Replies

Those statements are absolutely delusional. I don't care who made them. Maybe he was put up to it. There is a reason why Rumsfeld is loathed.

I don't know enough about the military to give an educated opinion. I did happen to catch Gen. Batiste on a CNN show last night. Batiste said he decided to speak out against Rumsfeld after Rumsfeld didn't attend Shinseki's retirement party.

I found that an odd statement. Will have to see what shakes out.

Have to run now for the weekend.

Have a blessed Easter.

"I don't know enough about the military to give an educated opinion. I did happen to catch Gen. Batiste on a CNN show last night. Batiste said he decided to speak out against Rumsfeld after Rumsfeld didn't attend Shinseki's retirement party."

Well, I'm not military, but I'm not going to take sides on the debate de jour in the media (whether he should stay or go). I was reacting to the "spin" on Iraq (which I think is very destructive to the long-term support at home and coming from the civilian side). It doesn't matter if you are civilian or military (politician or general), when you reach that level, you almost by definition have to have an outsized ego (because you are very good at what you do to get where you are and you know it). And you are *very* "political" (even if a general). And they throw sharp elbows, and sometimes knives. Rumsfeld wins, and some of these guys didn't like losing. So they've carried their grudges into retirement.

That being said, there are military professionals who have solid reasons for anger. The thing with Shinseki wasn't about the party but the perception that his career ended because he told Congress the truth (in closed session that has since leaked out) - - that you cannot do this with 150,000 but need something closer to 400-500,000. (And the army isn't that big)

So what we are seeing (the disintegration of Iraq) was preordained. We may yet turn it around, but the happy talk isn't helping. And everybody is happy as a clam when things are going well (like driving into Baghdad three years ago), but the finger pointing begins when things go south.

In any case, Iraq isn't a war, it is a long battle (like Afghanistan) in a much longer war. And there will be other battles. We will have good years and bad years. The first couple years after 9/11 were "good years" (taking down the Taliban and taking down Baghdad). The last couple years have been very bad years. At home it has been quiet. Soon we will lose more people in our cities like on 9/11. Then it will be quiet again.

But we will outlast them. We aren't going anywhere. And we will kill many times more of them than they will of us. They killed thousands of us, but we have killed tens of thousands of them. And when they kill tens or hundreds of thousands . . . I'm sure you can imagine what will happen next.

And in the end, the math (and the right) will come out on our side.

I read somewhere that in the American Revolution, we lost more battles than we won (I think we lost twice as many as we won). And a few years into it, it looked pretty hopeless. But we turned it around (despite suffering some crushing defeats in the process) and won in the end.

Lincoln had to fire many of his generals before things turned around for the Union. Whether you are the Secretary of Defense or a General, it is part of war.