapons??? We will witness the use a tactical nuclear weapon. Maybe the same company who designed the new World Trade Center building can come up with something nice for Bagdad's new look? By the way, what does DU mean??? |