Replies

I have also yet to hear a Non-Rumsfeld champion who understands what has really been going on in the building for the past five years.

You might want to do a little reading, including the story that spawned this thread. Newbold, Zinni, Eaton, Downing to name but a few. Many others have remained silent because they are still serving and that is what they should do. If I had first hand knowledge, I would certainly report it. My information is largely second hand, but comes from people whom I know and respect. BTW, they are largely conservatives - this is not an argument about the ends, it revolves around the ways and means.

I think the article makes one excellent point that concerns me about the administration as a whole. I worked with Don for several years and have a very high regard for his integrity. He was often wrong. But he does not lie. His style, however, as he once bluntly put it at a meeting was to seek information and not guidance. That arrogance that Cheney also shares can be both effective and successful in business. But both are now also in the role of leadership in a political arena. Being right is critical (competence is a wonderal trait for our leaders!) But selling the decision is a critical element as well. I don't see them failing to sell it as much as I see them not bothering to try. I think we all deserve that additional effort as it would serve them well.

"You might want to do a little reading, including the story that spawned this thread"

Well I just reread this transcript of General Wayne Downing (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command; General Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Armed Forces Southern Command; General Montgomery Meigs (Ret.), Former Commander, NATO Stabilization Force in an interview with Tim Russert about 3 months ago and didn't get any insight into what is really happening inside the Pentagon. They all did however praise Sec Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Downsizing the military seems to be their only complaint. McCaffrey stated clearly that the plans were exactly as he thought to be proper.

Gen. Wayne A. Downing Jr. just completed a study of a new Special Operations Command (SOCOM) created in 2003 in Tampa. He was asked by Secretary Rumsfeld to perform this study. Rumsfeld felt that in over two years the command couldn't react quickly enough and wanted to know why. The quote from a senior Pentagon official was that Rumsfeld's question was: 'With all this new money and all these extra people and all this wider latitude to maneuver, why haven't you won the war on terror for me yet?'

Downing's response is that "the command's new global role in counterterrorism has rankled some officers at the Pentagon and in regional war-fighting commands who previously took charge of that mission. Some of the command's new efforts, in particular the placement of small teams in American embassies to gather intelligence on terrorists and to prepare for potential missions, has outraged some intelligence officers and career diplomats."

"More broadly, the review found that the government-wide national security bureaucracy still does not respond rapidly and effectively to the new requirements of the counterterrorism campaign. The report said more streamlining was necessary across a broad swath of the civilian bureaucracy and military, including civilians in the policy office that reports to Mr. Rumsfeld and the office of the secretary of defense, the military organization that reports to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the regional combatant commanders and even the National Security Council staff at the White House."

That doesn't sound to me like criticism of the changes Rumsfeld has made, it sounds more like criticism of the way the Pentagon has operated for years and that it needs to be changed further.

Phrases like "rankled some officers at the Pentagon that previously had charge of that mission" sounds to me like the old guard fighting necessary changes. Another, similar phrase "outraged some intelligence officers and career diplomats" sounds again like people fighting changes. I'm sure these are the very same intelligence officers that blew Iraq completely, the fall of the Soviet Union and the Shaw of Iran.

"One Pentagon official who read the review said it criticized the Defense Department and National Security Council bureaucracy for not creating ways to answer Socom's real-time needs, forcing the command to navigate plodding bureaucratic channels whenever it wanted to adjust course. The official said this made it difficult to mount the quick action required to single out insurgents or terrorist leaders whose locations may become known only for brief periods of time." I may be wrong here and Lord only knows it would be the first time today, only, but Donald Rumsfeld comes across as a man that knocks down bureaucratic barriers rather than a man that would build barriers. After all, he is the guy that wants to streamline and speed up the military.

In Zinni's book he writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

My questions to the General are:

What dereliction?
What negligence?
What irresponsibility?
What lying?
What incompetence?
What corruption?

He says to Congress: This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But like so many others, he doesn't say why. He drew up a plan to invade Iraq prior to Tommy Franks taking over CENTCOM and it called for 300,000 troops whereas, Frank's plan called for 180,000. Honest men can disagree, but General Frank's deposed Hussein and rendered the Iraqi Army toothless in 3 weeks. The charge is always that with 300,000 soldiers we could secure the country. I'm not sure. Can two soldiers driving down a road keep an IED from exploding more effectively than one soldier? Out of 120,000 soldiers aren't 20% or 24,000 actually shooters or able to stand guard while 80% or 96,000 are in support?

So now I've read all these vaunted men's thought's on this war and I'm still of the opinion that they offer nothing to the debate.