Rumsfeld's War [Weekly Standard piles on]

Weekly Standard ^ | December 16, 2004 | Tom Donnelly

[ejdrapes]

Rumsfeld's War

Washington (The Daily Standard) - DEFENSE SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD'S meeting engagement with Army Specialist Thomas Wilson in Kuwait last week was not just a reality check for an arrogant and isolated Beltway bigwig. It was also, and perhaps more profoundly, an overdue reality check for what has proved in practice to be a terrible idea: military "transformation."

For the past 15 years, big thinkers and strategists have observed that the application of information technologies had made businesses more efficient and effective. Why couldn't similar efficiencies and increases in battlefield effectiveness be wrung from military forces which, after all, were troglodytic expressions of the Industrial Age? Heavily armored ground forces, in particular, were too ponderous and therefore vulnerable in the emerging age of "netwar" with al Qaeda and spectacularly "enabled" leaders like Osama bin Laden. And, as Rumsfeld told the troops in Kuwait, armored vehicles still get blown up anyway.

Whatever genuine wisdom was resident in these observations was long ago smothered by two more traditional impulses: air-power theory and number-crunching systems analysis. In fact, these two schools of thought actively conspired to capture the flag of transformation. And so it turned out that transformation perfectly fit the programs that the Air Force already had on the books, most importantly and expensively the tactical fighter programs like the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter. And to pay for it, the green-eyeshade analysts at the Pentagon looked to cut Army force structure. Like all good captains of industry, they looked to substitute capital for labor.

Thus we have a Defense secretary more concerned about the Army and the force he'd like to have--the high-speed-low-drag transformed force of the future--than the force with which he actually has to fight today's wars. And, in fact, Rumsfeld and his lieutenants would also simply like to fight the wars they'd like to have rather than the war as it is. How else to explain the Pentagon's conduct of operations in Iraq? The administration is still patting itself on the back for the initial invasion; this week's ceremony honoring retired General Tommy Franks, President Bush acted as though the problems of the post-invasion period didn't exist: the invasion was "the fastest, longest armored advance in the history of American warfare" with "a force half the size of the force that won the Gulf War" and "defeated Saddam Hussein's regime and reached Baghdad in less than a month."

But the reality in Iraq today is Tommy Wilson's war, not Tommy Franks's war.

Nor is it Donald Rumsfeld's war, or at least not the war he wants. Even longtime supporters and transformation advocates have begun to recognize that Rumsfeld is now a large part of the problem. Loren Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a defense think-tank long supportive of the secretary, told the Washington Post on Monday that Rumsfeld won't face reality: "He knows what the situation is, but he has been unready to change his plans."

Rumsfeld has been most reluctant to change his plans about the size of U.S. land forces, and the Army in particular. It was, perhaps, a good idea to "go early and go ugly," as senior generals put it, to war in Iraq; waiting longer to build up forces in the spring of 2003 was not a risk-free proposition, and most of those now bemoaning the size of the invasion force are at heart still bemoaning the invasion itself. But the experience of the past 18 months must count for something in reconsidering the overall size of the Army.

In agreeing to stay on as Defense secretary in the second Bush term, Rumsfeld has made it known that he wants to "complete the job of transformation" he has started. It would be far better if he would dedicate himself to winning the war he helped to start.

Tom Donnelly is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

[RKV]

Agreed we could use more troops and Congress should fund them. Futher, we need to be thinking about weapons system development (why it takes so long to develop new combat systems) and make sure our inventories are where they need to be. That said, stop piling on Rumsfeld. My sense of this is he feels he won't get the support he needs and is working to get by with what he believes he can get. We won't win this on the cheap. More importantly, we need to get serious about "Homeland" Defense (god, I hate that name). What we have done so far helps protect the government. What we need to do is help the people protect themselves (from the enemy and from the government). Throwing out our victim disarmament (aka "gun-control") laws is one place to start. Changing our building codes to require basement shelters would be another (I recall the Swiss do this now). Repealing a number of environmental laws and regulations would reduce our defense industrial base dependency on foreign parts. etc.

[Elvis van Foster]

Just another think tank Monday morning QB. Trying to build a name for himself. The CS wrote this only when he felt safe to pile on. Traitor in war time.

[marron]

most of those now bemoaning the size of the invasion force are at heart still bemoaning the invasion itself.

Exactly.

[pissant]

donnelly is an idiot, as are most of the weekly standard types.

[ejdrapes]

So is the test of whether one is a conservative or not now based on one's support for Donald Rumsfeld? Seems like anyone who dares to critcize Rumsfeld is either called a RINO or considered an idiot. Conservatives criticize Bush all the time. Since when did Rumsfeld become a god - someone untouchable, beyond criticism?

[mrsmith]

The only criticism of Rummy is that "transformation" interferes with conducting the Iraq war.
That's only implied. He doesn't make a case for what seems to be his point.

Rummy's efforts for transformation have certainly made him enemies that have jumped on the issue of the fake "the question" to revile him.

Isn't the Striker, which everyone in Iraq seems to want more than armored humvees, one of the fruits of Rummy's transformation?

[Clorinox]

"Just another think tank Monday morning QB. Trying to build a name for himself. The CS wrote this only when he felt safe to pile on. Traitor in war time."

It can't be monday morning quarterbacking simply for the fact that the war is not over, but continuing on. Monday morining qb'ing assumes the game is over and nothing can be done to change the result. Iraq is an ongoing conflict in which we had better adapt to new strategies. It is a good idea to look at the past and make changes and better accomodate the situation on the ground. Whether or Not Rummy should go is another question, but it is quite fair to analyze the situation and make large changes in response to the troops and generals experiences.

[pissant]

Nope. Plenty of conservative idiots. Trent Lott, Ron Paul, Lyndsay Graham, Paul O'Neil, Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson, Bob Novack, Richard Lugar, Sean Hannity, Michael (Weiner) Savage, Anthony Zinni, John McCain, to name just a few of TOO MANY. Criticising Rumsfeld has nothing to do with being an idiot, though it is often a symptom.

[Elvis van Foster]

Where was this courageous pencil-pusher with his great ideas before it became safe to come out of his weasel den? DU?

[Voice in your head]

"Just another think tank Monday morning QB. Trying to build a name for himself. The CS wrote this only when he felt safe to pile on. Traitor in war time."

"donnelly is an idiot, as are most of the weekly standard types."

"Criticising Rumsfeld has nothing to do with being an idiot, though it is often a symptom."

"Where was this courageous pencil-pusher with his great ideas before it became safe to come out of his weasel den? DU?"

You guys call Donnelly an idiot and a weasel. Hilarious.

[Voice in your head]

Donnelly only scratches the surface of the Army's ongoing struggle to prioritize its initiatives. Compare how much time the average infantryman spends at the range, firing his weapon, or in the field, training to conduct combat patrols - compare that to the amount of time that he spends going through "soldier readiness processing" and mandatory briefings on topics ranging from cultural awareness to equal opportunity, raking leaves, mowing grass, picking up trash, funeral details, and so on.

Training soldiers and small units almost seems to be an afterthought or a distraction from units racing to complete the myriad of administrative and largely finger-drilled, check-the-block requirements that are piled upon them by their higher echelon of command. And, add the mundane post support details that should not take priority over training, but do, because that is the way that it has always been. I think it is this way because for most of the time since Vietnam, we have not been at war, so post support has always been highly emphasized and the people now in higher positions were raised that way and know no other way to do things.

There is no substitute for a large force of highly trained soldiers, well-equipped, and well-led. This was best demonstrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom, when technology failed to live up to the hype surrounding it and the United States won the old fashioned way - it crushed a numerically superior enemy with the application of overwhelming firepower and audacity, applied by superior soldiers who were better led than their enemies. Specifically, I am speaking of the actions at Objective Peach.

While I agree with Donnelly's analysis of the problems that the Army is having, I think he goes too far in blaming Rumsfeld and not far enough in pointing out the failure of the Army's transformation efforts. Yes, a leader is responsible for everything that his unit/department does or fails to do - but show me a man who could have been more effective than Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has managed to scrap plans that were eating up a fair amount of money, so as to free that money up for other endeavors and the Army's force manning has increased under Rumsfeld - not by much, but it has increased. If you want a scapegoat, then I would suggest looking to congress. The congress determines how money is spent and they do not have national security in mind when they decide - they have their re-election in mind. It is all about creating jobs, to bribe their constituents into voting for the incumbent.

[demkicker]

Plenty of conservative idiots. Trent Lott, Ron Paul, Lyndsay Graham, Paul O'Neil, Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson, Bob Novack, Richard Lugar, Sean Hannity, Michael (Weiner) Savage, Anthony Zinni, John McCain, to name just a few...

Meanwhile, America haters and terrorists are gleeful that we're eating our own. Gives them reason to dig in and fight harder against us. Treason has become sport in Washington at the expense of our soldiers and way of life.

Sign me disgusted...

[Just mythoughts]

Does McCain really want Rummy's job this badly???? and if McCain does not want Rummy's job who is after it???