I'm looking for a debate, not an argument. If that makes me a troll, so be it. I don't come to freerepublic that often because I'm a moderate, but I do like to hear what the right, and far right are saying. There are a lot of great ideas here, even if I disagree with some, and some great discussions of political tactics, which interests me.
I think the support of Rumsfeld when it was no longer politically expedient was a small part of this election result, and I wonder why so many people here support him so enthusiastically. It seems like most of those with military experience thought he didn't prosecute the war aggressively enough. The ones who do support him seem to just like the way he sounds in a press conference. I'd like the opinion of a military strategist or historian on his actual accomplishments.
BTW, you should welcome trolls here, there's not much point in trying to sharpen your knives on straw men.
Moderates are folks with no balls, unable to make a stand.
That's why we find ourselves here, folks who lack will.
Rummie was a great secdef because he was not afraid to make a decision. Stunning, historically fast Afghan and Iraqi victories are part of his legacy. The plan for Iraqi reconstruction also falls on his watch. The building blocks for that new government were not bad at all.
Where Rummie got bogged down was with the insurgency. Now, I'm personally convinced that if the mainstream media had not shrilly supported and underwritten the insurgency, rather than be loyal to their own troops, I think the cordon/conquer/control plan would have worked. It was weakened by the MSM giving continual hope to the insurgency.
Therefore, any new plan that will work MUST be one in which the MSM's impact is neutralized.
But, it must also be on that leads to winning.