U.S. Arsenal Refill on Overdrive as Powell, Rumsfeld Split

NewsMax.com ^ | 8/04/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[dcwusmc]

I am not disagreeing with you overall. I AM saying that the professional WARRIORS (who are NOT bureaucraps in uniform) should be the ones to focus on the day-to-day conduct of a war...under the control and general guidance of the civilian Commander-in-Chief... if a warrior gets too rambunctious, his CinC can slap him down. A President has no business setting target lists or sending in airstrikes to cover up his own misdeeds, either one. Nor do politicians have any business writing off their own people just for the sake of some "real-politik" barbra striesand. Nixon should have been impeached for that and Kissinger should still be in prison. (Sorry, but I always have the feeling that, for the grace of God, I coulda been a POW and been one of those written off by Henry. It gets my blood boiling every time.)

I know that our system is overall good for control of the services, but there have to be limits so that the politicians are not tempted to use our kids as fodder to feed their own imperial ambitions, as so many have been wont to do ever since Woodrow Wilson...

[CIB-173RDABN]

We are not very far apart. A smart President would say to the generals, these are our goals, these are our resources and these are your limitations and then let the military go from there.

I would much prefer it if the President would set the objective and let the military determine the means. I just do not see how we can do it. The consitution provides give the President complete authority over the military.

I would guess they would assume the polictical process would keep an imprudent man from acting rashly. It has not always worked out that way.

As I said, how would you consitutionally restrict a President?

I too was in a position to be a POW if things worked out differently. Viet Nam 65-66, Infantry.

[MissAmericanPie]

There should be a set peacetime readiness at which we are not allowed to drop below. The military is living in rat traps, one jet is canabalized to supply parts to another, and now that we need our military, it's kaput.

I think there should be a minimum requirement for readiness that no one can tamper with. Here we are having to delay a war because we don't have the equipment, we don't have the bombs, we don't have the ammo. It's rediculous, it made Bush look weak and it has caused the war on terror to lose much needed momentum.

Worse yet, it made us look vulnerable.

[dcwusmc]

I was in-country in '69, with a Marine helo squadron in support of those magnificent grunts of ours. We were always prone to being shot down in some really awkward places... but the guys down in the mud (you included) deserved the best we could give you. In fact, I have been in touch, on-line and realtime, with some grunts from one of the Bns we supported, 1st Bn, 9th Marines, the Walking Dead...

[financeprof]

There are a variety of possibilities, but short of getting inside of his head (a scary thought) we'll never know for sure. I suspect that he was surprised by the swift US response and deployment to Saudi Arabia (given that he apparently thought the US had given him a green light to go into Kuwait). I doubt that he wanted a war with the US, but as with most dictators, felt that it would be fatal to turn and run. He probably also counted on the USSR's protecting him.

I also recall (somewhat dimly) reading one of the books that came out soon after the Gulf War (by Norman Friedman, I think) that Saddam's troops weren't really capable of moving in force into Saudi. If my recollection is correct, many of his tanks broke down moving through the desert to the Kuwait-Saudi border. I'll try to verify that.

In any event, we shouldn't plan on being lucky twice. This time Saddam knows that if we go in, its because we are going to put his head on a pike. Under these circumstances he has no reason to hold anything--including WMD--back.

[dennisw]

Great photo. That must be our faggy former president when he "commanded" the Arkie national guard. Looks from about 1984 and he looks a bit stoned. Who roused him out of bed that day?

[dennisw]

(See Victor Davis Hanson's review of Carlo D'Este's new Eisenhower biography in the most recent National Review or his recent book that has some pretty revealing things to say about Bradley--and which come eerily close to describing Powell.)
__________________

Thanks FP. I read that book with it's compliments for the hero George Patton. Master of the American super-mobile strike force circa 1943-1944. Bradley was the slow moving bumbler in comparison. He and Eisenhower held Patton back which only meant that more Allied forces died. Patton was viewed as the flakey outsider by these plodders who had FDR's ear.

Looked back today Patton was superior to them and achieved superior results. He loved his men and was close to them.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Financeprof

Thank you - explains a lot. I agree, we will not be lucky twice. When the war begins, Saddam is going to fire off every weapon at his disposal.

[eastforker]

Looks more like sean penn on a bad day.

[CIB-173RDABN]

There were days I felt safer in a hole, then you guys up in the choppers. I think we all did the best we could with what we had.

I think the only solution to the problem we have been discussing is to elect better men to be President.

It has been a pleasure talking to you. (I think I need to get back to work)

[varon]

If allowed to run unchecked, the military can become a government unto itself,...............

Yeah, just like airport security ;-)

[Prodigal Son]

bump