[Sir Gawain]

Maybe, just maybe, some of them have a point. I've heard complaints from ex-military friends of mine about how Rumsfeld has weakened the military with his decisions. These are hardcore gung ho conservatives saying this too.

[demlosers]

*Rumsfeld has weakened the military with his decisions.*

Any specifics?

[jmc1969]

The problem the administation is going to have is there probably are enough generals that hate Rumsfeld to have a new one come out every day until the November election. I don't think all of them are going to speak out, but alot will and more then enough to put incredible political pain on the White House.

[airedale]

He's restructuring the military especially the Army. He's taking it from fighting large land wars against the Soviets toward a much more Mobile force. That is seen as a major attack on the status quo and the people who have supported it. They have to much invested in their world view of the military and its needs.

He killed a lot of weapon systems that those who want to fight a war against the Soviets wanted like the Challenger Self Propelled Gun. He promoted a Marine to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff instead of one of the 3 main branches. It wouldn't surprise me to find that that it should have gone to an Army general (which would have pulled them along to higher positions).

At that rank a good part of the job is politics (inside the armed forces and outside) and not fighting actual wars. They scrap and fight for assets, money prestige, etc. If you kill a program that they believe in or have built their career on believing is necessary you've made an enemy. If they see you as weak then they go out for the kill. They'll do that even if they gain nothing. Right now if they beat up the Bush administration and Rummy they have an excellent chance of getting paid consultant jobs from CNN, ABC etc. If they take Bush's side you can kiss those bucks goodbye. Also if they can get rid of Rummy their pet weapon systems and structures may return.

[ClancyJ]

Remember, they were reorganizing the military to become more mobile, fast moving to handle the world of today.

There will always be people that do not see a need for change no matter what.

More mobile units could go anywhere in the world fast. Now, it is a major effort to go anywhere and they lose the surprise aspect. And, of course, we have traitors that will tell where the next assault will be - another reason for smaller and faster units.

[pollyannaish]

That's all well and good and a reasonable point.

BUT remember that most of the criticism of Rummy has been that he has been TOO ruthless...that is up until now.

Rummy's position is POLITICAL/CIVILIAN and therefore he must also take political calculations into consideration. It is possible that at this point, this is as ruthless as he can authorize without setting the administration up for worse problems.

The military always has, and always will be under civilian leadership. And as the Fox panel pointed out today on Hume's show...if you go back and read about some of the horrible things generals have said about Churchill in the like, you will realize just how tame this criticism really is.

[thoughtomator]

Conservatives aren't allowed to criticize the handling of the war.

[longtermmemmory]

I know a few officers too. Most of the "upset" are those who depended on the old military for career advancement.