Posted on 11/09/2006 2:19:06 AM PST by John Carey
You wrote, Donald’s plan was go in take out Saddam get out.
Why do you think that was his plan? Looks to me like he wanted permanent bases in Iraq to keep an eye on the whole area.
Be safe and come back soon. All the best to you and your family.
Everyone, including the Demilibs need to note that he was the longest employed SoS.
The typical scenerio called to the civil police to be left in force but as Saddam policed with the military, we decided to disband them all leaving a complete rebuilding job ahead of us and the total lack of cooperation from the Sunnis. This cooked off for nine months and the Shi'ia decided to make a power grab in their areas with milita.
While I am a student of history, the history of occupations and the like is rather narrow and while I can't knock this down, I can't agree without more insight.
Restructuring the military was precisely the reason why he was hired. After Clinton eviscerated the military, it was believed that a top-down examination and subsequent restructuring was necessary. He did the same job after Vietnam. And that is precisely why Bush hired him.
No, it wouldn't blunt a thing. When has an admission of a mistake or an apology EVER satisfied the libs? NEVER! The would have tripled their effort, crowing that "they were right" and that Bush was admitting failure ... it is super easy to imaging the never-ending news stories that would have come out. Then there would be the confirmation hearings for his replacement that would have turned into a show trial that dragged on for a month or so. All of the truth that came out in those hearings would not make the evening news, only the Chuckie Schumer sound bites along with the usual suspects. The Peace Mom too. We'd STILL be heating it.
Appeasement NEVER works. EVER!
You obviously do not know Rummy. He is not like the beltway diseased asses... err masses.
LLS
Those publications are run by corporations and people who probably hate our military more than love it. They are not publications put out by our military.
I had TWO MARINE OFFICERS in my business yesterday. Both have done duty in Iraq and Afghanistan (one is going back to Afghanistan in January). We talked about Rummy leaving, and both said he will be missed. They said he was disliked in the Pentagon becasue he was he FIRST (and LONGEST serving) SoD that the Generals in the Pentagon could not break. They had insight into why some didn't like him, but they never accused Rummy of what you state.
LLS
I agree.
Carolyn
I've yet to meet a person who has lost faith in Rumsfeld. You paint with too broad of a brush. Claiming that non-military cannot make an informed decision does not paint you in a good light. Such snobbery does not show you in a good light.
For here, our military is mostly comprised of non-officers, who know the mood of the people and can read the tea-leaves much better than from someone across the pond who does not hold the stars and stripes in high asteem. It is my nation's military that I hold faith in. Pundits and politicians do not hold the pulse of the nation.
You talk about Rumsfeld not planning. Are you aware that the Pentagon and the CIA have contingency plans for military movements involving every corner of the planet? They don't just make up a plan out of whole cloth. There are always years of background information, current statistical analysis and intelligence available at a moment's notice. It is often said that the Pentagon readily has access with the plans necessary to invade CANADA.
It is this type of preparation that helps keep rogue states guessing. Do you think the Pentagon wrote up plans for Iraq in the two months leading up to it? Do you doubt that Iran KNOWS we have the necessary options on the books and could strike at a moments' notice?
Rummy and Cheney are the best. If W is looking for someone to blame, he needs to be looking at why he lost the election, who his advisors were there. Getting rid of the best does more damage. Losing confidence in this administration more and more. Stay the course, fix what needs fixing, leave the rest alone.
Par for the course around here.
Did we have a phase 4 plan yes or no
A good question, but falling on deaf ears. Most people here don't know what that is, or what the significance of that would be. And, no, we didn't have a good phase IV plan. Just some etherial, PowerPoint bullet concepts of how things should be.
Balderdash.
I think we immediately went into nation building mode without first killing the enemy.
Sounds logical, but it's not. In Spring of 2003, who was the enemy? The Iraq army? No, they were defeated and disbanded. The Ba'athists? No, they were in hiding. There was no meaningful resistance from them, they were on the run. The islamists? Again, they didn't rear their heads for months.
The enemy we're fighting now didn't exist in any meaningful way in mid 2003. If you remember, at that time the U.S. military was viewed by Iraqis as an invincible force. They had all kinds of theories as to why that was. They thought our Oakleys were X-Ray goggles. They thought our armor was air conditioned. They thought our spy satellites could track every one of them at all times. Iraq in mid 2003 was as beaten as can be, and the violence was both negligable and unorganized.
After months of sitting around, we couldn't keep the lights on, or the water running, or the streets safe, and people began to wonder what was going on. Either we weren't there to help them, they figured, or we weren't invincible at all. That's when they began to believe that their army had been bribed, and that we were paper tigers who's only solution to fighting was to throw money at our enemies. That gave rise to opponents who couldn't be bought off. Once they realized that they had the will to win, whereas we were an army of lions led by lambs, it was over.
I don't know who's call that was. I can opine, based on what they say, that is probably wasn't Rumsfeld and Cheney that made that call. It feels more like State Department handwringers got to the president on that one.
Because they were intimidated by guys in the State department? Are you serious? You think that Rumsfeld and Cheney went storming into the Oval Office, saying that if al-Sadr is allowed to live, and the Sunni insurgency isn't nipped in the bud, Iraq is doomed, but the State Department cowed President Bush into submission?
Got it.
Cursor down. Gates worked with Baker on a study to make recommendations about Iraq. This gives Rummy two months to escape the criticism.
I am with the Vice President. Rummy was excellent and should have been encouraged to stay. Gates was not an inspired choice. Iran Contra is back. :-(
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228173,00.html
Well if you are so damn smart why are you not running the war?
I have read a few comments from some like you but thank the Lord you are a small number.
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.