You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
David Warren: Armies Are Offensive
2006-10-02
It is alleged, by former Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, that Donald Rumsfeld once interrupted a briefing of his with the remark: "General, there was no verb in the last sentence." The retired general gave this to CNN as evidence of Mr Rumsfeld's obsession with trivial details.

Let me explain the U.S. defence secretary's curious remark. A sentence without a verb has no meaning. It is a waste not only of the speaker's breath, but of his auditor's time. As Harry Truman once said, being stupid "is hardly against the law for a general"; but it is an inconvenience. And the inability to form sentences is not trivial.

There are a lot of retired generals in the U.S. just now -- Mr Rumsfeld may have the Guinness record for cashiering them -- and a lot of second-guessing about Iraq. The most serious criticism has come from former Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in north-west Iraq two years ago. He told the same TV network the U.S. is in a fix in Iraq, "because Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignored sound military advice, dismissed it all, went with his plan and his plan alone."
Posted by:.com

#14  My 2 cents. Even if numbers (US & Co soldiers) were doubled or tripled, it still wouldn't work. Can't make silk purses out of sows' ears.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-10-02 23:45  

#13  So why were we so pissed off at Europe that we ruined them with socialism and welfare statism?

I'm currently re-reading Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle". Once again, I see parallels with Vietnam and also the current war. During WWII, we fought to destroy the enemy's warfighting capability, leaving politics to the politicians after the war was won. To the Europeans, politics was first and destroying the enemy was second. Many of the attacks, feints, and other military actions of the British, Free French, etc., were ment for symbolism, rather than the destruction of the enemy. They were to "improve morale", "send a message", etc., the same multicultural crap we hear today. The British are more responsible for the current German form of government than the United States, and the German government looks more like the British government than that of the US. The same can be said of the Iraqi government. Just as Iraq was a creation of the British, so is their "form" of government. The only difference is that for the last 50+ years, it's been run as a dictatorship of one group or another. The basic form, however, is still British parlaimentarianism.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-10-02 22:46  

#12  I would suggest that we have missed a bet to a greater extent in Afghanistan, and a lesser one in Iraq. That being, despite sobbing criticism, we should have imposed *our* western system of government on them from the outset. American style, *not* European style.

It was a mistake we also made after WWII with Europe, encouraging them to adopt Social Democrat governments and, even worse, retain the Roman Law and Code Napoleon Law; both of which has been to their ruination ever since.

Bluntly, we should have imposed *our* form of government, not a European parlimentarian style of government, and re-ordered their entire nation to have Common Law, rather than that wretched excuse for law they have. And this applies to all situations. Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan.

No Jurgas. Absolutely NO possibility of Sharia. NO religion in government at all for that matter. Equal rights for women. Free enterprise and small business with little or no government interference. Even make their parlimentarians wear business suits, not dresses.

By utterly re-arranging their shiat, they are forced to see an example of the BEST of what works. To see a truly efficient government in operation. To see equality of opportunity. To see what a modern nation, with a good system of laws, can be.

Then, after even a few years, when we pack up and leave, see if any but utter fanatics want to change back.

McArthur did it for Japan, and boy did it work.

So why were we so pissed off at Europe that we ruined them with socialism and welfare statism? Did we dump on them because they were white?

And by "us", I mean the democrat party that wanted them to be that way. They saw the Japanese as inferior, so ironically let Mac do what he saw fit.

And it was a godsend to them.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-10-02 21:42  

#11  US should have worked with the INC (even if they are crooks) to take over the country as we did in Afghanistan. We should have then set up a series of firebases along the borders to ensure no infilitration and to allow the Iraqi's to take care of their own internal problems.

Thing is, I believe, the goal was not necessarily Iraqi stability as much as a flypaper strategy designed to draw jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran into Iraq where we could kill them. This requires an open border and somewhat exposed troops, as well as alot of nightmarish crap from the "loyal opposition". But it is better than invading a half dozen countries.

The Germans are pussies these days because we culled a generation of the more fanatical types. I believe we are doing the same in Arabia but we are letting the herd self-select. Those that choose to come and die can, the rest will be left in peace.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-10-02 17:44  

#10  Wartime rationing, tires, sugar, etc. The postponement of vehicle manufacturing from 1942-1946, termination of professional sports (such as they were back then). All served as reminders of the greater task at hand, that of Victory and the defeat and destuction of the Axis powers.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-10-02 16:07  

#9  Part of that is simply that we didn't think we were the sort of nation that needed a line in the federal budget for "convincing the American people that supporting the country is a good idea."

Actually done directly or indirectly during WWI and WWII. Notice something missing in the news since then?
Posted by: Gling Whamp5942   2006-10-02 15:55  

#8  "gliberal" - hahaha, great term. I will be procuring that for future.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-10-02 14:57  

#7  I like Rumsfield but thing he's wrong on troop numbers. I don't mean the number of feet on the groun in Iraq but the number of feet available for rotations so the same guys don't go back every other year. After SEPT 11 we should have bumped up the numbers, and pulled troops out of Germany/Korea to ensure flexibility.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-10-02 14:21  

#6  It was Carnot that put together the army Napoleon would fight with.

Actually it was Gribeauval well before the revolution who made French artillery the best in world. I am not sure but he could have also improved artillery schools. One of them was soon to have a pupil called Buonaparte.
Posted by: JFM   2006-10-02 11:59  

#5  Is he perfect. Hell, no. I find both Rumsfeld and the GOÂ’s at fault for ‘outsourcingÂ’ the reporting of the war. Rummy because he has enough on his plate, but the attitude of the GOs is that they donÂ’t want to be bothered by it, is a clear demonstration of the narrow vision that the suits have. They are still protecting their turf and control over their environment and donÂ’t want to have to deal with winning anything outside of the battlefield. YouÂ’d think theyÂ’d learned from Vietnam, that you can win all the battles, but still lose the war. See, its another aspect that has yet been reformed in the military culture. Maybe they have to give up some of their resouces to compete with the enemy and their allies in 'winning the hearts and minds' back home. There is still much work to be done and egos to be bruised.

Part of that is simply that we didn't think we were the sort of nation that needed a line in the federal budget for "convincing the American people that supporting the country is a good idea."
Posted by: Phil   2006-10-02 11:51  

#4  Classic graphic there.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2006-10-02 11:29  

#3  No Grenter, I don't play golf with him and nothing I've said comes from the MSM.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-10-02 09:30  

#2  So you know him personally Besoeker and not the crap that comes filtered from MSM?

My read on history is that effective reform in a military establishment occurs when it either (a) loses a war [i.e. WWI>Germans, Vietnam>Americans] or (b) has a leadership purge [i.e. French Revolutionary Army]. The military of the 90s was stilled anchored on a strategy of a massive European land based war with the Soviet Union and damn slow and resistant to evolution. It was going to hurt a lot of egos and personal pets of the General Officer corps to make the change. Character assassination is a long and fine tradition from the time of the Roman Republic.

It was Alexander and FredrickÂ’s fathers who built the armies they won with. It was Carnot that put together the army Napoleon would fight with. Notice how the builders get little credit for laying the foundation which served the names of history well. You are witnessing the transition of a military force that is suited not just for fighting a war effectively and efficiently, but one that has to operate within the political, cultural, and economic parameters of the American Republic. Lots of toes and personal empires are being bruised.

Is he perfect. Hell, no. I find both Rumsfeld and the GO’s at fault for ‘outsourcing’ the reporting of the war. Rummy because he has enough on his plate, but the attitude of the GOs is that they don’t want to be bothered by it, is a clear demonstration of the narrow vision that the suits have. They are still protecting their turf and control over their environment and don’t want to have to deal with winning anything outside of the battlefield. You’d think they’d learned from Vietnam, that you can win all the battles, but still lose the war. See, its another aspect that has yet been reformed in the military culture. Maybe they have to give up some of their resouces to compete with the enemy and their allies in 'winning the hearts and minds' back home. There is still much work to be done and egos to be bruised.
Posted by: Glitle Grenter4308   2006-10-02 09:20  

#1  For those with some knowledge of Mr Rumsfeld's working habits, it also comes as a surprise. He has a reputation for encouraging reasoned debate among his subordinates but not with him or his inner circle.
Rubbish!
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-10-02 07:30  

00:00