13 Responses to “Donklephant Rumsfeld Thread”

1. Bob J Young Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 2:16 pm

   The military culture is pretty unique.
   Heavily republican, right wing, for the Iraq war, culturally dedicated to following civilian leadership, and very much a “can do” attitude. To get his kind of behavior, from the military, things must be really horrific.

   I think the whole “let’s nuke Iran” thing was just the straw the broke the camels back.
   Makes me wonder what kind of “apocalypse now” conversations are occurring in the oval office.

2. wj Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

   The reasons for this kind of reaction from the military are two:
   - fury that the SecDef is insisting on changing Army from the way they are used to it. So it will be able to fight something other than tank battles in flat country.
   - fury that the SecDef is putting their troops in harms way without the numbers or equipment needed to do the job that the President wants done.

   Figuring out which motive (or what mix of the two) goes with any particular general is the challenge. But that they had to be really pushed to actually stand up and speak out is pretty certain either way.

3. Monica Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 3:25 pm

   Bob -

   I don’t understand your comment. Do you believe that because some generals are saying Rumsfeld needs to go that this is because they want to get out of Iraq now or they just want new management? Your comment makes me think you believe that people on the “right” don’t disagree with each other and that seems pretty absurd.

   Where are you getting your information? How did you come to the conclusion that the “let’s nuke Iran” thing was the last straw?

4. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 3:35 pm

   All of the problems in Iraq today stem from the initial decision to leave a small footprint after Bagdad fell; to go in, cut the head off the snake, and get out quickly thus avoiding a prolonged counterinsurgency effort for which the military was not designed for.

   I believe this decision was made because the administration relied on the testimony of Iraqi exiles who proclaimed that the country was ready to reconstruct itself and was looking forward to the day Saddam was ousted.

   For the most part, they were right except 2 things happened: 1) the Baathist republican guard was only half destroyed when the statues fell, while the other half, positioned north of Anbhar never encountered the invasion force they were expecting, and started the insurgency. 2) foreign fighters snuck in and started the religious jihad while we were busy mopping up the Baathists.

   Who is to blame for that decision? I don’t know, it could have been Rummy. But at least if it wasn’t for Rumsfeld’s “transformation” policy, our armed forces may not have had the capacity to adapt and fight the insurgents as successfully as they have been.

5. Meredith Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 3:54 pm

   Common sense tells me that if all these guys are concerned about Rumsfeld, it must be a real problem. I’m not a fan of this war, but we are in it, and if more and more of the “experts” are complaining about him, I say he’s out. Since this Iraq thing has begun, I have heard news stories about high-ranking military officials complaining that Rumsfeld and friends are forcing plans that don’t work. Maybe we should get someone else in there and see if things improve. I think it’s worth a shot. I guess things could always get worse . . . .

6. Paul Brinkley Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

   While I agree that military culture is predominantly Republican-leaning, I am less certain that its highest officers are a cross section of that culture as a whole. As a matter of fact, a cynical side of me sees this… hmm. I don’t want to go there. Not yet, and hopefully not ever. Certainly not without checking further. And that’s even knowing that I’ve seen examples of what I’m thinking of.

   Meanwhile, the opinions of these retired generals doesn’t jibe with what I hear from friends in lower ranks, so I don’t think things are “horrific” by any stretch.

7. Bob J Young Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 5:33 pm

   Monica: Seemed like a pretty straight forward comment, but I can break it down.

   1) I described the politics and mindset of the military.
   2) Then I pointed out how unusual the generals behavior was, an that something bad must be prompting it.
   3) Then I speculated that recent revelations about using nuclear weapons, and an invasion of Iran pushed the generals into making public declarations.
   4) Finally I wondered what was said that scared them so bad.

8. amba Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 5:34 pm

   Well, as of now Rummy is hanging tough. And Bush is backing him up:

   “Secretary Rumsfeld’s energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation.”

9. Lewis Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 10:13 pm

   Holy cow. A couple of retired “upper managers” bad mouth the boss. So what. That happens all the time in business. Quite often this is just a disgruntled VP that lost out on a power struggle. The ones that cry out the loudest are typically the ones I’m glad they got rid of. They lack class.

   However, before you form an opinion, I suggest you listen to the other side too. Go read some of the military blogs. There are a bunch of them worth reading on a regular basis.

10. Michael Reynolds Says:
    April 14th, 2006 at 10:30 pm

    Lewis:

    If we were doing well in Iraq there might be some justice to your suggestion. But we are clearly not doing very well, and when the CEO appears to be bankrupting the company, criticism from men like the former commanders of the 82nd and the First ID takes on a lot of weight.

11. Lewis Says:
    April 15th, 2006 at 9:01 am

    Oh, we aren’t doing well in Irag? Based on whose opinions, facts and expectations? And who is most responsible for success (however that’s defined) – is it the military or political leadership (which includes more people than just Bush) or is it the American public?

    Now since there are retired generals coming out in support of Rumsfeld, are we going to give the same weight to their opinions or do they not count since they support him?

    What I see is the problem is that we’re all just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. It’s so easy to think if you were in charge, eveything would be different and better. Fact is, we open our mouth and spew forth opinion when we are privy to almost no facts, have no responsibility to make these critical decisions that are based on those facts we don’t know about and don’t have to face the consequences of our decisions. Everything is different when you are the man responsible for making those big decisions. Don’t fool yourself thinking it’s not. If you’ve ever been a manager in a business, you know what I’m talking about.

    Read the miliblogs. You will find a completely different world there with a much different take on the situation in Iraq. Oh course, those guys are actually there doing the hard work. Just maybe they might be better informed about what’s actually going on, both what’s good and not good.

12. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:
    April 16th, 2006 at 11:10 am

    Money quote from the brilliant Bruce Thorton

    Critics who argue that more troops could’ve avoided the current chaos and insurgency assume that the mere presence of more American soldiers could’ve secured facilities, stopped looting, restored order, and strangled the insurgency in its cradle. Maybe. But for all those troops to have a credible deterrent effect, they would’ve had to kill a lot of people, something politically unpalatable. We keep hearing that the insurgency is fueled by anger at the occupation, but how much more intense would that rage had been if the occupying force were twice as large? More troops, if used effectively, mean more killing, more dying, more dead civilians, and more anger all over the Muslim world as Al Jezeera photographed the carnage. What would the reaction of the world be now if 60,000 instead of 30,000 civilians had died? And what would the political fallout here at home be if 5,000 U.S. soldiers instead of 2,300 were killed? More soldiers, more targets for the insurgency, more casualties for the media to dramatize. In those circumstances, what would the critics who now claim that too few troops were sent to do the job be saying now?

    Lewis is right. Its very easy to be an armchair quarterback when you dont have to make decisions, and then face their consequences.

13. Meredith Says:
    April 17th, 2006 at 10:14 am

    Lewis:

    Do you think things in Iraq are going well? Why? And if you are suggesting that the American public is responsible for the success of the Iraq war (how that is true I have no idea), than I, as a member of the American public, would like to see what would happen if other people were in charge for a while. It’s really easy for you or anyone else to use the old “you don’t really know what’s going on over there, therefore, you have no right to ever criticize” argument. Using that line of reasoning, we would not be allowed to criticize government (at any level), the criminal justice system (including SCOTUS), the entire legislative branch, other countries, or even upper management at our own companies because we don’t have “all the facts,” and we “weren’t there.” And, just because there are people who support Rumsfeld does not mean we should just say, “OK, well I guess he’s fine then.” I’m sorry, but you seem like one of those people who is determined to support Bush and this administration no matter what they do, so your opinion seems less credible anyway. I’m so tired of that crap.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Rumsfeld Retirement Rumor
• Rumsfeld On Stopping Torture
• Open Streaming The Second Presidential Debate Tomorrow