| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Rumsfeld is Right |
| 2006-08-08 |
| By Cal Thomas Opponents of President Bush and his Iraq policy have jumped on a comment last week by Gen. John Abizaid, commander, U.S. Central Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war." Ignored in most of the media coverage was what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same hearing: "I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact." Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced. Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished. Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all." Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do." For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism." During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved. America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not." Rumsfeld is right. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #14 Hurtgen was a complete waste of US lives and strenghts. The US Army should have gone around it where air, armor and artillery dominance could be used and then set the forest on fire with the Germans in it. Bradley should have had his ass kicked for refighting WW1. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-08-08 20:02 |
| #13 Cal Thomas's analogy is one of the worst I've seen. Hurtgen was probably the worst run and most wasteful US campaign of WWII. Hurtgen was just one WWI-style frontal infantry attack after another. If Iraq is Hurtgen, we are in trouble. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-08 19:36 |
| #12 Unfortunately none of those in the senators or press at the hearing were self aware enough to realize Gen. Pace's comment was directed at them. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-08-08 19:13 |
| #11 Can't we all just get along? |
| Posted by: Rodney K. 2006-08-08 18:58 |
| #10 Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation." And they are being helped, willingly and cynically, by the Democratic Party and its paid propagandists in the media. Want a depressing statistic? Try this: Americans are being killed in Iraq at a rate only slightly higher than they are being killed in recreational boating mishaps here at home. And that's all it has taken, with the Democrats' connivance, to bring America to within a hair's breadth of giving up in Iraq and slinking home with our tails between our legs-- and calling it "responsible redeployment" or some such pablum. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-08-08 18:57 |
| #9 Steve White, You might not like what WX has to say about his response but like it or not, I think he's pretty much on target with what it will take to win this war. The unfortunate thing is that it will take another 9/11 or worse to make all the people thinking like you realize it. |
| Posted by: mac 2006-08-08 17:52 |
| #8 Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." The main stream media are altogether too willing dupes or dopes. This self-destructive arrogance is difficult to understand. They are a party to publishing fake photographs and stories siding with the enemy. The press would not like the world of islamofacism. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-08-08 17:28 |
| #7 Good thing you're not Sec. Def. then. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-08 17:13 |
| #6 You're not a hawk. You can't handle a fight. You can't handle dead soldiers. You want to make peace at any cost, no ? You're all phalking lucky I'm not Sec Def. The bodies would be buried in trenches as I went door to door searching for weapons, uniforms, korans, whatever. Only when they lost their appetite for a fight would they be invited to vote, and take responsibility for their future. You don't defeat an enemy with jestures, gut a generation out of them and they usually sober up. A nuke will have a similar effect. Bush, Rummy, Blair, none of them have managed to get the attention of mother Islam long enough to make demands. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-08-08 17:09 |
| #5 "I'm sure you've noted that the analogy was Thomas', not Rummy's" I note that. Whatever issues I have with Rummy, i respect him far more than I do Cal Thomas. ". But aside from that, I think Thomas' point was that the cost to the US of the Iraq operation, in historical context, is not that great. All this, of course, including the true but shopworn caveat that every killed or wounded is a tragic loss for our country and the families involved. Having said that, I am leery of these historical comparisons if they rely too much on numbers. The key point, which Rummy makes and the clueless or irresponsible among us including elected officials routinely miss, is that this is a battle of wills. WWII had far worse losses, far far far more mistakes and disasters, but was still a test of wills with our enemies." But this isnt a war being fought like WW2. No dozens of divisions, aircraft carriers, etc. Its more like the cold war, a shadowy war of covert actions, economics, diplomacy, with the occasional flare up to hot war. In case anyones forgotten, we abandoned Viet Nam, and 14 years later the Berlin wall fell. Now Im NOT saying we should withdraw now from Iraq - Im heartened we seem to be taking on Sadr, I note that the Iraqi army seems to be improving, and I hope the influx of US troops to Baghdad can restore a greater degree of order to the capital. And yes, this is the central front of the WOT, as much as any other single place is. BUT - whats happening in Iraq, the number of iraqi deaths, the number of US combat deaths, needs to be seen in the context of Iraq, NOT in the context of World War 2. If the number of Iraqi deaths in Baghdad grows large enough that ordinary Iraqis abandon the central govt entirely, and give all their support to sectarian militias, if Sadr pushes Malike and Sistani aside and establishes in southern Iraq a situation like Hezbollah established in S Lebanon, if KSA and Jordan try to do to Sadr what Israel is doing to Nasrallah, etc, etc it will be little comfort that Baghdad was safer than circa 1943 Shanghai, or that US casualties were less than in the Battle of the Bulge. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-08-08 13:57 |
| #4 Thanks for the correction Verlaine, hope things are quiet at Victory and elsewhere. Wen I see Rumsfeld's name I can't even think straight anymore. I agree with your historical analysis of the battle 52. My point was "lack of leadership" ... which is what I think Rumsfeld has provided quite all on his own. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-08-08 13:35 |
| #3 I'm sure you've noted that the analogy was Thomas', not Rummy's. But aside from that, I think Thomas' point was that the cost to the US of the Iraq operation, in historical context, is not that great. All this, of course, including the true but shopworn caveat that every killed or wounded is a tragic loss for our country and the families involved. Having said that, I am leery of these historical comparisons if they rely too much on numbers. The key point, which Rummy makes and the clueless or irresponsible among us including elected officials routinely miss, is that this is a battle of wills. WWII had far worse losses, far far far more mistakes and disasters, but was still a test of wills with our enemies. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2006-08-08 13:24 |
| #2 Besoeker - what planet are you on? The Hurtgen was a close quarters, bloody, no quarter given battle. Forward replacement had little to do with its conduct. This reads like a cheap shot. |
| Posted by: fighter52 2006-08-08 12:58 |
| #1 Piss poor analogy Rummy. Your Hurtgen Forest example simply highlights past leadership absense from the action and failures. With US forces outnumbered 10 to 1, the first step down the road to this disaster can be traced to the following order: COMBAT UNITS ARE AUTHORIZED TO BASE DAILY REPLACEMENT REQUISITIONS ON ANTICIPATED LOSSES FORTY EIGHT HOURS IN ADVANCE TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF REPLACEMENTS. TO AVOID BUILDING UP OVERSTRENGTH, ESTIMATES SHOULD BE MADE WITH CARE. SIGNED EISENHOWER. This order was based on the necessity of providing replacements for battle losses in time to insure that the initiative would not be lost in battle situations where the enemy was on the run but might recover if replacements were not quickly available. Unfortunately, the order enabled inept staff officers to bring in replacements at such a fast pace that companies and even divisions could take tremendous losses that only could be acceptable because of this replacement policy. The officers making these decisions were never close enough to the front lines to be in danger themselves so they were always around to continue to make more costly mistakes. Combat veterans said that only on the rarest of occasions was any officer above the rank of captain or officer from the staff were ever seen. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-08-08 07:41 |