Peters is a very smart man and he isn't bias one bit. He believes Rummy should get the boot big time. If you read his book he lays out quite clearly how Rummy used Iraq to further test his theory of a lighter, cheeper, faster, and less deadly war and refused to change course or even admit there was an insurgency for months and months. Rummy is a good man, but his stubborness and pride are his biggest flaws.
Rummy had the right idea, he just tested it on the wrong war.
Or as he would say; "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want."
We're catching up now and in the end Rummy's vision of our future force will be a sound one.
Why insinuate your special knowledge about the Col's disagreement with his superiors? That was'nt the gist of his comments here.
If you've been around the military any time at all, contrary ideas about how to run things is the priviledge of all officers. These guys happen to be our best trained professionals and are entitled to theitr contrary opinions.
The Col. deserves our gratitude for his years of service and his forthright effort to provide an informed point of view.
(Smoothsailing gets "attaboys" for his consistent vigilence and service to all of us.)
However, Rummy is smarter than Peters.
Yeah, Rummy should go and devote his time to creating a good bird flu vaccine......oh wait, he's already done that......wonder if he's made any money yet?
Not this crap again. [sigh] An insurgency was anticipated before the first boots ever hit the ground. Anybody who wants to nitpick with 20/20 hindsight, including Mr. Peters, is welcome to. But it's nothing but armchair quarterbacking. The Administration knew full well the Fedayeen freaks and foreign terrorists would be active. Sure, they hoped the insurgency would die more quickly. Who didn't?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm
Excerpt from a USA Today hit piece, but it puts this nonsense to bed:
Two reports by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior analysts that pools assessments from across the nation's intelligence community, warned Bush in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency, the official said.
At least until the next time someone here repeats it as Gospel.
Honestly, who in his/her right mind would NOT have anticipated an insurgency? Can anyone really say that? It's patently absurd.
When Peters is Secretary of Defence he can run things his way.
Or he can do what his critics say.
Rumsfeld is the best thing that has happened to America Armed Forces in the last 30 years - At every turn he is looking to release our warriors and let them fight - He is not a man looking for excuses or "why we can't reasons" from the old big Green......which is why there are plenty of old dinosaurs out of that old big Green that tend to take shots at him.
Rummy is a good man, but his stubborness and pride are his biggest flaws.
Those are two qualities on the battlefield that all leaders have...and must have.
SecDef Rumsfeld has helped to lead a much needed change throughout our military....and not only regarding personnel, equipment and tactics....but even more importantly in attitude and philosophy.
He has help lead in fighting the most successful unconventional war in history.
Hmmm?? Maybe Rummy did test his theory .. but Bush had to agree with it, so why should Rummy get the boot for doing what the President ask him to do ..?? That doesn't make any sense.
And .. 2400 deaths in 3 years - as compared to 25,000 drownings a year. We're talking a major improvement in warfare. Yes, it may have taken longer to do it this way, but more civilians survived .. and with fewer civilian casualties - we have made better progress sooner.
And .. I believe Iraq has proven Rummy's theory.