Replies

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,

"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."

I'd agree and someone who has a grudge against the Army should not be in charge of a ground war! The Air Force is no more than a support element for ground operations. And that's where Iraqistan and our enemies are -on the ground. Having a former AF officer in charge of a ground war makes as much sense as having a Field Artillery officer in charge of an infantry operation. It's amateurish.

My experience with the Air Force and their personnel has given me the impression they are much more focused on the process than the outcome of their work. Micromanagement and macro-inefficiency are commonplace. That may work fine when your people are x-100s of miles from the ground war but when the troops are stationed amongst their enemies practicality should be the order of the day. Wasn't it McNamara's meager troop levels and BS rules-of-engagement which cultivated a regional war in SE Asia 40 years ago? Perhaps the same is intended for Iraq. Good for the Defense economy I suppose.

I'd much prefer as SecDef a slovenly former General, donut dust sprinkled on his Class As, who'd say "yeah, ...whatever" in the press briefings yet vehemently supported the troops and would kick-ass until the job is done. Heck, I wouldn't care if he was a drunk.

Rumsfield has to learn that Army training, doctrine and culture are nearly opposite the Air Force's. You train 'em, release 'em upon the enemy in overwhelming force, leave 'em alone until they're good and done, then get them out of there. I just hope he doesn't learn this the same way McNamara did.