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
"The last one, "Not taking his case to the American people. It takes work to overcome the media, and he didn't do it," is certainly on the mark. Once in a while Bush has spoken up, but much too rarely. He simply has not made the case forcefully enough. And he has refused to tackle his enemies by pointing out, for example, that the press has relentlessly focused on the negative and ignored the positive."
Amen to that!
That's one of the nuttiest theories yet.
Pass the tinfoil.
Successful Guerrilla warfare doctrine involves 3 steps. We are winning in Iraq. The Terrorists and Militia's have been unable to evolve beyond state 1 of Guerrilla War The Counter Insurgency is slow, painful work. But the progress is all on our side. The "Insurgents" have demonstrated no ability to politically or militarily evolve.
Guerrilla war strategy consists of 3 phases.
1. Stage one: very small unit harassment actions.
2. Stage two: continuation of state one with an evolution to large units actions. Development of larger and large geographic areas fully under Guerrilla control.
3. Stage three: conventional warfare between large units.
The Terrorists are still stuck in stage one of Guerrilla Warfare. They can wreck stuff and kill people they cannot grow. They cannot take and hold ground or engage in anything beyond small scale hit and run attacks. Their failure to develop a shadow political structure to act as a polar opposite to the Iraqi Government is their fatal flaw. They simply lack the structure or local support network needed to move beyond state one.
Problem is thanks to the Junk Media and the Treason of the Democrat Party Leadership most Americans have no clue how well the mission is actually going. All they see is the thing that are seemingly going wrong. They are not actually going wrong, that is just how War works. Messy, violent, confusing and chaotic.
It is incredibly odd how Democrats, via their mouthpieces in the Junk Media, demand a level of perfection in Military operations that NO Journalist or Politician could ever live up to in their own professional spheres. Odd how Americans, who live with a very high level of incompetent in their government, their media, their day to day lives are so surprised and upset to discover war does work on a perfectly flawless time table. They seem to think war should work like their two hour Hollywood action movies told them it did. 2 Hours, bad guys dead, sympathy frag of supporting actor, hero gets girl and lives happily ever after.
These absurd expectations explain how it is Americans get "war weary" so very very rapidly. It is one of the biggest Achilles heels of US Foreign Policy. Our foes count on us getting bored with it all and just going home. I guess we could call it the America's Policy Attention Deficit Disorder.
Counter Terrorism (or Counter Insurgency) is as much about politics as it is about war. Conventional Military often find them incredibly frustrating because they are usually a case of 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, pause, repeat. Conventional Military people think in terms of go there, kill them, wreck their stuff, make them stop pissing us off.
Counter Insurgency does not work that way. Counter Insurgency works by making the local political structure strong enough to contain or beak the Insurgency. THAT is a slow painful process.
It is made a lot hard in Iraq by the hyper negative Media coverage and excessive nonsense spewed out by Domestic Politicians using the war because they think it will help them politically. Now after the 2006 elections it is Jump Ball again. It all depends on what the Democrats do. There is some sliver of hope. 1/3 of Democrats voted AGAINST their own leaderships cut and run dogma. MOST of the new Democrats ran as good old boy "Conservative Democrats". If they refuse to follow where the Dem leaders want to go on Iraq policy, we have the votes to stop them
By 2008-2009 the Iraqis political structure will be strong enough to stand on its own with minimal US support. Probably Iraq security forces stiffened with US SOF support teams and logistical support. Setting a firm time table changes all that. NOW the Iraqis on our side will feel sold out and may simply decide to sell us out by joining the other guys. Switching to the winning team at any time is an old tradition in Arab culture. Everything is a negotiation. Everything a deal. However, the Iraqis and Terrorists know they can hang on and simply run the time out on the clock to win Now it all depends on the remaining Republicans tied to the Conservative Democrat political smarts and GW Bush's spine. I don't know about you. That worries me.
Screaming your dogmas louder does not change fiction to fact. Stick to what you know. You know nothing about Counter Insurgency. It shows.
Yes, I don't know if we needed more troops in Iraq, but we are overburdening the guard and reserve, and won't have them if we need them. I know they sign up for war, but not for multiple month's-long deployments.
<< Former secretary Rumsfeld's mistake was being smug with the media. F them. >>
Smug?
How's about "being intelligent" and "being objective" and "refusing to kowtow?"
As for you last sentence? And don't forget their horses!
(Mine (Sam) is a Yellow and if it (some would say "she") ran as a Republican I'd likely vote for it.
Would that, I wonder, make me a Yeller-Dog Republican?
He wasn't smug enough, in my opinion.
bttt
The boxes of blame were piling up in the Sec Def's office. Partisan politics demanded he load them on his shoulders and walk out the door with them. It adds further emphasis to the perception that the real battlefield is Washington DC not Baghdad. Think about what we've done in terms of the message it sent to the Middle East. It says violence is working. It says the reward for doing one's public duty is blame and ridicule. Is that an experience we should expect Iraqis and Afghanis to emulate?
What we've done is reward the chaotocats in the Iraqi parliament by blaming and then dumping one of the few qualified American leaders of this war. Rumsfeld has made great strides under excruciatingly difficult circumstances. It's our collective intolerance of difficult circumstances that made us do what we did. By “we”, I am referring to the American people - By “did”, I am referring to the act of creating anxiety among a presidential administration in the middle of a war to make them sacrifice a key member of their team.
I’ve read outstanding analyses that claim Western democracies can’t win small wars. I surmise Western democracies can’t function as if they are at peace domestically while they fight a difficult war abroad. Unfortunately, no amount of “political postulating” or “blame trading” will make national security threats disappear. War is an unpleasant reality that the Sec Def will forever be responsible for. As a nation, I think this is the message we are sending loud and unclear to the world:
"keep the world's wars behind the curtains Mr. President. I'd rather watch Borat joke about rape, racism and prostitution than consider alternative national policies to effectively combat dysfunctional societies. You, not them are the reason those dysfunctional societies state loud and clear they wants to kill us all. Fix everything by doing nothing Mr. President and get it done yesterday!"
We were lucky to have him, there aren't many real leaders left anymore.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
bttt
in this context, what is meant by " Don't hold your breath"? ya think it means the dems aren't gonna wanna follow through w/realism, or anything, and jus muddle around 'til the next BIG hit on the US or its allies?
You know MNJohnnie, your spot on especially your last paragraph which I agree with. Iraq has been drawing muslim extremists to the country where we can kill them by the hundreds rather than sit and wait for them to come at us in ones or twos to kill hundreds or thousands of us. But we can{t win a war on terrorism fighting it with 18 century rules of warfare. We have to be tough, hard and willing to go into these villages and dig them put and force them to fight us on our terms. And we can not win a war on terrorism by putting our soldiers on trial for killing the enemy (does not include those who commit rape).
your post #57 is good-but it looks as if PC posturin by our political elites is gonna block your formulation of a plan of action; guess we'll jus be sittin back for awhile, waitin for the next super 9/11 before US is willing to really use some firepower to intimidate and kill the 'diaperheads'....
I agree.
Rumsfeld achieved "rock star status" and conservatives cannot be allowed to do that.
Rumsfeld is now off the table. The Democrats can go to hell.
It now falls on the Democrats to decide if they meant what they said and redeploy, er...cut and run like they did in Vietnam.
I doubt very much if they will cut off funding and serve up a softball for the GOP going into the 2008 campaign.
President Bush is one helleva poker player isn't he?
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.