Posted on 12/15/2004 7:09:12 AM PST by KeyLargo
AT WAR
Question Authority
What the media got wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld.
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:01 a.m.
To the media, it was a dramatic revelation of Bush administration hypocrisy and incompetence: A lowly American GI courageously speaks truth to power, thus showing that the emperor has no clothes. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq war, the hullabaloo over Army Spc. Thomas J. Wilson's question reveals far more about media bias, prejudice and ignorance than it does about the U.S. military and Iraq.
Spc. Wilson asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why, nearly two years after the start of the war, his unit still has too few "up-armored" humvees. The media were surprised that an enlisted man would ask so direct and pointed a question of the Pentagon's highest official. I wasn't.
I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after Sept. 11, 2001, and served in Iraq in 2003. Throughout boot camp, combat training and subsequent preparation for war, my instructors always stressed the importance of independent thinking and initiative. Obviously, when you're in the middle of a firefight, you cannot--and must not--second-guess split-second command decisions. However, when preparing for war, thoughtful and considered questions are not only tolerated; they are encouraged--even demanded, I found.
As one of my combat instructors told us: "Marines, you're more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenuous. So make sure you've thought things through and that everyone's on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don't be afraid to ask questions."...............
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You got that right, but you did not see that reported by the MSM.
Goes back further than the idiots will reveal!!!
Williams then set up Russert: "And with us now for more on Secretary Rumsfeld and the lightning rod role he continues to play in this administration, NBC News Washington Bureau Chief and the moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert. Tim, Rumsfeld is not new to Washington, though why these attacks and why now?"
Russert, from DC, pointed out how Rumsfeld is getting it from both sides: "Well, Brian, the question asked by the young officer in Kuwait last week was the real catalyst. And it's an unique position for Secretary Rumsfeld because he's being attacked by people who do not believe he has been hawkish enough on the war in terms of troop commitment, and also attacked by people who opposed the war from day one. But the words we're hearing about 'cavalier' and 'callous' are obviously beginning to take hold. Top military brass are saying this is more than just transformation by the Secretary of Defense. 'He is being obstinate in mismanaging the war,' quote, unquote. But, as Jim Miklaszewski said, as long as the President believes he's the man for the job, he will be in that job."
Williams: "And, Tim, I know you're releasing some new numbers tonight from our NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on this very subject."
Russert explained, with a matching graphic on screen of the poll results: "Absolutely, Brian. If you look at this, only about a third of the American people have a favorable opinion of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- 34 percent. And 38 percent have a disapproval or negative rating. Compare that to just a few months ago in May, and you see it was the exact opposite, 39 to 33. Those are extremely high negatives for a Cabinet secretary, particularly a Secretary of Defense. It is a war, Donald Rumsfeld is controversial, he does take no prisoners, and those numbers reflect it."
Actually, (reported by Media Research 12.15.04)by going from 33 to 38 percent, Rumsfeld's negative rating moved up by just five percentage points and stands only four points higher than his positive rating -- which doesn't seem all that bad given his hostile media coverage.
The MSM and the Liberals are pursuing their own anti-American agendas and are willingly out of the loop, as usual.
Delays ought to be blamed on the military bureaucracy, which Secretary Rumsfeld has been trying to reform. Indeed, that's what military transformation--a Rumsfeld priority--is all about. Yet, many of the same people who are most vociferously denouncing the lack of up-armored humvees in Iraq also fight military reform tooth and nail.
EXACTLY!!
Armchair experts who predicted a prolonged insurgency and asked for more troops to control it were real experts - people whose views were just as worthwhile and informed as those of Rumsfeld. Those views were disregarded and the Administration has to take the blame.
Otherwise the article is excellent.
The Left, in the form of the MSM, has enlisted PR-conscious allies from the "more boots on the ground" school of warfare. Unfortunately none of these presumably well-motivated critics (e.g. McCain, Schwartzkopf, Scowcroft) has yet explained where, short of a military draft, we're going to get the Vietnam '68 sized force (500,000 +) we would need to properly "secure" Iraq and Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. So instead of viable solutions, we get non-constructive criticism, and personal attacks.
Great article! I am proud to read that the USMC has not changed. My experience was that feedback/questions were solicited from all concerned if time permitted. When a decision was made every Marine backed that decision as if it was his own. Works great in the business world too if properly trained. SF
The dirty little secret is that there really are no more troops to send. There weren't then, and there aren't now -- unless you want to strip our defense commitments in other areas. We've already done some of this in Europe & Korea. So we're right back to square one, asking ourselves "Is/Was this worth doing even knowing what we know now about the insurgency?" That's for you to decide.
While that's true, it needn't be so. The military could have been allowed (by Congress) to begin to increase the number of recruits allowed to enlist and thereby began a growth process. It can't be overdone and still retain the professionalism, but it could have been done much more than it was.
While that is true, I don't think that congress ever had the stomach for expanding the military. Heck they couldn't even muster the courage to declare war when 3,000 fellow citizens were murdered in cold blood on live TV.
Don't you love how the leftist have the hindsight is 20/20 crystal ball and knew of the insurgent battles, and that the terrorists would flow from Iran and Syria, YET, having such a better view of what would happen, still managed to vote against the 87 million supplemental, go to Baghdad and criticize the President.. rather than beating a path to the Senate floor for immeidate additional funding.. screw the deficit... NO.. this is all BS, by the armchair generals here at F/R and in the media. You didn't know SQUAT about how the war would develop.. No one did. that's what happens in war..
Now tell me if you knew before you were conceived if you were going to be a boy or a girl.. Its as scientific as that..
What total tripe.. God I despise liberals and OTHERS who think they know WHAT should've done before anything happened.
To BE PREPARED?? for what and with what..
Tell me OH BRAINY ONES.. what will the next conflict in 20 years bring, and how should we prepare now.. DON'T FRIKKEN FORGET WE NEED TO TELL OUR ENEMIES WHAT WE ARE BUILDING TO BE FRIKKEN FAIR..
Geezuz H.
I don't believe this is correct. Pre-War studies and many experts predicted post-war chaos based on experience in the Balkans and other post WWII invasions rather than on our occupations of Germany and Japan which the Administration thought were relevant. Testimony on this was given recently to one of the Congressional committees.
The dirty little secret is that there really are no more troops to send. There weren't then, and there aren't now -- So we're right back to square one, asking ourselves "Is/Was this worth doing even knowing what we know now about the insurgency?" That's for you to decide.
When the Twin Towers were destroyed we had two choices - we could've pressured the Muslim world...or Israel. I believe we made the right choice. But - as Stratfor pointed out - we've thus committed ourselves to a a long and difficult conflict which we are not assured of winning.
The Baathist-Sunni insurgency was created in large part by the American media, who have been ceaselessly encouraging the "insurgents" and pouring gasoline on the fire every now and again (Abu Ghraib, etc.). Guardiano should have said that 'no one anticipated the active sedition and treason of the U.S. media...'
A really good example of the media's game plan is watching how they're trying to get EVERY branch of the U.S. military smeared with the excrement of "prisoner abuse". They've gotten the Army, the National Guard, the Seals, Special Forces, and the Marines so far. Reminds me of the thoroughness of Mary "Trifecta" Mapes...
There's something to this but I don't yet know how to place it in perspective. The Alien and Sedition laws date from the founding of the Republic so we know this is an old, old problem which certainly should have been anticipated.
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.