Article

2004-12-21 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-12-21 1:34:09 AM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Interesting segment on Fox this morning. A commentor for the Democrats was spouting the dogma of Rumsfield must go because "our troops don't have the armoured vehicles they need". No mention of the planted question and the really bogus issue of armoured vehicles. Why let facts get in the way of a good attack on Rumsfield? Disgusting.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-12-21 8:03:54 AM|| 2004-12-21 8:03:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Earlier this month, Mr Rumsfeld faced questioning from marines over alleged inadequacies in their kit.

I thought they were Army National Guard, not Marines.

Hmmm... a quick check says I'm right, and the BBC screwed up another story. It's such a basic matter, why can't reporters get the simplest of things right?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-21 8:16:56 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-21 8:16:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 They lost the election. Now they want Rummy as a consolation prize.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 8:47:25 AM|| 2004-12-21 8:47:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Rummy the bad boy. Our Mommies at the MSM are telling us how bad it will be if we date him. Hmmm...why does he suddenly seems so much cooler than before?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 8:59:57 AM|| 2004-12-21 8:59:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 To paraphrase Lincoln, upon being told that Grant drank heavily - Find out what the man drinks and send a case to the rest of the generals.

Posted by Don 2004-12-21 9:12:34 AM|| 2004-12-21 9:12:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Don- priceless!

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 9:13:45 AM|| 2004-12-21 9:13:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 In a related news story on Drudge, a "poll" said that 52% of Americans wanted Rumsfeld to go. (I suppose 54% of Americans would want Bush to have his dog groomed by a different dog groomer, too.) But seriously, the only response to this is for Rumsfeld to give fewer press conferences--which accomplish nothing, anyway--for a time. Let the Pentagon spokesman do it, it makes him less a target for the "ambitious men". He's one of the best Secretaries of War since Stanton.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-21 9:33:13 AM|| 2004-12-21 9:33:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 To paraphrase Lincoln, upon being told that Grant drank heavily - Find out what the man drinks and send a case to the rest of the generals.

How ironic, considering that Grant largely originated the "American way of war" going in with massive force to overwhelm the enemy, the very approach that the military transformation championed by Rummy is trying to overturn. Which makes sense in SOME places (and worked well in Afghanistan) but has been problematic in Iraq.

Grant after the war, as Chief of Staff (or whatever the title was) then Sec of War, then Prez presided over a decade long occupation of the South, one which was long, costly, and messy.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 9:43:33 AM|| 2004-12-21 9:43:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 ironic, isn't it LH, that those post-war reconstructions tend to be long, messy and costly. Whoda thunk it?

I'm confused, are you saying that Grant's "overwhelming force" was ironic in that it was what Rummy did wrong, or was Grant's "overwhelming force" responsible for the South's long messy reconstruction?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 9:47:59 AM|| 2004-12-21 9:47:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 2b - yes, the absence of such was what Rummy did wrong, and if he had studied Grant better he might have EXPECTED and BEEN PREPARED for a long messy occupation.

I give you this, from one of the guest bloggers at Sullivans site.

'WHAT RUMSFELD MEANS: David Ignatius seems to be missing something about the debate over Rumsfeld's future, calling him "a convenient scapegoat" for the administration's mistakes in Iraq. But why, on the heels of an electoral victory that vindicated the president's Iraq policy, would Republicans be trying to save face? For the victors, post-election recriminations are about the future rather than the past -- and Rumsfeld is associated with a particular post-election agenda. As Bill Kristol, who initiated the anti-Rumsfeld movement, said of the secretary: "His theory about the military is at odds with the president's geopolitical strategy. He wants this light, transformed military, but we've got to win a real war, which involves using a lot of troops and building a nation, and that's at the core of the president's strategy for rebuilding the Middle East." As Ignatius sees it, the debate over troop levels "is partly a rear-action battle against Rumseld's ideas about military 'transformation.' Advocates of the old, heavyweight Army have never forgiven Rummy for advocating lighter, more mobile forces, but Rumsfeld was correct." Evidently, however, not everyone agrees. As Andrew put it:

Rumsfeld came into the Pentagon with an admirable agenda of forcing the military to become leaner, to maximise the use of technology and to move away from the large numbers and heavy armaments of the past. But his wars showed that the old methods were still valid.
So Rumsfeld's critics "see a clear mismatch between Americaâs goals and its means" and "recognize in Rumsfeld an obstacle to victory rather than an asset." Whatever the details regarding armor in Iraq, the fact remains that Rumsfeld favors air power and light forces rather than large numbers of armored troops. This leads, some argue, to American deployments unprepared for the security situation on the ground. But it also means an American military ill-equipped for political reconstruction and nation-building, the sort of democracy-promoting missions Rumsfeld doesn't like. "Donald Rumsfeld has articulated a strategy of nation-building 'lite,' involving a rapid transition to local control and a tough-love policy that leaves locals to find their own way toward good government and democracy," Francis Fukuyama has written. "This is a dubious approach, at least if one cares about the final outcome." So it's not surprising that those who want the U.S. to promote democracy or rebuild failing states would like a future administration Rumsfeld-free. And it also explains why Rumsfeld isn't simply a scapegoat for the president: On nation-building and democracy, Bush and Rumsfeld disagree.'

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 10:48:36 AM|| 2004-12-21 10:48:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 President Bush has praised Mr Rumsfeld for doing "a really fine job

yah, well, he said such things about Tenet and Powell as well, IIRC.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 10:50:07 AM|| 2004-12-21 10:50:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 this from Belgravia Dispatch]

"You know, rarely have we faced such mediocre political leadership around the globe, alas. Both sides of the aisle are consumed by so much group-think. Pelosi, Dean, Moore and Co. go on about how awful it all is and how the Chimp-in-Chief is taking us towards some quasi-fascist state and, basically, running around killing people for oil. And there is too rarely the appetite to confront square-on the full gamut of challenges Iraq presents in the amen corners of the self-congratulatory American right (though Bush did admit, more forcefully than before, some of the challenges in his press conclave of yesterday). Mavericks (how dare they disagree with the infallible and saintly Rumsfeld!) like Hagel and McCain are roundly derided as showboaters and worse. But perhaps arguably the best leader on the world stage today, Tony Blair, fits this more maverick mold. Who can imagine another Labour PM, faced with such a groundswell of public opposition, standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. through 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq?

I repeat: a morally defunct exit strategy, where we declare victory and leave a too hastily trained, under-qualified Iraqi "army" to be slaughtered like lemmings, will be the final straw for war supporters like me. I still believe Bush will see this through. But his Ljubljana-like 'sense of his soul' defense of Rummy yesterday doesn't give me comfort that the President fully gets it. Am I too pessimisic about the strength of the post-elections insurgency? Perhaps. I hope so. But we're probably lying to ourselves if we are making policy assumptions (again!) that are so overly rosy. I'm hearing that some in the Pentagon are, quite amazingly, contemplating troop draw-downs in '05. That is too premature and would likely prove a disaster. "

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 10:55:11 AM|| 2004-12-21 10:55:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 LH, let me ask you and other Rumsfelfd critics this: where do you think Rumsfeld would have gotten his "overwhelming troop levels" to "properly" occupy Iraq?

Posted by joeblow 2004-12-21 11:05:33 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:05:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 You've tripped yourself up in post #8, LH. Grant used the overwhelming force that you say Rumsfeld lacked, and still endured a long and messy occupation. So, what that shows is that "overwhelming force" during the war phase would not necessarily have prevented a long and messy occupation.

Oh, and Rumsfeld would have been really, really smart to base his assumptions on what would happen in a post ruthless, bloody, dictatorship, surrounded by hostile middle eastern, muslim countries - on what happened in our fight over states rights and slavery...almost 150 years ago. Brilliant, Holmes, just Brilliant!

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 11:08:39 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:08:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Rumsfeld came into the Pentagon with an admirable agenda of forcing the military to become leaner, to maximise the use of technology and to move away from the large numbers and heavy armaments of the past. But his wars showed that the old methods were still valid.

Pardon me while I say cough*bovine manure*cough. How would Crusader have helped in Iraq?

This was a disagreement with the Army about whether the emphasis should be on mass per troop or information and precision per troop. The performance of the military in Iraq demonstrates that we need a balance with more information, not more mass.

The other question that is not Rummy's alone to decide is how big a military do we want? If folks want to expand the Army by X0,000 troops how do we pay for it? If we do it, we should do it for at least a decade, if not two. Why do we want to expand the military for two decades by X0,000 troops?

What Rumsfeld is trying to do with the Army is generally correct at the high level. If he makes errors at the lower levels, they can be corrected after the correct high level direction is set. But getting the high level direction to change is hard to do, particularly in peace time.

One thing Rumsfeld refuses to do is admit mistakes in public. The way the press has twisted the comments of the President on the Iraqi forces from yesterday's press conference is a demonstration of why errors should never be admitted or allies criticized when the media has become aligned with the enemy. Rumsfeld should treat the MSM like the enemy force it is. Rumsfeld should also learn lesons from mistakes. If the record indicates he is failing to do so, he should go.

I submit again, Rummy is a consolation prize for losers.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:17:28 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:17:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 2b - so youre agreeing that the Grant analogy is not apt? So are people going to stop citing it whenever Rummys resignation is called for?

joeblow - 1. The US army had 10 divisions, and the USMC 3 divisions, in March 2003, not counting Guards and Reserves. Certainly using more than we did would have been costly, in limiting our ability to act elsewhere, and in straining the Guard, but not nearly so much as the occupation since has done. IF (and i realize some disagree) a larger force in the first two months of occupation would have made the rest of the occupation easier, this would have relieved our forces in the long term, and REDUCED overstretch.
2. He could have gotten them from the divisions he would have started organizing in September 2001, a full 18 months before we went into Iraq, IF he had decided that a larger ground force was necessary for the WOT. Which he did NOT decide.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 11:20:09 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:20:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 The other question that is not Rummy's alone to decide is how big a military do we want? If folks want to expand the Army by X0,000 troops how do we pay for it?

1. Had he expanded the army in 2001, and had this led to better results in the occupation, we would have saved money in Iraq, and in the long term with a better strategic position. We couldnt afford those divisions, but we CAN afford to fix things in Iraq, then watch them be blown up, and then fix them again. Not enough money to do it right, but enough to fix it later.

2. From weapons systems, particularly the fighter systems, according to some. But Im sure arguments can be made for each of them, so I wont belabor that.

3. From not cutting taxes quite as much. People here quote Lincoln in the ACW, when the US imposed an income tax for the first time. They refer to Churchill, who raised taxes, imposed rationing, etc. This is an attempt to fight war on the cheap. I dont know if Bush and the White House would have turned Rummy down, if he asked for more troops funded out of higher taxes. My impression is that never came up, cause Rummy didnt WANT more troops, as a matter of principle.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 11:26:29 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:26:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 yes, liberal hawk, I'm agreeing that your Grant analogy in post #8 is incoherent and meaningless.

Liberalhawk, let me just sum up for you what I think it is that you really want to say:

"Bad Rummy! Bad! spank/spank! (ooooh, that feels so good!) Do it again Rummy! Whose your daddy? whose your daddy? Rummy, you are a bad, bad boy!

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 11:27:39 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:27:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 The performance of the military in Iraq demonstrates that we need a balance with more information, not more mass.

Thats a matter of debate, IIUC. Getting intell in an insurgency situation means protecting your sources, and THAT requires mass.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 11:28:17 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:28:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 2b - i didnt introduce the Grant analogy.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 11:28:52 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:28:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 as for admitting errors. Churchill faced a hostile press, and hostile members of parliament, and yet he admitted errors.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 11:30:20 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:30:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 I submit again, Rummy is a consolation prize for losers

And i remind you again, that many of the people calling for Rummys head, are folks who voted for George Bush, and some of them are people who actively campaigned for him (John McCain, and other GOP Senators) or actively supported him in their publications (the Weekly Standard). I myself did NOT vote for Kerry, as I feared he would cut and run.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 11:32:40 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:32:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 And people calling for him to stay also voted for Bush....so what's your point? That you are now a Trent Lott groupie?

i didnt introduce the Grant analogy. Well then, I guess someone else was posting under your hat in post #8.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 11:36:13 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:36:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 The Grant analogy is apt, in a way.

Grant and Sherman DID use overwhelming force _during_ the Civil War, but it didn't help a damn bit when Reconstruction went south after the war, which suggests that if we had the extra divisions going into Iraq (which we couldn't have supplied through Kuwait, according to the military logistics people I've talked to, and which Turkey wouldn't let us deploy through them) it wouldn't have helped much either.

Keep in mind that in spite of Grant and Sherman's overwhelming force during the war, Reconstruction ended with the Federal troops withdrawing from the South and the imposition of de jure segregation.

This wasn't because of force or a lack of it, but because of internal political divisions in the North (sound familiar?) and the concept that any groups committing terrorist acts (as many of the "resistance" groups in the South did) must have been some sort of freedom fighters.

Also, Liberalhawk, IF the people now calling for Rumsfeld's head, both liberal and republican, had wanted a larger military, they could have offered to fund one in September 2001. Heck, they could have simply not cut the divisions in question back in 1991, or in the 1993-2000 period. A lot of those Senators and Congressvarmints, both Democrat and Republican, are the people who made the cuts that determined the size of the army today.

(And I'm still pissed off at the cancellation of the M-8. The Republicans, John McCain among them, helped cancel that; the Stryker AGS is a poor substitute, IMHO).

(And Sen. McCain is still proud of the fact that he's managed to stop any attempt to upgrade the roughly forty year old tanker fleet... and I'll bet he's going to be the first one to gripe about insufficient funds spent on airlift, never mind that the C-17s have short legs compared to the plane they replaced and NEED tankers in order to be utilized properly. Just as one example...)

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-21 11:36:46 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-21 11:36:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 A hostile press is different from a press that abets the enemy.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:37:41 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:37:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Ironic that the attacks on Rumsfeld come from both those who say we did too much and too little in Iraq. Liberals and paleo-cons who always opposed the war attack Rumsfeld with the same arguments used by other liberals and neo-cons who support a massive nation-building effort: too few troops, not enough security for the Iraqis, and Abu Ghraib Abu Nauseam.

Somebody's not arguing in good faith here. Who might that be, LH?

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 11:38:43 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:38:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Sherman used maneuver, Grant force.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:39:12 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:39:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 LH, if you're coming to the Rantapalooza, and I hope you will, we may need a private room, 'cause I'll bet it gets loud.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:44:09 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:44:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 If Rumsfeld did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Bush must not be allowed a success in Iraq.

Of course, successes are occurring, despite the violence, and if our idiot MSM and the anti-democracy coalition in Washington would focus on Jan 30 instead of the last 12 hours, they'd realize that Iraq is about to take an enormous step forward. Breathtaking, really. In the presence of which all the anti-Rumsfeld blather is just so much background noise.

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 11:44:26 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:44:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 we may need a private room

shocking! really, Mrs D... mind your eggnog

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 11:45:22 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:45:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 I hear Mr. D. may show.... it was a mind bender to see that scoundral stumble in yesterday. Tongues were wagging indeed.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-21 11:48:33 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:48:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 lol!

BTW...interesting post, PF.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 11:49:48 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:49:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 McCain is a grandstanding pimp - remember Keating Five? Trent Lott is a spineless puss that only votes for Navy contracts that pork his state. These and Kristol (whose claim to fame is being the son of Irving Kristol) are who LH poses as the serious anti-Rummy's? This is only a niggling first step to get a whack at Bush before he implements his agenda. Second-guessing by those who didn't authorize higher forces is "a politican" by definition

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-21 11:54:27 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:54:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Bullshit indeed. Let's see Rumsfeld's critics debate the real issue here: are they or are they not in favor of a massive escalation of our presence in Iraq and a multi-year engagement there at a level of >200,000 troops?

Truth time, folks. No more funnin'

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 12:24:56 PM|| 2004-12-21 12:24:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 well said, Lex. LOL! It's be like watching dogs crambling for the door on linoleum floor...like cockroaches scattering when you turn on the light.

No...it's much more fun to wag fingers than it is to have a serious discussion about how to best move forward.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 12:35:19 PM|| 2004-12-21 12:35:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 More to the point, Lex, are they willing to make the decision to increace the defense budget to make an increace in the size of the Army possible?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-21 12:40:21 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-21 12:40:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 It may well be that some of Rumsfeld's critics are indeed in favor of increasing force strength and going the whole nine yards on nation building. Perhaps this is LH's position; probably Kristol's view.

But I seriously doubt that Chuck Hagel favors a 100,000 troop increase in the Army, or a 50k increase in the Iraq contingent, or a commitment to five years+ in Iraq. And I'm pretty certain that no one at the NY Times aside from maybe Tom Friedman favors this. Does McCain favor this kind of engagement?

So what is it exactly-- aside from tearing down Bush by proxy-- that these folks seek to achieve by replacing Rumsfeld? What policy do they expect a successor to follow?

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 12:46:43 PM|| 2004-12-21 12:46:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 "Also, Liberalhawk, IF the people now calling for Rumsfeld's head, both liberal and republican, had wanted a larger military, they could have offered to fund one in September 2001. Heck, they could have simply not cut the divisions in question back in 1991, or in the 1993-2000 period. A lot of those Senators and Congressvarmints, both Democrat and Republican, are the people who made the cuts that determined the size of the army today."

The GOP, when calling for increased Defense $ in the 90s, wanted more for missile defense not more troops. NOBODY expected 9/11, and a different strategic situation. The question was what to do after 9/11. The admin simply DID NOT come to congress with proposals to increase ground forces after 9/11 - you can hardly blame congress for that.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:06:49 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:06:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 "Ironic that the attacks on Rumsfeld come from both those who say we did too much and too little in Iraq. Liberals and paleo-cons who always opposed the war attack Rumsfeld with the same arguments used by other liberals and neo-cons who support a massive nation-building effort: too few troops, not enough security for the Iraqis, and Abu Ghraib Abu Nauseam.

Somebody's not arguing in good faith here. Who might that be, LH?"

In fact thats not quite true. Ive seen references to lefties saying that the attack on Rummy is a crock, since it implies that IF wed done things the right way, Iraq would be a success, whereas (according to them) Iraq was doomed to failure anyway.

It is true that folks like Pelosi, etc are attacking Rummy. So? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can vouch for no one other than myself - and i dont expect you to believe some electrons sent through the internet, but for what its worth, I will say that I want victory in Iraq, and I AM arguing in good faith.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:10:53 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:10:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 you can hardly blame congress for that.

God! You are so freaking dense. The point wasn't who to blame in the past, but what would "they" be willing to commit to in the future.

tense:
are they willing to make the decision to increace the defense budget to make an increace in the size of the Army possi

Doesn't your finger ever get tired from wagging it all the time? Blame, blame, blame. Gad Damn I'm tired of your wanking.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:11:52 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:11:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 "Bullshit indeed. Let's see Rumsfeld's critics debate the real issue here: are they or are they not in favor of a massive escalation of our presence in Iraq and a multi-year engagement there at a level of >200,000 troops?

Truth time, folks. No more funnin'"

1. I am. I am sure Kristol and his associates are. I THINK McCain is. I think Warner and Lugar might be. I dont know about the others.

2. Its NOT JUST about policy going forward. There are ALSO issues of accountability for past mistakes. But I agree, those are secondary.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:14:13 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:14:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 McCain is a grandstanding pimp - remember Keating Five? Trent Lott is a spineless puss that only votes for Navy contracts that pork his state. These and Kristol (whose claim to fame is being the son of Irving Kristol) are who LH poses as the serious anti-Rummy's? This is only a niggling first step to get a whack at Bush before he implements his agenda. Second-guessing by those who didn't authorize higher forces is "a politican" by definition

william kristols claim to fame is as an aide to Dan Quayle, and an influential Republican thinker and journalist (with whom i disagree on a broad range of issues, BTW). Hes quite influential on his own, in ways his father never was.

John McCain is probably the most popular Republican Senator in the country. Trent Lott is a conservative Republican Senator. Warner is chair of the Armed Services Committee, IIRC. Hagel, Lugar, Collins are also GOP Senators.

But Im sure you can find a way to diss and insult every one of them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:19:13 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:19:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Thank you.

soooo... which social programs do you want to draw the funds from? Social security? Schools?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:20:29 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:20:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 No, rescind the tax cuts and go back to recession. It makes it easier to elect Democrats.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 1:22:58 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:22:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 2b

Im not the one who wrote the following

"Heck, they could have simply not cut the divisions in question back in 1991, or in the 1993-2000 period. A lot of those Senators and Congressvarmints, both Democrat and Republican, are the people who made the cuts that determined the size of the army today"

It was in response to that that I discussed the past, and blaming congress. It would really help if you followed the complete discussion, rather than just replying to me out of context.

This stuff about "blame games" from the people who spend hours blaming everyone from Clinton to 60s liberals for everything wrong in this country, and whose ideology emphasizes personal responsibility, is laughable.

Anyone remember Max Cleland - we, disabled veteran, was attacked as unpatriotic, and defeated. Why? cause he objected to Dept of Defense reform legislation, which would have reduced Civil Service protections for DoD employees. IE which would have made it easier to fire folks who screwed up (among other things). And here when the discussion comes to whether or not a particular DoD employee should be fired for screwing up, its a nasty finger wagging blame game!!!!!! Rummy at least, deserves iron clad civil service protection, I see.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:25:00 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:25:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Collectively we all play the blame game. It's just that you never EVER seem to be able to move past it.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:26:30 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:26:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 mrs D - he wouldnt have had to rescind the tax cuts, he could have delayed them or made them smaller. As for fiscal stimulus from them, that would have been compensated for by the fiscal stimulus from higher defense spending. As for cutting domestic spending, that would have been worthwhile too, though sharing the sacrifices by also increasing taxes would have made that more palatable. Thats what Lincoln did, what Churchill did, what FDR did. Of course they were all really committed to WINNING their wars.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:27:51 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:27:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 i have posted here for a couple of years, and i think those who have seen my post can vouch that i post on many other subjects.

I DO happen to think that the admin made serious mistakes in Iraq. This effected my thoughts about the election, which is now over. I also think it would be appropriate for Rumsfeld to resign, if not now, then in the next few months. Some people take issue with that. I respond. Im sorry if that looks like Im engaged in the blame game. When I discuss Israeli or Iraqi politics, say, not many folks here violently disagree, so i naturally dont post many followups. Its natural, therefore that you will notice more of my posts that disagree with the majority opinion here, and this is the one area where Im in substantial disagreement with most here (i think even on the issue of moderate muslims there are more who agree with me than on Rummy, etc)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:32:08 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:32:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 what a shame he didn't listen to you LH. I'm sure everything would have just turned out perfect, flawless and it would be nothing but roses in Iraq right now.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:33:14 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:33:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 what a shame he didn't listen to you LH. I'm sure everything would have just turned out perfect, flawless and it would be nothing but roses in Iraq right now.

A statement that could be used against anyone who criticizes any govt official over any screwup. I suppose official decisions make no impact on outcomes.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:34:52 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:34:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 you just don't get it do you? It's one thing to have a discussion about that play, back in 2004, during the 4th Quarter, when the coach should have made the call that you just know would have won the game.

That's ok. It's ok to bring it up every now and then. But... after awhile, ...I mean get a clue. Your like a freaking broken record. Rummy is bad, Rummy is bad. Bad Rummy, Bad Rummy. He should have listened to me, he should have listened to me.

time to move fooking forward.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:39:22 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:39:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Make no mistake, the MSM, the Euros, and Dummycrats are going after Rummy to get to President Bush. They don't dare attack Bush directly, since he just won a decisive victory.

As always, the MSM, the Euros, and Dummycrats are on the wrong side of history. Given a choice between tyranny and freedom, as in Iraq, people aways go for freedom.

Posted by Capt America 2004-12-21 1:40:37 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:40:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 well said, Capt. A. And I liked Mrs. D's take on it too: They lost the election. Now they want Rummy as a consolation prize.

Maybe this is all just another Bush/Rove rope a dope. He's getting the likes of Liberalhawk and McCain and maybe even Pelosi to demand he increase the troop levels and the defense budget.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:46:02 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:46:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 ok...wasn't fair to include LH in that list. I retract that.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:46:50 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:46:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 He's getting the likes of Liberalhawk and McCain and maybe even Pelosi to demand he increase the troop levels and the defense budget.

Google on Shinseki. This admin HAS NOT WANTED TO increase troop levels (for reasons other posters here have suggested).

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:50:39 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:50:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 hmm...that was kinda my point..though it was indeed just a jest.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 1:53:53 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:53:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 someone else whos tired of the blame game, and of dwelling on the past ;)

"Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated Tuesday he has no intention of resigning over allegations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program and plans to move ahead with sweeping changes at the United Nations. "

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 1:58:49 PM|| 2004-12-21 1:58:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Nice try, but Kofi is about corruption, cover-up, bribes and being the captain of the ship. Rumsfeld is about your belief that if he had only done what you said, then there would have been no insurgency in Iraq...that they'd all be singing Kumbaya right now.

Kofi is the head of the UN, and thus the Captain of the ship, and thus the one that should resign for the corruption he knowingly allowed.

Remember the election, the one we just had? The population voted, and said that they didn't think Bush, the leader, should resign.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 2:12:14 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:12:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Fair enough, LH. Thanks for your sincere and intelligent posts.

I have my doubts about McCain's sincerity. I could be wrong but I believe that Hagel, Lott and other midwestern and southern Republicans would revert to isolationism in a heartbeat and have little interest in democracy promotion in Iraq or elsewhere.

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 2:16:19 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:16:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Good thread-I like the hot discourse.

In my militarily ignorant opinion, though troop size would have to be at the top of the list of considerations, it isn't the most important dart in the quiver. The PR damage is about the (lack of) armor.

What do you all think-was the fact that many vehicles weren't armored a financial problem, a manufacturing/timing problem, some other kind of logistical problem or was it something else?

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-21 2:32:23 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:32:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 jules...there was an article on powerline the other day that revealed that 784 out of 208 vehicles were armored. The National Guard unit was in Iraq and thus unaware that most of the vehicles had already been armored. Rummy stumbled on the question, it's true. But the real story was that the MSM, once again, played fast and loose with the real facts for partisan purposes.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 2:36:56 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:36:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Thanks, 2b. I am guessing you mean 184?
So based on what you say, these widely covered IED-caused injuries are happening DESPITE the armoring vehicles?

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-21 2:41:35 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:41:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 i gotta go. You are entitled to your opinions, LH. I apologize for sounding off.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 2:42:43 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:42:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 I don't have time for everything, but on the note of Missile Defense... I refuse to accept blame for the small size of the Army just because I don't want to see the funding for strategic defense (or, for that matter, the Air Force, or the Navy, which a lot of people seem to want to see done) flushed down the toilet. (See my comments re: McCain and tankers, which directly affect our airlift).

By the time we're actually IN the battle in the straits of Taiwan it's going to be _too late_ to pass a budget increace resolution.

When you (and the Senators in question) are serious enough to propose increacing the fraction of the federal budget that goes to Defense past 25% I might bother listening to statements that the tax rate is too low.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-21 2:46:14 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-21 2:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 cant' find my key's ...jules..I think I meant 804. No, the army had just finished armoring them around the time Rumsfeld spoke, but the orders were in before he spoke. The story has fallen off Powerlineblogs screen - don't expect the MSM to correct it anytime soon.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 2:56:42 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:56:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Great thread. I'd take liberal out of your moniker, LH. You're OK.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 2:59:06 PM|| 2004-12-21 2:59:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Funny, Liberalhawk, I never said that Rumsfeld shouldn't be "held accountable," just that he hasn't made the mistakes, or is entirely responsible, for the mistakes you said and the politicians who actually made them have said he's made.

Jules: past a certain point, there isn't much armoring can do to counter IED's. It can help more against small arms fire, but IED's are essentially mines and it's hard to turn a jeep or truck into a mine-proof APC.

The whole criticism of Rumsfeld is based on the idea that if we'd done one or two things differently, the conflict would be over by now.

I think this idea itself is wrong; the country isn't fighting an enemy that can be overwhelmed with sheer numbers.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-21 3:01:56 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-21 3:01:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 The neocons/RINO's have thrown in their hats with the Dems to take down Rummie because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. As a Jacksonian, Rummie is more a typical Republican. RINO's like McCain, Collins, Hagel, Warner and that "famous" non-elected neo-con talking head Kristol are more typically associated with the Democrat party, being Wilsonians at heart, so it's no surprise they're on Rumsfeld's case. Rumsfeld has no plans to do any more transforming or nation building.

LH, do you think GWB would have been re-elected if he didn't give the tax cuts but rather ratcheted up troop build up to nation build abroad? I doubt it.

The RINO/neocon component of GOP voters is miniscule and they're the only ones who would have stuck with GWB. In fact if GWB had given a speech to the American people that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was nation building and ME transformation and that their taxes might even increase to pursue this noble goal, I'd bet that 50% of traditional registered GOP voters would have turned off their TV sets instantly.

Posted by joeblow 2004-12-21 3:05:48 PM|| 2004-12-21 3:05:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Jules, 7884 out of 808 vehicles had been armoured and the rest were armoured within the next couple of days. This was a red herring by the reporter that put the National Guardsman up to asking the question. Yes, the injuries from IED's are happening in spite of the up-armouring. I lost a great youn soldier named Reed a few weeks ago to a roadside bomb. He was in the gun turret of an armoured truck when the bomb was detonated and he didn't have a chance. There are some things even armour can't help with. Besides, all the extra armour restricts vision and slows down vehicles. I'm not saying it's not worth it but there are trade-offs.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-12-21 3:09:50 PM|| 2004-12-21 3:09:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Dopey me, 784 out of 808.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-12-21 3:10:32 PM|| 2004-12-21 3:10:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Oh, something else comes to mind: LH, you mentioned Roosevelt... read about this:

http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=&D=4/26/2004&ID=31521.

The exercise involved 3,000 ships and 30,000 men. Only one British corvette provided escort for the slow-moving convoy of U.S. Navy ships to Slapton Sands. Nine fast-moving German torpedo boats happened upon the convoy, sank two ships and badly damaged a third. The attack killed nearly four times as many men as the division later lost in the D-Day landing, June 6, 1944.

The survivors were warned to keep it secret, and the casualties were not announced until nearly two months after the Normandy invasion. Full details were not known until 1974, when the records were declassified.

They lost about 750 people from that one mistake. That's a big fraction of as many US soldiers have been lost in this entire war.

They classified the deaths for six months. They kept the details secret until 1974. (I don't know if they picked a slow news day to release it then, or waited until Friday, or whatever).

AFAIK neither the sec. of war nor the sec. of the Navy were sacked.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-21 3:29:05 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-21 3:29:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 What joeblow said. The subtext here is that Bush is holding together a very uneasy and tenuous coalition of OTOH Wilsonian neo-cons and OTOH realpolitikers aligned with traditional midwestern and southern Republican isolationists. Cheney was a member of the latter group in 1991 but got Wilsonian religion post-911. Wilsonian Democrats who urged intervention in Bosnia got isolationist religion in late 2002.

It's all very confusing, mainly because the world situation is so confusing. We depend on imported mideast oil, but we can no longer rely on a balance-of-power approach to corrupt mideast oil-rich powers that are attacking us via proxies. We want legitimacy in the world's eyes, but we cannot rely on the UNSC to do the right thing regarding rogue state threats. We're fighting an amorphous enemy on a dozen fronts across Africa, the middle east and Asia, but we also need a massive, concentrated force to crush ba'athist fascism in Iraq.

Americans want desperately to go back to the carefree days of dotcoms, blowjobs, and 20%+ increases in the Dow each year, but we know the world is burning and that the Euros and Russians cannot and will not put out the fire. So we have a lot of schizoid criticism of Rumsfeld and a lot of incoherent hatred of Bush and the big bad post-911 world. But nothing like an intelligent strategic worldview with which to oppose Bush.

In light of the above, I think Bush has actually done an amazing job in keeping public support as high as it is for this war effort. A bit like Roosevelt during the 1930s. Note that the most difficult travails are yet to come. Nuclear Iran and Chinese expansionism will be even more difficult than Iraq.

Posted by lex 2004-12-21 3:36:26 PM|| 2004-12-21 3:36:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 I backed Rummy at Belgravia Dispatch and repeat that backing here.

Iraq, to my mind, has had two distinct operational phases: conventional invasion and unconventional foreign internal defense (FID). I specifically use FID rather than occupation and therein lies my disagreement with those who argue for increased troop levels and their take on the situation in Iraq and Rumsfeld.

The invasion of Iraq was crafted to defeat a large, conventional military on the defense. Baathist Iraqâs force structure was conventional, mainline armor and infantry. To defeat this force, we massed armor and mechanized infantry, with its speed, firepower and attendant logistics; used strategic and tactical airpower and massed artillery fires to conduct a brilliant campaign winning in short order with minimal casualties. This, for better or worse, was a surgical campaign against the Iraq military and political structure and not a campaign of total war. The second phase is Iraqi stability and transition in the face of a Sunni-Baathist insurgency. This is the current phase. The opposition is diffuse, not massed, has little firepower or mobility and its target is other local nationals rather than the US military.

Different military operations require different numbers of forces and different types of forces because they seek different outcomes.

Those who argue for drastically increasing troop levels are using an Army of Occupation model like that used in Germany and Japan post-WWII with hundreds of thousands of US and allied troops policing the country while allied forces created new governments from whole cloth.

That was never logistically in the cards. We conducted the Iraqi campaign with fewer forces than a single WWII Army Group, and we had multiple Armies in WWII (90+ US divisions, 30+ British, 250+ Russian?) with which to occupy the defeated nations after a campaign of total war. Occupying a country of 25 million inhabitants for several years would take more troops than we could conceivably field. Politically, as evidenced by the push for elections in January, the US wants to turn control over to local nationals as fast as possible. Occupation was never a viable option and is not the current strategy.

Since the prime target of the Sunni-Baathist insurgency is other Iraqiâs, the Iraqiâs have to create institutions and forces that can successfully compete with the insurgents across the political-military spectrum. This force structure has to be predominately local national and heavily paramilitary and police rather than military. Our job is to promote, accelerate and professionalize this process. Putting another brigade of infantry in the Sunni triangle will not solve the problems there. In fact, their mission training, to win massed wars, and their minimal language and cultural training, explicitly make them not the type of troops to deploy. An effective Iraqi paramilitary and police, stiffened with US advisors and backed by US air and firepower, seems a more compelling solution than more US troops. And, without being repetitive, the more troops you have the more troops you have to protect.

The solution is an active and aggressive foreign internal defense with appropriate forces not an occupation.

Posted by DaveK 2004-12-21 3:59:27 PM|| 2004-12-21 3:59:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Great thread. I'd take liberal out of your moniker, LH. You're OK.

thanks for your kind words. As for the L, theres a reason i avoid posting here about DOMESTIC politics (on which im considerably to the left of McCain AND Bill Kristol)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 4:15:47 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:15:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 LH, do you think GWB would have been re-elected if he didn't give the tax cuts but rather ratcheted up troop build up to nation build abroad? I doubt it.

absolutely, and with bigger margins. I have great faith in my fellow americans willingness to sacrifice when its asked of them, for a large cause. My liberal pals will think im nuts for saying this, but i think Bush pushed through tax cuts cause he REALLY beleived in them, more than for reasons of presidential politics.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 4:18:59 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:18:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 The liberal freakazoids will next form a group and threaten to hold their collective breaths until Rummy goes. Just when it is starting to get cold out and they want to withhold all the hot air!

The joke is on them because (1) Rummy is tougher than they are on their best day, and (2) President Bush is an honorable man who recognizes the many virtues of Rummy.

The Caldron is boiling over while the witches stir the kettle for the next Senate hearing with Rummy. Bring on the protesters, bring on the dishonorable senators Clinton, McCain, Biden and Hagel (Bagel), let them stew in their own juices.

Posted by Capt America 2004-12-21 4:27:52 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:27:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Very good, Dk, but ive got some issues with it.

"Occupying a country of 25 million inhabitants for several years would take more troops than we could conceivably field."

But that is precisely what we are doing. The arguement is that a larger force earlier would have averted the lengthy occupation.

" Politically, as evidenced by the push for elections in January, the US wants to turn control over to local nationals as fast as possible. Occupation was never a viable option and is not the current strategy.

Since the prime target of the Sunni-Baathist insurgency is other Iraqiâs, the Iraqiâs have to create institutions and forces that can successfully compete with the insurgents across the political-military spectrum."

I dont think anyone, certainly not Bill Kristol, and certainly not myself, disagrees that the long term solution is the building of Iraqi forces and Iraqi institutions. The problem is how you do that. Right now, according to an artile, I think it was in the WAPO, the city council in Sammarra has not met. Throughout the Sunni triangle, councilmen, mayors, police chiefs have been killed. To the point where large numbers of Iraqis (in those areas) are afraid to take on such positions. Others who do take them, quietly cooperate with the insurgency, often for self preservation. The argument is that you need sufficient force to enable the building of Iraqi institutions, which is constrained by the security situation.

"This force structure has to be predominately local national and heavily paramilitary and police rather than military. Our job is to promote, accelerate and professionalize this process. Putting another brigade of infantry in the Sunni triangle will not solve the problems there."

But weve brought the IP and the ING forward before they were ready, such as in April of this year. IN some instances for classicaly military roles, in other instances for other roles. The point is that the security situation is interfering with their development to some extent, and to a greater extent with the supporting political institutions.

" In fact, their mission training, to win massed wars, and their minimal language and cultural training, explicitly make them not the type of troops to deploy."

1. IIUC, the Marines specifically have counter insurgeny "small wars" doctrine and are trained in it
2. There are many "conventional" tasks that are going undone, such as sealing the borders, IIUC.
3. Nonetheless you are largely correct, most of our forces are not trained for the most of the tasks here. Two thoughts though A. Reports from the field indicate they are improvising and doing a tremendous job at these tasks anyway, and are less constrained by their training than their numbers. B. Rummy has NOT been supportive of improving this kind of training, to my knowledge, at least not in massive numbers. Which gets to my point, perhaps Rummy doesnt really agree with the grand strategy of the WOT.

" An effective Iraqi paramilitary and police, stiffened with US advisors and backed by US air and firepower, seems a more compelling solution than more US troops."

But is it, and was it ever, a realistic solution in the short run? It takes time to build local police and military forces and political institutions largely from scratch. WHICH WE KNEW pre-war. The call for a larger force is NOT a call to not build local forces, but to provide adequate security in the interim.

" And, without being repetitive, the more troops you have the more troops you have to protect."

We are going from 138,000 troops to 150,000 troops now? Is that a mistake? Do we not have the troops available? What if we had not let troop numbers go down to 120,000, and kept them up at 150,000 EARLIER, might we need less now?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 4:35:14 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:35:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 B. Rummy has NOT been supportive of improving this kind of training, to my knowledge, at least not in massive numbers. Which gets to my point, perhaps Rummy doesnt really agree with the grand strategy of the WOT.

can't help yourself, can you. At least you admit it's all just a thought bubble floating in your head and not based on any reality.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 4:46:06 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:46:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 btw...it was interesting until you started the dream sequence.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 4:49:59 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:49:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Americans want desperately to go back to the carefree days of dotcoms, blowjobs, and 20%+ increases in the Dow each year

see im not so sure about that. They would LIKE to wish away the Jihadis, but I think they know quite well that they cant. Even many who disagree with you and me about Iraq, are quite convinced of the seriousness of the struggle. I think the Chomskian side of elite opinion has very little on the ground support outside of a few bastions. But you cant get sacrifice if you dont ask for it. I think it Freedom House, or somewhere, that during the cold war, talked about the gap during the cold war between the large issues at hand, and the small sacrifices that were asked of people and how to better link them. Look at how National guardsmen and their families have responded, and how people have willingly put up with security delays, etc. And the support for the troops abroad, for charity programs in afghanistan, etc. Theres a huge reservoir out there, thats largely untapped. No war bonds, no victory gardens, "go shopping, or the terrorists win". The sacrifices are so unbalanced. HUGE if you happen to be in the national guard, or the regular army and USMC, largely trivial for most of the rest of us. There is, I think, an opening, for someone to call, not for cutting and running in Iraq, or a quasi pacifist withdrawl, but for a fuller mobilization, a renewed and more resolute effort. The Dems failed to rouse that in 2004. They hinted at more troops - but that was hollow, as the place where more troops are needed is IRAQ, and Kerry said the new troops would NOT go to Iraq. And he failed to say a word about democratization in Iraq and the region, and THAT is the project that demands the sacrifice - and we KNOW IT - so all his patriotic rhetoric rang hollow. The one man who seems to "get" it, is McCain (well maybe Lieberman, but hes largely played out at this point).

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 4:51:17 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:51:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 2b - i have this nasty habit of not asserting as fact things im not sure of. Sorry if this causes you trouble.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 4:52:36 PM|| 2004-12-21 4:52:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 Yes, it causes me trouble after a long, contentious thread on the same subject.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 5:08:09 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:08:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 LH, McCain does not get it. He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do. I don't hear about him proposing legislation to increase the size of the military. That is absolutely the appropriate thing for a legislator who thinks we need more soldiers but tankers twice as old as a new recruit to do. He's in the right place, the Senate, the Worlds Greatest Gabfest. McCain. Could he even be Governor of Arizona?

One of the reasons that the Greatest Generation produced such failures as President was that most of them came from the Senate. I suspect every Senator lusts after the Presidency, but none of the Presidents who served two terms in the last century ever served there

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 5:14:08 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:14:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 none of the Presidents who served two terms in the last century ever served there

?!

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-21 5:27:49 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:27:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do.

That really bugs me too :-)

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 5:29:22 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:29:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Which gets to my point, perhaps Rummy doesnt really agree with the grand strategy of the WOT.
I don't think there's any doubt, LH. Rummy is clearly a Jacksonian Republican and as such he does not believe in the neocon-RINO grand strategy of the WOT that involves multiple, sequential bouts of wars in the ME followed by nation re-building in the faint hope that all this humongous effort, costs in US GI lives and taxpayer $, might make America safer. So the neocon-RINO faction in the GOP want Rumsfeld out and one of true believers in as Secty of Defense be it McPain or Wolfowitz. Unfortunately they run across a surprising stumbling bloc - GWB's loyalty to Rummy and perhaps, even GWB's own discomfort with the practical ramifications of the neocon-RINO vision of neverending wars abroad. GWB strikes me as a pragmatist and he cannot be too pleased with the the neocons who promised him 25 million Iraqis who would be cheering America as their savior once Saddam was removed. The neocons did not deliver. Rumsfeld is an old family friend who has delivered - he's got the Taliban routed out of Iraq with minimal US forces still there and Rumsfeld got Saddam taken out in a matter of weeks. The occupation has not gone according to plan because the neocons screwed up with their predictions. Also as DaveK said the more troops you have in Iraq, the greter risk to US lives and the more resentment conjured up in the minds of ordinary Iraqis. And as lex said GWB has cobbled together some unlikely GOP factions, and there is no way that traditional GOP's would have stuck with him unless tax cuts were put in place. As for increasing recruitement to the military, Iraq is not exactly a Japan or Germany threat to our country. Recruiting without big big big signing bonuses during a war that has US contractors burned alive and strung up from bridges would not have happened. And both Rumsfeld and GWB are totally against conscription-GWB went on record during the debates that there would never be a draft on his watch and Rumsfeld as a young Congressman introduced legislation to get rid of the draft.

The neocon/RINO factions in the GOP don't have much of a following with actual voters whose support they can threaten the GOP and GWB they'd withdraw if they didn't get their way. Many of the neocons are unelected theoriticians like Wolfowitz or an unelected yakking head like Kristol or a dinosaur cabinet minister like Jeanne Fitzpatrick. RINO's like McCain, who supposedly was thinking about joining the Kerry campaign at one point, is not popular outside of his own puny state. Ditto for Hagel and Collins, saywho? Rumsfeld is far more popular with GOP voters then any of the high profile neocon/RINO contingent. It's no secret that traditional GOPers have been po'd with GWB's previous term of spending like a drunken sailor. Tax cuts and a promise to bring down the deficit and unstated promise to transform the Supreme Court were major issues that got them to come out and vote GWB 11/04. Increasing spending to make a better life for nationals in the ME was not a high priority, for many American voters, and in fact those Americans who have relativesor ties to ME countries ie. Muslim and Jewish Americans actually voted against GWB-these 2 groups should have been the big boosters of regime change in the ME, one would think, if your claim that GWB would have won in a landslide if he put his nation building cards on the table had any validity.

Posted by joeblow 2004-12-21 5:31:34 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:31:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 "Senate Backs Increase in Army Troop Strength
By Vicki Allen | June 17, 2004

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite resistance from the Pentagon, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to boost the Army by 20,000 troops to relieve stress on soldiers forced into extended duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I regret that we're here on the floor having to force an increase in the size of the Army," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who blasted the Bush administration for "a fundamental error" of not fielding sufficient troops in Iraq.

The Senate action echoed the House of Representatives, which last month passed a bill authorizing defense programs that expands the Army by 30,000 and the Marines by 9,000 over three years and is moving a spending bill to pay for that."

Now youve heard, Mrs. D.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 5:32:08 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:32:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 Wow! June 2004.

Shipman , ever served in the senate.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 5:34:44 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:34:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 he's got the Taliban routed out of Iraq hmm?

Jeanne Fitzpatrick. who she? Perhaps you meant Jeanne KIRKpatrick?

McCain, who supposedly was thinking about joining the Kerry campaign at one point, is not popular outside of his own puny state.

Er, New Hampshire, 2000?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 5:36:47 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:36:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 DB-Thanks for the info. I am sorry you lost a friend.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-21 5:38:36 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:38:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do. I don't hear about him proposing legislation to increase the size of the military

this sounds like present tense, not a question about what McCain should have done in 2003.

He has THIS year proposed legislation to increase the size of the army and USMC. Which the pentagon (read Rummy) opposed, as LATE as June 2004. "You go to war with the army you have, and which you will oppose enlarging at every step of the way"

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-21 5:40:34 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:40:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do. I don't hear about him proposing legislation to increase the size of the military

this sounds like present tense, not a question about what McCain should have done in 2003

wow, LH. For a smart guy, that's really a really incoherent statement. I guess it is present tense in the sense that he is presently carping about what should have been done in the past.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 5:56:43 PM|| 2004-12-21 5:56:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 Jeanne Fitzpatrick. who she? Perhaps you meant Jeanne KIRKpatrickTyping fast without spell checking creates errors, but so what, LH, you knew exactly whom I meant.

McCain, who supposedly was thinking about joining the Kerry campaign at one point, is not popular outside of his own puny state. Er, New Hampshire, 2000
That was 4 years ago, LH, before 9/11 when a young former Texan governor showed his mettle to GOP constituents. OTOH since the 2000 primaries, McCain has continued to show himself to be his usual flip flop mouthy loose cannon doginthe manger self. These days McCain would be hard pressed to be elected dog catcher outside Arizona.

he's got the Taliban routed out of Iraq hmm?
I'm not sure what your hmmm is supposed to mean, LH. As I recall Afghanistan just held their elections and I don't think any Taliban candidates were candidates for office. Perhaps I am mistaken and you know better that the Taliban is still the ruling party there as they were pre-Rumsfeld military campaign.

LH, if you think your nitpicking about tiny spelling errors and making nonsense hmmm type comments gets you off the hook for responding in a serious fashion to the major points I raised in msg. #86, you're only fooling yourself.

Posted by joeblow 2004-12-21 6:04:16 PM|| 2004-12-21 6:04:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 It was a good post and very interesting, joeblow.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-21 6:16:00 PM|| 2004-12-21 6:16:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 So he proposed it this year... which would mean that we'd eventually get the troops on line for 2007 or so, since according to everyone I've talked to, it would take about three years to build the divisions from scratch.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-21 7:51:07 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-21 7:51:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 Folks, let me put the finishing touches on this beast. (1) Rummy is locked in for four more years, (2) the Dummycrats, MSM, and Eurofreaks have been trying like hell to get on top of the Iraq War situation because they realize that the president calls the shots during war, (3) They have been trying to get on top of Iraq since the beginning, first voting for the war and then bitching like hell about it, and (4) Bush sees this and is not about to bow to any pressure to dump Rumsfeld.

Expect the Dummycrat/MSM meter to register "extremely high" until the bitter end.

Expect extremely heated Senate hearings in which Rumsfeld seeks approval for his $90B supplemental.

Posted by Capt America 2004-12-21 10:44:25 PM|| 2004-12-21 10:44:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:32:21 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:32:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#98 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:32:21 AM|| 2004-12-21 11:32:21 AM|| Front Page Top

11:32 Mrs. Davis
11:32 Mrs. Davis
00:20 True German Ally
00:05 Poison Reverse
00:00 True German Ally
23:51 Richard Aubrey
23:47 Aris Katsaris
23:45 Poison Reverse
23:42 Poison Reverse
23:42 leaddog2
23:39 Brett_the_Quarkian
23:38 Brett_the_Quarkian
23:36 Poison Reverse
23:32 Poison Reverse
23:31 Brett_the_Quarkian
23:23 Poison Reverse
23:13 True German Ally
22:44 Capt America
22:41 Ptah
22:40 Ptah
22:33 RWV
22:25 Frank G
22:24 Aris Katsaris
22:21 Fred