And what are Jo Ann Davis's qualifications as a military expert?
Another politician just can't help but sell her soul for more camera time. :-/
Which self-important, never-faced-combat general who either was fired, or had, or will have, his area of purview downsized, due to Rumsfield's policies, is she pals with?
Well she is an utter idiot. Shinseki wasn't fired. More of the Neo Isolationists whining and stupidity.
I have long felt the whole issue of "overwhelming" force is a red herring, with many flaws.
It relies on some premises that look only at what happened and do not consider some negative possibilities that the imposition of that overwhelming force would have created, because it also makes the premise that the responses of Sadaam, Al Queda and any aspect of political opposition and support for "insurgency" would be only what we have observed under the conditions we did impose.
While the "order" and security that a massive, overwhelming force of occupation may have been able to achieve initially, that order would also have been very oppressive and only sustainable if it was oppressive. It also would have been harder for that level of occupation-imposed security to distinguish between common dissent over issues of justice and equity among the populace with an organized political movement to destabilize the occupation. That level of needed oppression would also have led otherwise more peaceful dissenters to question their cooperation with the occupation, on political grounds.
The fact is that in spite of the chronic security problems, the Iraqi people did become very organized, politically, not to dissolve the occupation prematurely or in support of the Baathists and the terrorists, but to build their own government.
In the shadow of an overwhelming, oppressive occupation you can bet the tactics of Al Queda, Saddam and others would not have been static, and would have been different and would have sought every means and manner to use the oppressive occupation of that overwhelming force to their political advantage.
As much as an overwhelming occupation force may have seemed more secure initially, it may have produced a less politically secure situation; one where the internal politically movements prevented the level of political cooperation we have been able to achieve.
To pretend that those opposed to the occupation were incapable of adpating their tactics and plans, no matter what we did and to do so with equal fervor and dedication that they have put in their present efforts, is nothing more than the arrogance of all monday morning quarterbacks.
So she is a rino?
Sounds like a number of female republican types. Is she siding with hitlary as a woman's club "thang"?
Secretary Rumsfeld appears to be the latter day Robert McNamara. I feel it is well past time for him to leave and give another man with a solid military background to lead the war.
"More boots on the Ground" in a Counter Insurgency mission does ONE thing. It alienates and marginalized friendly local forces. Rather then helping the locals get their crap together, "More Boots on the ground" crowd would simply push them to the margins as the Americans do everything. That what happened in Vietnam.
The result is the occupying power is seen as invaders instead of allies. Thus the "More boots on the ground" crowd would turn the "Insurgency": into a peoples war against US AND eliminate any local support for the Counter Insurgency political structure.
This is the problem with trying to fight an Asymmetrical War with Conventional Military forces. The Conventional Forces have neither the training nor the proper mindset for limited war. They are a broadsword trying to do a rapiers job. It simply doesn't work.
The Russians in Afghanistan, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, Napoleon in Spain, US and French in Vietnam. etc etc etc etc. How many times do the Know Nothings have to fail before they wake up to the fact that Total War and Asymmetrical Warfare are two completely different missions.
We are winning in Iraq because we did NOT listen to the old Heavy Armor Know Nothings like Powell and Shinseki's. Under Rummy we waged a serious, smart Counter Insurgency effort from the start. The fact that we are well on our way to winning instead of fighting Vietnam 1.2 SHOWS the Know Nothings position is intellectual absurd. The only person who has been validated in Iraq is Rummy
We will win in Iraq for exactly the reason the rabid know nothings FAILED in Vietnam. This time we understood the difference between Counter Insurgency and Total War. Something the usual collection of Freeper Armchair Generals STILL either cannot, or will not, learn.
Is this the chick who left her husband and three children and married that braintrust congresscritter, Tom Davis?
another pat buchannan republican (a/k/a closet liberal)
This continual whining at Rummy has nothing to to with Policy, it has to do with Politics. They hate the way Rummy dishes it out to them. As usual, they are just looking to silence an effective voice on the Right.
****Snip
Looks like Miss Davis has just destroyed any hopes for getting a future shot at a Senate seat. What a shame.
An example of this in our military was the push to waste massive amounts of money on developing Crusader, a heavy mechanized artillery unit.
Crusader would have expanded the Army's ability to create wide swaths of destruction, at least after the Crusader was moved into position.
However, Crusader lacked versatility, maneuverability. It's abilities added to areas in which our military is already very strong, and did not address the kind of conflicts we are likely to face.
It was part of the cold war mentality of bluster and overkill.
The project was a massive waste of the DOD's resources
It was an example of how the army was not modernizing or paying attention to the situation we find ourselves in.
The army was sinking it's resources into building the most powerful mechanized artillery on earth, but ignoring our needs for smaller, more agile vehicles and our need to be able to deal with terrorists and guerrillas rather than huge standing armies that present clear military targets with low risk of collateral damage.
Shinseki was one of those who not only continued to push for things like Crusader, but actively undermined Rumsfeld's efforts to modernize our military.
Rumsfeld didn't fire Shinseki just because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on what troop levels would be necessary in Iraq. Though there is a lot of evidence that Shinseki disagreed with just about anything Rumsfeld did simply because he opposed Rumsfeld.
When Rumsfeld canceled Crusader and changed the direction of the future weapons development for the military, he made a lot of enemies among the power brokers in the military.
We are talking about projects worth many billions of dollars. Many high ranking people in the military make a lot of money advising DOD companies and when Rumsfeld canceled Crusader and changed the direction of development, suddenly a lot of those people were a lot less valuable to private industry.
Rumsfeld also made a lot of enemies in the defense industry, because there were a lot of companies that were investing in building things that the military really didn't need, and now no longer wants.
Just about every time you hear about some general criticizing Rumsfeld, you'll find they had close ties to Crusader or a similar canceled program.
I wouldn't be surprised if Davis has ties to such programs through her contributors or constituents. I wouldn't blame her for fighting for her constituents, but only if she does so honestly.
Don't waste your time on the troll ping....
From James Bradley's Flags Of Our Fathers, "(General) Kuribayashi had no expectation that he could win the battle. He knew the Americans would throw overwhelming arms and numbers of men at him." ...
"His goal was a foreshadowing of the enemy's strategy in Vietnam: to make the battle so costly to the Americans in terms of lives that the civilian leaders in Washington would blanch at the prospect of a later invasion of the Japanese mainland."
"It had taken twenty-two crowded transports to bring the 5th Division to the island (Iwo Jima). The survivors fit comfortably onto eight departing ships."
"The American boys had killed 21,000 Japanese, but had suffered 26,000 casualties doing so."