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
I sincerely doubt that.
I believe the concentration would be more so-called negotiations and concessions given to North Korea, Iran and China.
Other than a couple of missle strikes at suspected terrorist bases, there's no way Gore would have invaded Iraq to topple Saddam.
I don't understand your comment about the President not supporting Congressmen. He travelled all over this country over the last few weeks, doing at least two rallies every day. You may not have heard about them on the news, but that's not surprising. He worked like heck for them, but since Republicans in Congress have had a lower approval rating than the President for the last year, it's not surprising so many of them lost.
Thanks for the ping.
This essay makes the point that you should "Marshal far more resources than you think you need to fight a war". I agree with that and I don't think we did that.
Thomas Mackubin Owens says in this essay that:
Unfortunately, as military historian Fred Kagan has observed, Rumsfeld’s understanding of transformation is vague and confused. It is based on false premises and lies at the heart of our problems in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s attitude toward land power illustrates this. Early on, the Secretary actually sought to go far beyond the Army’s plan and reduce the Army’s force structure from a mix of 10 heavy and light active-duty divisions to eight or fewer light divisions. He wanted to move all the Army’s heavy forces—armored and mechanized infantry—to the National Guard. As thinly stretched as our forces are today in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine how things would be if the Army were 20 percent smaller and lacking in regular heavy forces.
Now, I do not agree with all of that and I think that transformation is a necessary process. But better military minds than you or I have found reason to criticize Rummy's performance as SECDEF. We would be foolish to ignore them.
They'll find reason after reason why it's Bush's fault they can't accomplish their stupid agenda.
Take a man. Take away reason and accountability and what do you have? A dimrat.
I fear that the msm will all of a sudden start finding all kinds of good things to report and make it look like the dims are responsible. Another lie but nothing new.
The gop has to grow a backbone. They can't win by taking a smiley face sign to a gunfight with the lying dims.
Good analysis.
The American people still wanted their peace dividend, even after 9/11. There is only so much Rummy could do.
The best time to get into WW2 was 1935. It would have been quicker and far less costly. Plus, we would have been able to continue on into the USSR - talk about a regime change! Meanwhile, in Asia, we'd have helped China prior to Mao having much sway, the KMT would have been solidly in charge. I love alternate history - good for lessoned learned if nothing else.
Clinton probably considered, and still considers, the Treaty of Westphalia to be an oppressive tool of the imperialist big man, man ......
Also one other thing, I draw a distinction between capability and execution. We have certainly had, for long stretches, the capability to win a great war and to overcome existential threats conclusively culminating in total victory. But time and time again, we have held back. The so called realists have held sway, more often than not.
Also, conservative Democrats worked with Republicans in Congress to curb the excesses of the New Deal in FDR's second term.
The main reason I voted for Bush in '00 was for a change in the federal courts. The main reasons I voted for Bush in '04 was for the courts, and for the aggressive prosecution of the war on terror. Now that the Sen. is in the hands of the Dems, forget about getting another conservative appointed to the Supreme Court, and now Bush is turning over Iraq and the wider war on terror to his father's foreign policy and defense team, which means a return to the failed foreign policy perspectives of the late 1980s and '90s.
Here is the record of Donald Rumsfeld. (1) Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it; (2) less than a month after 9/11 he organized the retaliation against al Qaeda in the heart of primordial Afghanistan that removed the Taliban in 7 weeks, when we were all warned that the U.S., like the British and Russians of old, would fail; (3) oversaw the removal of Saddam in 3 weeks—after the 1991 Gulf War and the 12-years of 350,000 sorties in the no-fly-zones, and various bombing strikes, had failed. (4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?
But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia). He was a good man, and we were lucky to have him in our hour of need.
-- Victor Davis Hanson, http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/11/08/rumsfeld_webband_bbeing_carefu.php
You give the average voter too much credit.
In my view, this is his biggest deficiency.
Which is exactly Bush's strategy by going into Iraq.
If we had gone into France in 1938 would hitler have invaded.
No. And WWII would have been much different. Same with the Japanese. If we had gone straight to Okinawa in the thirties and set up bases they would not have expanded.
So Bush went right in to their living room by invading Iraq forcing the front line away from us and preventing a solid block of jihadi countries impenetrable by force.
We now have bases right in the middle of their lair.
Brilliant. Difficult but brilliant.
Good summary, Johnnie. Sadly, there are a good number of dullards on FR who still don't get it 5 years after 9/11. (I suspect they're all "Pat-sies".)
I suspect Clinton thinks "westphalia" is a kicky sex act.
Maybe a kinky sex act done in a certain type of VW bus? LOL ....
Thanks for posting...
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.