Posted on 11/08/2006 9:58:53 AM PST by Perdogg
Per AP
Well I judge him as much by who didn't like him.
He came across as very tough and that's what you need dealing with the extremists.
The whole WOT has been conducted with the MSM and the Anti War crowd second guessing every move, for political gain and to hell with the consequences. They have forced us to fight PC and the mess is because of that.
The extremists are going to very happy to see Rummy go, they will see that as a victory and we should not be giveing them anything, this will just make them stronger and bolder.
...so now the fate of western civilization now rests in the hands of an Aggie spook.....
Maybe we should just nuke ourselves.....
I was beginning my active duty as Rummy was leaving his first tenure as Sec of Defense. When his name came up as Bush's choice for Sec of Defense I didn't think he was best choice.
Cap despite having to deal with DEMs helped end the Cold War no SEc of Def post WW2 can top that one. He took the United States Military to a level of readiness and pride it had not seen since WW2. The 1976 military was in bad shape. It was items Secretary of Defense could have and should have addressed but did not which was morale and discipline. If you wanted out of the service {remember it was volunteer at that point} you simply went back home and waited 31 days and reported to any nearby base for processing out. I know it was Post Nam but there was no excuse for that extreme.
Like I said the only thing Carter did right military wise was his later appointed Sec of the Navy. He began the process of restoring pride, discipline, morale, and much needed tradition back into the Navy. It was actually looking up in late 1980 despite the Iranian Crisis. Again I'm talking Navy wise. Not one carrier flunked INSURV nor Light Offs. We answered the bells.
As an aaisde for every one who is impreseed that Gates is an Eagle scout, Rumsfeld is an Eagle Scout also and also the recipient of the distinguished Eagle Scout Award and Silver Buffalo.
Anyway, I served in Vietnam and after we cut and ran there, I said we should never get in a fight unless we fight to win. We are no longer fighting to win in Iraq.
We should either terminate Mutadr Al-Sadr (and any other militia heads who oppose the Iraqi government and stir ethnic/religious hatred and disarm their militias), or we should pull back to the North and the South. Neither Turkey nor Iran would attack the Kurds if we have substantial troops based there - plus it will give use base in case we have to take out Iran's nukes. The Sunnis would probably tolerate us to preserve their oil from takeover by the Shiites and the Kurds would be happy for us to stay. This would leave the Shiites and their buddies in Iran to fix up the dilapidated Baghdad and central Iraq infrastructure with no oil resources.
The plan will raise some interesting issues. I share your sympathy for the Kurds. Base troops there as a counter to the Turks? In a war between the Turks and Kurds, we'd be obligated to support our NATO allies, the Turks. Tricky. The Sunni's will demand Baghdad. My understanding there's not much oil in their territory, we'll somehow have to convince the Shia and Kurds to "share". That agreement will last about as long as it takes us to leave. As we leave, either the current Iraqi government will be able to stand up and defend itself, or Iraq will collapse.
how can he be the current SecDef? That's a confirmed position.
From '93?
I am thinking that its like John Bolton at the UN. Since Rumsfeld retired the President can appoint him for a limited term until he gets confirmation.
Bush and Pelosi probably talked about items they can agree on such as passing the comprehensive immigration plan. We must have it, you know, for jobs Americans just aren't doing.
I think your analysis of the situation is somewhat correct. But i think Rumsfeld was fantastic, I love the guy. I do believe the Dems were going to grill him to no end, making everyones life more miserable, although it would have been nice to see him hand them their ass. He is probably just not up to it.
Also, there is going to have to be some serious bargaining in DC now, like it or not, for anything to happen. Bush has just set the stage. He does look "reasonable" by appearing to give them what they want. They will look absolutely retarted(they are already)when they start this BS on the war, and quite frankly, if Bush can out fox their moves (by not giving up principle, I hope)they will look worthless, rediculous, and their base will be going ballistic, even already now because of the rummy deal. The Dem base doesnt want anything but to ruin Bush in a bloodbath. They aren't happy with silent deaths.
As we all know now from recent yesterday, the base is what you need to win an election.
Way above his pay grade?
There's only ONE guy above his pay grade. The Secretary of Defense reports directly to the President, and to the President alone. The President charged Rumsfeld with the conduct of the war. Rumsfeld failed to prosecute the war aggressively enough, plain and simple. He failed to provide enough troops on the ground.
He is.
"National President of the National Eagle Scout Association"
The Scouts have steadfastly stood for God, haven't they?
Besides, it was time for Rummy to go. It really was.
And what would more troops have accomplished if you couldn't use them against the supply lines from neighboring states or had to respect mosques AKA supply depots.
Rumsfeld won both wars. The aftermath was lost politically. by Bush listening to Rice/State Dept.
Bush sent Karen Hughes to ask the enemy to like us, instead of ordering Rumsfeld to make them fear and respect us- or just fear us.
And you ain't seen nothing yet. Rumsfeld is gone and the surrender started today.
My thoughts exactly!
I am afraid you are right.
I agree that a strategy shift was needed, but I fear that this new SOD will be soft. We need a SOD who is ruthless and who is not willing to sacrifice any American troop for the sake of politically correct rules of engagement.
I fear that the principle reason we are losing so many troops of late is that they are under such oppresive rules of engagement that they cannot unload their weapons unless and until one of their platoon members is killed. An engagement policy of "shoot first ask questions later" is often necessary in an environment where everyone you meet is a potential assassin.
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.