May the force be with you
Posted on 11/12/2006 8:01:47 AM PST by rhema
Then why has the current static situation been allowed to continue for so long?
Maybe someone should send it to Rush or Sean. Either of them have the means to get this broadcast to the country asap.... great article.
Bump
An ENTHUSIASTIC bump, right??
Yes China, North Korea, Iran and Iraq. The Army has to be ready to fight any of these armies. In its current condition it can fight none of them effectively. We only have the nuclear option left because of the errosion of the force(s) by a poor maintenance of the Army by Congress and previous degradation from prior administrations and a reluctance of the current administration to face the facts.
Not really
Lots of posts here remind me of fired General Pansy Clark
You just need a beer and some nachos!!
The "invasion" of Iraq was one of the most stunning military success stories of all time, with the smallest number of troops on the ground, completed in record time. Shinseki, was NOT right.
Period 1: March 20, 2003 through through May 1, 2003: (the end of major combat)
Total US Hostile Casualties = 108
May 2, 2003 through October 31, 2003: (6 months following end of major combat)
Total US Hostile Casualties = 121
See hostile breakdown here
See monthly breakdown here.
Just what the heck were 400,000 additional troops supposed to do? The first real sign of trouble came a year later, in April 2004.
The problem began when another Rumsfeld critic, retired Army General Major General Paul Eaton, failed at his 2003-2004 tour as chief of the U.S. training mission in Iraq... His tenure was characterized by uneven training efforts and some embarassing moments--notably, Iraqi units breaking under fire. Eaton was eventually replaced by Lieutenant General David Paetraeus, who turned the program around, and oversaw the training of more than 80 Iraqi battalions during his tenure. Read more here.
The plan was to quickly train a new Iraqi Army, to join with our foces, as they have now. Eaton blew it then had the unmitigated gall to call for Rummy's head as did Shinseki.
Shinseki, Riggs ... virtually all of these officers were in senior positions in the mid-to-late 1990s, when the Clinton Administration cut four divisions from the active Army. Did any of these generals oppose that move, realizing that it would mean "fewer boots on the ground" in a future conflict? Ironically, some of these generals--including Shinseki and Riggs--seemed willing to trade troops for the next generation of super weapons,
What a wonderful article!
Nothing will ever change my opinion of him.
He's served his country far better than most.
Thank you for the post and ping!
Dog: Do you know that for a fact or is that an opinion?
Very interesting.
My nephew was in Iraq and he said everyone liked Rummy, including the Iraqis.
Most excellent Rummy pic, bitt.
I don't know if you've spotted this, but you might want to add it to your bookmarks.
With 400,000 troops you can disarm the entire country. With 400,000 troops you have a big footprint. You can man every intersection in the country. With 400,000 troops you can encircle Baghdad and search every building in the city. With 400,000 troops you can collect all the ammunition in the country and round up all ex Iraqi military. With 400,000 troops Faluja doesn't happen. With 400,000 troops you can seal the borders. With 400,000 troops......Bla, Bla Bla
If you think for a minute that Rummy would leave the stage and allow the military to be put into the hands of a dummy, then you never understood Rumsfeld (or GW for that matter).
Thanks for the ping!
BTTT!
I don't think I articulated my question well. What changes in the conditions did he fail to recognize and get beyond?
marked to read later
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.