[Gondring]

This should have been out there before the election!

But still, it seems to miss a point...

Rumsfeld has been attacked for insisting that troop levels for the Iraq operation be kept low, supposedly out of ideology and contrary to the advice of the military. What I saw, however, was that Rumsfeld questioned standard military recommendations for "overwhelming force." He asked if such force was necessary for the mission.

There wasn't just one "Iraq operation"... Secretary Rumsfeld made the error that so many have done through history--he failed to recognize a change in conditions that required a change in response. If his generals were not realizing this, then they are also the problem.

In fact, that's one of the unaddressed problems our military has. As a product of the Clintonian 90s, we have a very politicized and managerial military that inhibits the proper flow of information and response along the chain of command. The frustration is felt by so many small-unit commanders, and it's a shame that Secretary Rumsfeld was unable to get beyond this and see the real needs in Iraq.

He was the right man for transforming our offensive and "conventional" armed forces, but not the right man for understanding the current phase of operations in Iraq.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

How do you know that he failed to recognize a change in conditions that required a change of response. Is it just guess work on your part. How do you know he failed to get beyond it.

I'm asking seriously...

[jpl]

As I see it, the biggest problem in the current political situation is increasingly we are asking the military to do things that they are not really significantly trained to do.

We still train most of our troops primarily to fight conventional warfare as we always have, but more and more we are demanding that they conduct policework, security, and local political affairs in areas that we don't understand all that well.

This is the sort of work that is best done by Special Ops guys, spies, diplomats, and contractors. If we have reached the point where we can no longer fight conventionally (which means killing the enemy in very large numbers) because of collateral damage concerns, then we really need to transform the way we train our forces.

[aumrl]

"He was the right man for transforming our offensive and "conventional" armed forces, but not the right man for understanding the current phase of operations in Iraq." GREAT POST. AGREE 100%

[RobbyS]

You seem to be under the delusion that Rumsfeld is a general officer. You should be criticizing Abisaid, who is the theatre commander.