Replies

I can't say I'm supportive of either one of them (Shinseki's 'Monica' berets) but I believe they have made good points vs. Rumsfield on both the direction of the Army and the force levels needed in Iraqistan.

It's simply boneheaded to give up tube artillery and M1A2s in favor of light forces and air power. That equates to casualties for us and success for our enemies. IMO Rummie is counting bean$ and that's bad news for our troops and their missions. The Soviets tried the light-mobile with their Airborne troops in Afghanistan and Chechnya and were mauled. Mogadishu should have been a lesson learned but apparently not to Rumsfield since no B-2s were lost.

Every light vehicle destroyed by an RPG, landmine, hand grenade, suicide bomber, etc. costs us casualties and erodes our morale while at the same time it boosts the esteem, morale and cause of our attackers. Martyrdom is a very bad situtation to permit among muslims particularly if it inflicts casualties as there is a religious justification for it. Smouldering HummVees and Strykers are no good to our morale either. Otoh being squashed by a tank after an RPG barely scratches the paint isn't a good bet for heaven.

There is no martyrdom for the Muslim in suicide. Let's do our part to keep it that way.

I'm no fan of the berets either. Taking them from the ranger battalions and wasting money to change the uniform by issueing them to the regular army was a bad decision. I'm sure that Gen Shinseki had this great idea recommended him by some pogue from dcsper. Alas, he will forever be associated with the decision.

Nonetheless, General Shinseki is highly respected within the army (contrast this with Gen Wesley Clark who is pretty much loathed). He was a great division commander and was instrumental in integrating 'digital' warfare in the army. As a division commander he also won praise during command post exercises (run by some group at ft. leavenworth) as the most skillful warfighter of all the active divisions. On top of all of this, he had a foot blown off during Vietnam, so this label of 'Clintonista' is just plain inaccurate.

As for Secretary White, all I know about the guy is that he retired as a brigadier general. But reading between the lines of the press leaks coming out of washington, I'd say Sec. Rumsfeld had it out for him from day one because White had the audacity to stand up to him on Crusader. I don't really know much about his role in the enron scandal, but i've been told Sec. White worked for a completely different group within the company.

so for all you guys bashing these two men who served their country honorably over many years, i'll just say that you are only getting one side of the story. The part that you don't get from Fox news or elsewhere is that

1. Sec Rumsfeld has a real burr under the saddle about the army. I don't know why this is, but ask any army guy who has served a few years and he will tell you the same thing.

2. Sec Rumsfeld micromanaged the TIPFDL, (the troop deployment list) as well as other aspects of the war in Iraq, when, to my mind, he should have been working out the end game in Iraq (ie, having a govenment in exile ready to step in immediately).

3. Soldiers in Iraq (US) have had to put up with a lot of unnecessary privation because the army is not large enough to rotate in other units. this is why the rank and file of the 3rd ID were so irate...they had been promised a departure date, but low and behold, there were not enough combat units to backfill them.

regards,