Posted on 04/17/2006 5:48:39 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
Your are changing the subject and moving the goal posts. It was Franks' plan, not Rumsfeld's. He was given all the resources he requested. You claim to have read Frank's book. Do you believe Franks' own words?
Yes I believe Frank's words .... "the discussions" with the JCS about his plan AND the need for 250,000 troops to occupy Iraq. Yes Franks approved the final plan, it's too bad Rumsfeld did not approve the FIRST plan.
That was Zinni's and Shinseki's plan.
"In a speech to a business group in Washington, retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks said that when he gave Bush a status report on the war in Afghanistan on Dec. 28, 2001, he also presented the commander-in-chief with a plan for launching combat operations against Saddam Hussein."
"Franks said he told Bush he didn't like the plan and that he was ordered to put together another one, which he showed to the President in January 2002.
When in the military these folks are not allowed to speak ill of the Commander In Chief. I think that should be extended to Pentagon "retired" personnel.
I like it that the Marine general's 'cojones' were questioned publicly because from his behavior and words during wartime since he resigned his are kinda shriveled.
Rumsfeld's heart is at least in the right spot ... and his work ethic is clearly second to none .... BUT like the Chairman of the JCS said you can question his judgment and I DO .... it's time that the President starts .... before it's too late.
The old Army. The Army also wanted to use many more troops in Afghanistan. I was in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Storm and visited Kuwait a few days after the war was over. It took us six months to build up way more forces than we needed. It was beyond overwhelming. Today, we don't have the resources to mount anything similar. Franks was right and Shinseki was wrong. The biggest problem was not having Turkey give us permission for the 4thID to transit the country. If we had had a coordinated attack from the North and the South, we would have nipped the insurgency in the bud.
BUT like the Chairman of the JCS said you can question his judgment and I DO .... it's time that the President starts .... before it's too late.
And what is your alternative? Rumsfedl aside, what would you do differently in the conduct of the war beginning now?
That is something the gen'ls won't mention, nor will the lamestreammedia.
inni is an anti-Semite.
You probably won't find many Israelis disagreeing with you. But he was still a Marine four-star.
I just read that he was in charge of the Rangers in Somalia when 18 of them were shot down and dragged thru the streets....is that true?
Forgive me, but my computer's acting up, so I can't provide a link. But Zinni was a special envoy to Somalia and also headed up a Somalian relief effort (IIRC) during the timeframe of Mogadishu. See Wikipedia (key word: Zinni) for specific details.
This weekend Iran admitted again to being a terrorist state. We need to formally declare war on Iran and use the "Bull Simons" option to overthrow it's government. Simons was old Army.
China needs to be told it's NK or US. You lose your Most Favor Nation status effective immediately unless NK turns around NLT 4 July 2006.
Any nation that has become a state sponsor of terrorism needs to meet the same fate.
Bush talked and acted great from 9-11 to May 2003 ... he needs to go back to that Bush. Other countries need to be with US or against US.
Yeah, If you say so. I always considered myself as a strong conservative on most, if not all, things. But, if being a "true conservative" is going along with you, I'd rather not be a "true conservative" at all! After trashing all the supporters of Bush, and/or Rumsfeld, I'm kind of wondering if maybe it's YOU that's the "jerk"? Think about that for awhile!
Iran has been the seminal state sponsor of global terrorism. The Bull Simons option is fine as long as it doesn't turn out like the Desert One disaster perpetrated by Jimmy Carter.
China needs to be told it's NK or US. You lose your Most Favor Nation status effective immediately unless NK turns around NLT 4 July 2006.
Not a very realistic solution. I don't think that is a big enough club or incentive. Besides, Congress would never approve of it.
Any nation that has become a state sponsor of terrorism needs to meet the same fate.
Iraq was on the State Department's list of state sponsors to terrorism for over a decade. Iran and Syria are still on the list. China is not.
Bush talked and acted great from 9-11 to May 2003 ... he needs to go back to that Bush. Other countries need to be with US or against US.
With US or against US on what? Terrorism?
A different question:
In conferences between military commanders and civilian authorities, is there any legal reason for either to expect confidentiality?
Executive privilege aside, of course not. I assume by civilian authorities you mean political appointees. There are instances where career DOD civilians supervise military personnel.
If political appointees must be concerned that military commanders will release to the public sensitive, "insider" information against them to challenge their policies and to attempt to remove them from their jobs, then this will certainly have a chilling effect on their interactions. It also challenges the civilian control over the military. The level of candidness will be affected and policy suffers as a result. Also, political appointees may select those for jobs whose political leanings are more like theirs rather than the best person for the job. Personal loyalty becomes more important than competence.
I can't recall very many instances recently where retired DOD political appointees used "insider" information against military commanders in public and called for their resignation or firing. Do you?
...this will certainly have a chilling effect on their interactions. It also challenges the civilian control over the military. The level of candidness will be affected and policy suffers as a result. Also, political appointees may select those for jobs whose political leanings are more like theirs rather than the best person for the job. Personal loyalty becomes more important than competence.
Let me add to that: How does a civilian decision maker know whether a military commander's "advice" is genuine? He now has to factor in the possibility that the commander is simply throwing it out so he can say "I warned them" later. This undermines the civilian authorities' ability to rely on the input of the military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.