Posted on 08/29/2006 11:29:58 AM PDT by meandog
HAMPTON--U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, a Republican, hasn't ever agreed with Sen. Hillary Clinton on anything. But she is siding with the New York Democrat in calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.
"I've made no bones about it the last two years," the 1st District congresswoman told members of the Hampton Roads Chapter of the American Society of Military Comptrollers. "He's probably a nice guy, but I don't think he's a great secretary of defense."
Davis said she based her determination in part on Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq.
She pointed to his 2003 firing of Gen. Eric Shinseki. Before the war started, Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, publicly said he believed that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq during the postwar period.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredericksburg.com ...
And what are Jo Ann Davis's qualifications as a military expert?
Another politician just can't help but sell her soul for more camera time. :-/
She stayed in a Holiday Inn Express?
Which self-important, never-faced-combat general who either was fired, or had, or will have, his area of purview downsized, due to Rumsfield's policies, is she pals with?
I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter (in following the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force vice Rumsfeld's "limited presence" of sending just enough troops to ensure victory defeat).
Well she is an utter idiot. Shinseki wasn't fired. More of the Neo Isolationists whining and stupidity.
"I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter"
******Snip******
What the mattter MD, you one of the out of touch Pentagon dinasours Rummy booted to the curb?
I love the way Know Nothings just keep screaming their opinion as fact. Pity some Freepers still cannot grasp their feelings are not facts. Shinseki's retirement date was set in 2002. It had nothing to do with his postion on Iraq.
As for the "More boots on ground" dogma, We followed that dogma in Vietnam. We had 500,000 troops in country at one point. We lost.
We did NOT follow it in Iraq and we are wininning. The ONLY person vidicated here is Rumsfeild despite the fact the usual collections of Know Nothing STILL refuse to admit they were wrong about Iraq ALL along.
That data is available at the following links for anyone who actually wants to learn instead of blinding clinging to their failed know nothing dogmas.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
"I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter"
What vindication? Shinseki thought the invasion itself would require more troops and Tommy Franks proved that thesis wrong with his 3 week Thunder Run.
That's a separate topic from occupying and peacekeeping.
If we got more help from int'l community like Scty Powell promised in 'peacekeeping' the point would have been moot.
As would have been the case also if Iraqi military hadnt melted away.
I dont see how he gets vindicated on a point he never made.
I clicked on this thread to make that point but you beat me to it.
Like Ms. BJ Clintooon, she must be pretty confident in her belief that her "constituents" are too dense to ask that question. LOL
Really? I don't recall us losing one battle, not one when we had more boots on the ground. It was in the aftermath of Nixon's "Vietnamization" and "Peace With Honor" drawdown and during his Watergate impeachment imbroglio when we lost...(due to the combined fact of the country's war fatigue (because Nixon, and LBJ before him, ascribed the same logic DUH-Bee-Yuh is using) and the results of handing our military operations off to the green, and poorly led RVN forces before they could handle the situation with the more determined NVA).
Good question!
Exactly. Shinseki retired as scheduled. He wasn't fired.
I have long felt the whole issue of "overwhelming" force is a red herring, with many flaws.
It relies on some premises that look only at what happened and do not consider some negative possibilities that the imposition of that overwhelming force would have created, because it also makes the premise that the responses of Sadaam, Al Queda and any aspect of political opposition and support for "insurgency" would be only what we have observed under the conditions we did impose.
While the "order" and security that a massive, overwhelming force of occupation may have been able to achieve initially, that order would also have been very oppressive and only sustainable if it was oppressive. It also would have been harder for that level of occupation-imposed security to distinguish between common dissent over issues of justice and equity among the populace with an organized political movement to destabilize the occupation. That level of needed oppression would also have led otherwise more peaceful dissenters to question their cooperation with the occupation, on political grounds.
The fact is that in spite of the chronic security problems, the Iraqi people did become very organized, politically, not to dissolve the occupation prematurely or in support of the Baathists and the terrorists, but to build their own government.
In the shadow of an overwhelming, oppressive occupation you can bet the tactics of Al Queda, Saddam and others would not have been static, and would have been different and would have sought every means and manner to use the oppressive occupation of that overwhelming force to their political advantage.
As much as an overwhelming occupation force may have seemed more secure initially, it may have produced a less politically secure situation; one where the internal politically movements prevented the level of political cooperation we have been able to achieve.
To pretend that those opposed to the occupation were incapable of adpating their tactics and plans, no matter what we did and to do so with equal fervor and dedication that they have put in their present efforts, is nothing more than the arrogance of all monday morning quarterbacks.
So she is a rino?
Sounds like a number of female republican types. Is she siding with hitlary as a woman's club "thang"?
Don't blame it on Nixon. It was the Dem Congress that pulled the rug out from the ARVN by cutting off funding. The North Vietnamese invaded the South violating the Paris Peace Accords. The US left Vietnam in January 1973. The South hung on for almost two years until they lost our support.
The wonders of formaldehyde are endless.
...see post 18 above. During his first term in office, he still had the majority of the country behind him (remember he beat incumbent Veep Humphrey) and he should have gone all out with a massive bombing attack and invasion of the North... (his massive bombing in 1973 proved, at least, to be the spark to get Ho to the peace table but it was too late then as the country's support had all but evaporated)
Secretary Rumsfeld appears to be the latter day Robert McNamara. I feel it is well past time for him to leave and give another man with a solid military background to lead the war.
Her lifetime ACU rating is 90 and 88 for 2004 and and 84 for 2005.
"More boots on the Ground" in a Counter Insurgency mission does ONE thing. It alienates and marginalized friendly local forces. Rather then helping the locals get their crap together, "More Boots on the ground" crowd would simply push them to the margins as the Americans do everything. That what happened in Vietnam.
The result is the occupying power is seen as invaders instead of allies. Thus the "More boots on the ground" crowd would turn the "Insurgency": into a peoples war against US AND eliminate any local support for the Counter Insurgency political structure.
This is the problem with trying to fight an Asymmetrical War with Conventional Military forces. The Conventional Forces have neither the training nor the proper mindset for limited war. They are a broadsword trying to do a rapiers job. It simply doesn't work.
The Russians in Afghanistan, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, Napoleon in Spain, US and French in Vietnam. etc etc etc etc. How many times do the Know Nothings have to fail before they wake up to the fact that Total War and Asymmetrical Warfare are two completely different missions.
We are winning in Iraq because we did NOT listen to the old Heavy Armor Know Nothings like Powell and Shinseki's. Under Rummy we waged a serious, smart Counter Insurgency effort from the start. The fact that we are well on our way to winning instead of fighting Vietnam 1.2 SHOWS the Know Nothings position is intellectual absurd. The only person who has been validated in Iraq is Rummy
We will win in Iraq for exactly the reason the rabid know nothings FAILED in Vietnam. This time we understood the difference between Counter Insurgency and Total War. Something the usual collection of Freeper Armchair Generals STILL either cannot, or will not, learn.
It is possible that were it not for the political environment created by the Watergate mess, that Nixon would have been able to sustain the level of support for South Vietnam that the Democrats were able to deny them.
In spite of Nixon's abuses on the issue, I have never been convinced that we have ever known the real origins of the events that created it. I have read speculation that the FBI man, now, recently revealed as "Deep Throat" was part of those who instigated the initial bugging that the "plumbers were sent in to remove"; bugging that was actually trying to track a call-girl ring that using the Democrats HQ; a call girl ring that included a woman who counted John Dean as one of her clients; and that Dean and deep throat actually manipulated Nixon's team to get the bug removed so that Dean's exposure would not become known.
Or so I've read.
Is this the chick who left her husband and three children and married that braintrust congresscritter, Tom Davis?
another pat buchannan republican (a/k/a closet liberal)
We did not lose the military war in viet nam.
We had traitors like Walter Cronkit spining the USA into defeat. We had democrats BS for political gain.
This continual whining at Rummy has nothing to to with Policy, it has to do with Politics. They hate the way Rummy dishes it out to them. As usual, they are just looking to silence an effective voice on the Right.
****Snip
Looks like Miss Davis has just destroyed any hopes for getting a future shot at a Senate seat. What a shame.
She isn't Senate quality regardless. She has only a H.S. diploma and built her reputation in real estate.
BTW, I know you Vols want to claim him but Elvis was born in Mississippi! And why didn't you list Sgt. Alvin York as a great Tennessean?
"Looks like Miss Davis has just destroyed any hopes for getting a future shot at a Senate seat. What a shame."
Er, so do I. I'll put my self-education on history and politics against any Ivy-Leaguer.
It was too late for such actions and there was always the concern about expanded Chinese and Soviet involvement.
If you want the real truth about the Vietnam war, read the Boston Manifesto As a Vietnam veteran, I found it to be the best overall portrayal of the war and its consequences.
I guess I should add York, I haven't tinkered with my page in a long time. There's quite a number of Tennesseans I could put up... ;-)
Elvis may have been from Tupelo, but he was a self-declared Tennessean and Memphian. Had his unfortunate addictions and eating habits not caused his untimely death at 42, he was expressing a strong interest in running for Governor of our state as a Republican -- as was Sheriff Pusser. I have no doubt Elvis might've ended up as President had he been successful in that run (a damn sight better than a low-rent Bubba aping his act in the '90s). ;-)
An example of this in our military was the push to waste massive amounts of money on developing Crusader, a heavy mechanized artillery unit.
Crusader would have expanded the Army's ability to create wide swaths of destruction, at least after the Crusader was moved into position.
However, Crusader lacked versatility, maneuverability. It's abilities added to areas in which our military is already very strong, and did not address the kind of conflicts we are likely to face.
It was part of the cold war mentality of bluster and overkill.
The project was a massive waste of the DOD's resources
It was an example of how the army was not modernizing or paying attention to the situation we find ourselves in.
The army was sinking it's resources into building the most powerful mechanized artillery on earth, but ignoring our needs for smaller, more agile vehicles and our need to be able to deal with terrorists and guerrillas rather than huge standing armies that present clear military targets with low risk of collateral damage.
Shinseki was one of those who not only continued to push for things like Crusader, but actively undermined Rumsfeld's efforts to modernize our military.
Rumsfeld didn't fire Shinseki just because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on what troop levels would be necessary in Iraq. Though there is a lot of evidence that Shinseki disagreed with just about anything Rumsfeld did simply because he opposed Rumsfeld.
When Rumsfeld canceled Crusader and changed the direction of the future weapons development for the military, he made a lot of enemies among the power brokers in the military.
We are talking about projects worth many billions of dollars. Many high ranking people in the military make a lot of money advising DOD companies and when Rumsfeld canceled Crusader and changed the direction of development, suddenly a lot of those people were a lot less valuable to private industry.
Rumsfeld also made a lot of enemies in the defense industry, because there were a lot of companies that were investing in building things that the military really didn't need, and now no longer wants.
Just about every time you hear about some general criticizing Rumsfeld, you'll find they had close ties to Crusader or a similar canceled program.
I wouldn't be surprised if Davis has ties to such programs through her contributors or constituents. I wouldn't blame her for fighting for her constituents, but only if she does so honestly.
Secretary Rumsfeld has constantly ignored the professional advice of senior army officers and insisted the war will be fought his way. Mr. Rumsfeld's way has lead to unnecessary casualties and wasted capital. Furthermore, he puts our nation at risk because we are not able to focus on future, riskier potential conflicts, such as Iran and North Korea. Every army soldier saw the way he treated General Shinseki, an honorable man who lost part of his leg in combat in Vietnam and many soldiers felt slighted for their service by such treatment. Still others think he is nothing sort of an egomaniac. A senior army officer once told me he thinks Mr. Rumsfeld is the worst SecDef since Mr. MacNamara.
Mr. Rumsfeld should resign for the good of the nation.
Flame away folks, but it will be mostly navy and air force guys defending the SecDef.
I don't recall what it was. She seemed like a real giant killer when she first won her primary awhile back against a RINO who massively outspent her, but now she comes off as such a flake. I hope the other GOP Congresswoman from VA, Thelma Drake, doesn't similarly go native on us.
Not necessarily.
It took me a while to find it, but it was the CAFTA vote that Davis missed because she got caught in traffic. She said she was going to vote NO, and it passed by only 217-215, so her dislike for free trade and questionable work route caused a Republican from a populist district to risk his seat in 2006 by voting for CAFTA.
Don't waste your time on the troll ping....
I think guys like you and those who criticize Rumsfeld are pissing up a tree. If what he said is true - and I have no cause to doubt it - then he already offered his resignation twice and the President refused it, well - he is there until President Bush leaves office. Stop wasting your breath and our time.
From James Bradley's Flags Of Our Fathers, "(General) Kuribayashi had no expectation that he could win the battle. He knew the Americans would throw overwhelming arms and numbers of men at him." ...
"His goal was a foreshadowing of the enemy's strategy in Vietnam: to make the battle so costly to the Americans in terms of lives that the civilian leaders in Washington would blanch at the prospect of a later invasion of the Japanese mainland."
"It had taken twenty-two crowded transports to bring the 5th Division to the island (Iwo Jima). The survivors fit comfortably onto eight departing ships."
"The American boys had killed 21,000 Japanese, but had suffered 26,000 casualties doing so."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.