Posted on 12/02/2006 11:12:52 PM PST by paulat
December 3, 2006 Rumsfeld Memo on Iraq Proposed Major Change By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administrations strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.
In my view it is time for a major adjustment, wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.
Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.
Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis, he wrote. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not lose.
Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) go minimalist, he added. The memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White Houses sharpest Democratic critics. (Text of the Memo)
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Consider yourselves fortunate that this got relegated to a low profile sidebar. Or the cheerleaders will show up to impugn everybody's credentials as an American and a conservative.
If we go there, they will follow. Although it has never been stated, at least I haven't heard it addressed, is that WE chose Iraq as the central battle field. We knew if we went in there, the terrorists would follow us. It gave us the opportunty to fight the terrorists out in the open (if you can call guerilla warfare in the open).This may have been part of the strategy for choosing Iraq as a battlefield. After all, the terrain in Iraq is a lot more favorable then that in Afghanistan. But it looks like it didn't work out. According to General Abizaid the vast majority of the Insurgents are from inside Iraq. If they are loyal to Al-Queda then they're new recruits.
Consider yourselves fortunate that this got relegated to a low profile sidebar. Or the cheerleaders will show up to impugn everybody's credentials as an American and a conservative.I do :).
There are plenty of echo chamber threads.At some point people need to get over their anger and start figuring out how to recover from the election disaster. These forums should be a place to refine ideas on how to do that. It's a waste of time if everybody agrees.
The Fedayeen Saddam (30,000 to 40,000-member Iraqi paramilitary group) would be among those Rumsfeld called dead enders & they would probably have no problem becoming "loyal to Al-Queda".
Didn't you hear Matt and Murtha this morning? MUrtha said that all of Rumsfields ideas were stolen from him a year ago.
Again...Murtha is all over saying Rumsfield stole all his ideas from a year ago.
2. Mr. Rumsfeld is no longer relevant, despite his attempts to be so. In particular, he does not have the confidence of the army, an institution he deliberately offended numerous times. He should have resigned years ago, in which case our nation might have had a chance in prevailing in Iraq.
3. Like AlGore, Mr. Rumsfeld should be informed that it is not about him, but about winning in Iraq.
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.