And so, at THAT specific time (when Rumsfiled was being replaced), what solution(s) did Peter Wehner SPECIFICALLY propose?
What is HIS prejudices and HIS position on the Iraq war?
This is the reality of what was taking place on the ground within Iraq (when Rumsfeld left). The successes of the hard fighting (along with FID OPs) in 05/06 is what allowed for the "surge" to be successful. It was during 05/06, in which shooters OP tempo's were through the roof, is when AQ in Iraq was defeated, gutted. This left a void / vacuum which needed to be filled - The "surge" was timed perfectly to fill this void.
The timing of the "surge" was excellent (having a CinC such as GWB, with the stones to push for it and put it in place was a paramount) but the surge was only as successful as it has been because of what took place prior to it. This is what most will never understand.
Sorry Mr. Weiner, but it is Rumsfeld who tasked Petraeus to develop the counterinsurgency known as the surge, not Gates or McCain or Obama.
Send Rumsfeld to Chattahoocie with the rest of em.
It is a mixed bag. Rumsfeld’s record apart from Iraq is stellar. His reorganization of the army to the brigade system, moving our bases foward, and general philosophy on mobility over power were all needed to keep our army modern.
However, he failed in a big way with Iraq by being the biggest proponent of troop levels that were simply too low. In a way, this helped pave the way for the success we see today by letting violence consume Iraq and letting the Sunni’s and Shiite’s see that they needed more American help and that violence was not the way. This led to the Sunni awakening which the surge abetted.
But in another, probably more accurate way, Rumsfeld’s insistence on low level of troops to begin with and continuing through to ‘06 was clearly a bad decision to begin with.
Let’s not forget it was Rumsfeld who caused the Republican party to be where it is today. Abu Gharib started the slide and his continued mismanaged sealed the deal for Republicans in 2006 and into the future.
The only critique about Rumsfeld and his clique is they came from corporate America who is enthralled with digital technology. They thought that one can fight war with just in time info, just in time logistics and one man can replace ten men. War is still an industrial age process, meaning numbers, reserve stockpiles, production base and Murphy’s law still exists despite computers, networking and high tech systems. I think Rummie and his successors finally got it, and started to listen to the generals and not seeing them as obstacles to modernity. Unfortunately the conversion took time and GWB took the political hits for it.
I have great respect for Rumsfeld but he stayed just a little too long. Conversely, I have no respect for the NYT and the quislings that infest it. Anybody got a link to the editorial Rumsfeld wrote?
Uncle Sam should have had a big footprint in Iraq from the beginning. Rumsfeld was against it. That’s all that needs to be said about this topic. And I write this as someone who thinks Rumsfeld did a good job - up to the point of the occupation of Iraq. I think we should have established a protectorate in the manner of MacArthur, and not relied on any of our “allies” to help us in Iraq. The compromises needed to bring those “allies” on board resulted in the unnecessary financial costs and war casualties of an prolonged war. What we needed was a nice little campaign along the lines of the war in the Philippines, where most of our losses were from disease. What we got was a grueling campaign of whack-a-mole, with far more battle losses than in the Philippines, despite having space age weaponry, evac capabilities and medical care.