Posted on 11/09/2006 5:52:10 PM PST by neverdem
I don't see how removing the Secretary of Defense helps either the country or the Republicans, especially given the pre-election vote of confidence in his full tenure. He was on the right track reforming the military; the removal of the Taliban and the three-week victory over Saddam were inspired.
So we are down to his supposed responsibility for the later effort to stop the 3-year plus insurgency, whose denouement is not yet known. Rumsfeld's supposed error that drew such ire was troop levels, i.e., that he did not wish to repeat a huge presence in the manner of Vietnam, but sought to skip the 1964-1971 era morass, and go directly to the 1972-5 Vietnamization strategy of training troops, providing aid, and using air power.
I think he was right, and that most troops in Iraq today would agree. I was just talking to a Marine Lt. back from Haditha and Hit; his chief worry was not too few Americans, but rather Iraqi Security Forces insidiously expecting Americans to do their own security patrolling. Since sending in tens of thousands to do a Grozny-like smash-up is both politically impossible and antithetical to American policy, I don't see the advantage of more troops at all, especially when we will soon near 400,000 Iraqis in arms, which, together with coalition forces of ca. 150,000, would in theory provide 555,000—or more than the "peacetime" army of Saddam's. As a rule in history, it is not just the size, but the nature, rules of engagement, and mission, of armies that matter.
For the future, neither precipitous withdrawal nor a big build-up are the right solutions, the former will leave chaos, the latter will only ensure perpetual Iraqi dependency. As it is, there are too many support troops over in Iraq in compounds, who are not out with Iraqis themselves; more troops will only ensure an even bigger footprint and more USA-like enclaves. Abezaid, Casey, Petraeus, McMaster, etc. understand counter-insurgency and the need for a long-term commitment that marries political autonomy for the Iraqis with American aid, commandos, and air support. Rumsfeld supported them all.
A final note.Whatever Rumsfeld's past in the 1970s and 1980s, he wholeheartedly supported the present effort to offer the MIddle East something other than realpolitik. I don't see how the Reagan-Bush era 1980s and early 1990s policies in the Middle East—selling arms to Iran, putting troops in Lebanon and running when they were hit, cynically playing off Iran against Iraq, selling weapons to any thug in the Middle East, giving a blank check to the House of Saud, letting the Shiites and Kurds be massacred in February-March 1991—were anything other than precursors to the events of 9/11—when, of course, enhanced by the shameless Clintonian appeasement of the middle and late 1990s.
The return of the realists-Baker, Gates, and the former advisors to GB I-should prove an interesting mix with the Dean-Pelosi Democrats. The latter used to call for idealism in foreign policy, then got it with GWB's democratization, then turned on him, and now will get the realism that they currently profess to favor. Don't hold your breath.
Posted at 9:14 AM
BUMP!
Ping
Rumsfeld's mistake was being smug with the media. F them.
Logic, right strategy, don't mean nothin.
The dims wanted power and were willing to mischaracterize, sacrifice everything good and turn it into failure in order to gain their power.
When we fail in Iraq because of them they will not care as long as they are in power. Of course it won't be their fault so everything is fine.
As long as they are in power.
If he'd had his way, clinton and carter wouldn't have had anyone to give nuclear weapons to in North Korea.
I hope, pray and will write him to urge him to write and publish his book.
Now that will be a "My Goodness" moment for a lot of the traitors out there right now.
I hope he slams them far harder than he could in office.
I know enough of him to realize he has a lot more class than that. But still, he'll get his shots in and I for one can't wait for that book.
Too bad his commander didn't go to bat for him against the media like he wanted to win. A few former congressmen are thinking the same today.
"Dean-Pelosi Democrats"
These folks appear to want abandon Iraq to provide a homeland for the terrorists.
"Power is not a means; it is an end, One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." - George Orwell [Eric Blair] (1903-1950) "1984"
Ouch. VDH pulls no punches...
Damm ! VDH has it right on the money once again..
Jack Ryan, Please call Carl Rove's office ASAP!!!
I've taken this out of context, but adding a few hundred thousands more troops would have not stopped the terrorist. Even a million troops would have done nothing more than what we have done. This is not war now, it is insane persons willing to blow themselves up. It is almost impossible to detect them before the act no matter how many troops.
Sorry Hanson. The American people voted against neo-con nation building schemes and conflicts. Iraq should have about as much political autonomy as Japan did after WWII.
I just read Harris' Imperium - have you checked it out? You figure prominently.
I will be so happy when "24" is back on TV. I can drown my sorrows in some fine wine and watch my favorite hero!
The "commander" should have gone to bat for a lot of his people and principles but let us down too many times.
I am particularly sick of the MSM's rallying cry and O'Reilly's and others at FoxNews, for that matter; just how disastrous is Iraq and the accompanying 'anger'. ..anger. . .anger. . . that they claim, ALL American's share.
Sick of media speaking 'for' me; and with their own bias and agenda it serves.
I do not know whether Rumfeld needed to leave or not; but sorry Bush thought this was he better way. . .
Meantime, the Pelosi Dems will turn their viitriol on Gates and remain the singularly most loathsome people on the planet - save the terrorists that is; but by the Dems own 'lights'; they are a close second.
We have not been able, since 1945, to fight an existential conflict properly. We are being true to form once again.
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.