. Nor do I believe it is a 'Civil War' as Michael Kraig asserts in yesterday's
. However, that is not to say that things have gone splendidly there either. Things are getting better on the ground in Iraq. But in admitting that things are getting better, we also must realize that things had gone badly. I believe we are heading in the right direction in Iraq, but in hindsight we could have saved ourselves a lot of agony had things gone right
.
It saddens me to come to this conclusion--I love Rumsfeld on so many levels for so many reasons. I love Rumsfeld for being blunt, taking no crap from reporters, his uncanny ability to deconstruct criticisms, and his grand vision of retooling the military to meet future adversaries. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld was in charge of the Iraq invasion and it was Rumsfeld who got so many things wrong.
It is time to let Rumsfeld go. No, it's long past time to let Rumsfeld go.
But there is a great deal of merit to the second argument: that Rumsfeld was wrong on nearly all fronts on how the war in Iraq would develop once the invasion stage was complete.
I do not reach the conclusion that Rumsfeld should be fired with any happiness. I have been mulling the idea for some time, knowing that such public statements are almost universally heralded by the Left as some sort of apocolyptic sign. Some of my most popular posts in the past have been when I have been critical of people like Karl Rove--no doubt because the Left jumped all over it.
It seems that one of the very reasons that I love Donald Rumsfeld is the reason why he has been such a lousy Secretary of Defense--his ability to poke holes in his critics' arguments. It is a great intellectual ability to have, but when that ability is turned on those who urge corrective action then it can become dangerous. Donald Rumsfeld did not want to hear that we needed many more troops on the ground right after the invasion. He was so convinced of the superiority of his position, that more than a few military officials were sacked.
This is no way to run any department of government--especially the military during a hot war.
Perhaps Rumsfeld has learned his lesson. Things in Iraq are going much better than they were two years ago. Month after month U.S. casualties have been on the decline. Month after month the Iraqis themselves take control of more territory and take the lead in fighting terrorist forces. But if Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have learned their lesson, then aren't we admitting that they screwed up somewhere along the road? And if someone screwed up, shouldn't they be held accountable? And if that someone turns out to be Donald Rumsfeld--as I believe it probably is--then why hasn't President Bush fired him?
There are other lessons Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have not learned. Foremeost is the way to fight the internet and information war. They have ignored the information war altogether--although paying a lot of public lip service to it. As Robert Malloy and Peter Harling remind us today, the insurgents believe they are winning. I would argue that this is largely because we allow them to create their own discourse through the internet.
Given the choice between the Bush Administration and any of the choices offered by the Democrats, I'd still vote for Bush despite the many failures along the way in Iraq. Ulysses S. Grant was probably not the greatest military strategist and was wrong on a number of occasions. By all accounts, George B. McClellan was a better strategist and perhaps the greatest military organizer of the time. But given the choice between McClellan's perfect inaction and Grant's imperfect action, Lincoln made the right choice in firing the timid McClellan. The Democrats have only offered McClellan like alternatives in the past.
Fortunately, today's alternatives are not so stark. President Bush could easily replace Donald Rumsfeld as it is too late to go back to the policy of appeasement offered by the Democratic party. And even though the short-term consequences of firing Rumsfeld might negatively affect the Republican party (if if is conceivable that they could go even lower in the polls), I'm afraid that by sticking with Rumsfeld is to convey the message that all has gone right in Iraq from the begining and will only hurt the party in the long-term
Just a thought. Sorry to piss off my many loyal Republican readers and doubly sorry if this helps the Democrats in any way.
Okay, so maybe Barnes wants Rumsfeld out for political reasons, but whatever the motivation, it's time for Rumsfeld to go.
1
I'm in no way pissed off, it's a very true assessment.
As I said to my wife, at the time of the Iraqi invasion, rushing to Baghdad to topple a regime, and declaring the war over, would be like China declaring victory by occupying Washington DC.
Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 05:31 PM (CcXvt)
2
Dude, you actually READ the Des Moines Register? If it wasn't for the ads, comics, and movie listings, I'd drop it altogether. It's a sad shell of it's former glory - completely "Gannetized for your protection".
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at March 20, 2006 05:40 PM (y6n8O)
3
The biggest problem with firing Rumsfeld is that it would remove the only significant opposition to the immense bureaucratic inertia of the military (industrial complex - DDE) status quo; the 1970-2000 military structure just won't get the job done in the 21st century.
Posted by: Glenmore at March 20, 2006 05:44 PM (x+293)
4
I disagree with the idea that Rumsfeld is to blame. The CPA that was established soon after the fall of SH's regime drove the country into the ground.
Also de-baath'fying the country was a very serious eror in judgement.
Posted by: Agent Meatball at March 20, 2006 05:51 PM (30FRH)
5
This will serve no useful military purpose and will only give ammo to the moonbats-- WHICH WILL IN TURN HARM OUR MILITARY, and the cause of victory in Iraq. Ix ney.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 20, 2006 05:56 PM (8e/V4)
6
I also must say that Powell doctrine of overwhelming force is something that belongs in the past. Rumsfelds idea to transform the force into a smaller lethal army IS the correct approach. What's missing from the equation is the economic and social warfare that must also be used in step with military force.
Posted by: Agent Meatball at March 20, 2006 05:57 PM (30FRH)
7
I agree that Rumsfeld has made some mistakes. I, like you, admire his character when it comes to speaking frankly, and deconstructing criticism.
However, with that being said, I do not think now is the time to let him go. A year and a half ago, maybe. But now that things are on the upswing, I do not think he should be fired. It would diminish our momentum, and apparently he has begun to do things well.
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at March 20, 2006 06:31 PM (jz8oq)
8
Wait a second, what was so brilliant about the invasion? The very idea that somehow an invasion can be separated from a well-conceived occupation is just the kind of folly that has lead to the problems of today.
Of course the US could beat the Iraqi military in conventional warfare--there's nothing brilliant about that. Insurgencies that follow regime overthrows was allowed to fester in the power vacuum for years now. Nope, Rummy made the oft-made mistake of the US military: strike hard and fast with overwhelming force and little discrimination, and let the occupation --the winning of hearts and minds-- take care if itself.
Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2006 06:38 PM (oxMjD)
9
Dude,
Purple? Or green?
Wouldn't it be more productive to fire the Turks as "allies"? Had the 4th AD been able to roll south, the supply route would mean a heavy presence of US/allied troops in the Kurdish region. Something I'm sure the Turks wish were there today. There would also have been an anvil to the hammer coming from the south. The Sunni triangle would more closely be described as the Sunni box.
We went with the army we had. We made the mistakes we made. Instead of "Cobra II" you should check out Thomas P.M. Barnett.
You'll get out of your funk. Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once. That's a good thing. But sometimes people get frustrated by its simplicity.
Posted by: OregonGuy at March 20, 2006 06:41 PM (etmFp)
10
Keep Rummy, fire the whole State department!
Agent Meatball, calling agent Meatball, have you seen agent 69 anywhere?
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 20, 2006 06:44 PM (D2g/j)
11
Thank God for Victor Davis Hanson
Posted by: Vinnie at March 20, 2006 06:45 PM (f289O)
12
If anyone has a clear and precise vision of the realities in any war, it's Hanson.
As far as "overwhelming force" and "several hundred thousand troops" I think Wretchard (Belmont Club) gave a pretty good explanation a long while back why that would have been a bad idea. I'm pretty sure the equivalent of the word "clusterf**k" was in there, but being a gentleman, it's not exactly the word he chose. It would take me forever to find his post on it, but you're welcome to give it a shot. Demosophist reads him pretty regularly. Maybe he'll remember the post.
Posted by: Oyster at March 20, 2006 07:27 PM (YudAC)
13
Wait a minute......the entire US govt is full of liberals....especially, the State Dept. What do you expect from them,; Courage, Honor, Love of America?
Get serious, they hate all of us.
Posted by: n.a. palm at March 20, 2006 07:58 PM (bBFJr)
14
No reason to be pissed off about that, Rusty. Honest discourse, laid out with facts and substance, is the hallmark of a Free society. While some may not agree with you, it is a convincing, thought provoking argument, worthy of afterthought.
The real shame is that there cannot be civil discussion like this when Liberals are involved.
Posted by: William Teach at March 20, 2006 08:19 PM (jNcSm)
15
The idea that we should have more not less troops in Iraq has been going around. The idea being that more control would allow us not to to root out the same bunch from the same places over and over. McCain has pushed this and has been backed up by Jimmy Carter and many others. I like the idea except that it does expose more men and so more casualties are likely. More men more screw ups and problems a well. Two competing ideas here the first one had it's share of problems. I'm sure the other one would have had other drawbacks we just haven't lived those yet. Might help to get some fresh momentum. If so I'll miss the old rooster too.
Posted by: Howie at March 20, 2006 08:34 PM (D3+20)
16
>>>The real shame is that there cannot be civil discussion like this when Liberals are involved.
Because we know the moonbat agenda is just to get "Bush".
Rusty's agenda is the good of his country. That's the difference.
The struggle in Iraq is primarily political, not military. Militarily, the terrorists are a flee on an elephant's left nut. It's POLITICS which will win or lose this war. Is firing Rummy good politics? I don't think so, and Rusty hasn't convinced me. Patriots can disagree.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 20, 2006 08:39 PM (8e/V4)
17
Ya know.... it's funny watching this discussion. For years I have been shaking my head while Don "Duck the Question" Rumsfeld went off like a crazy man....
But hey... here's my .02
Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.
- Donald Rumsfeld, in
Rumsfeld's Rules
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 20, 2006 08:57 PM (uc7DK)
18
I agree. I was as supportive of the war as any blogger. Disappointed is an understatement. Rumsfeld should go. It won't help Bush or do much to change the details on the ground in Iraq but it is the essence of responsibility.
Posted by: Thomas the Wraith at March 20, 2006 09:01 PM (zTWhc)
19
I'm not pissed off, but I think you're falling for a logical fallacy that's been pushed by the Left. Rumsfeld was responsible for many of the decisions at the start of the war.
Now, three years later, to go back and say this guy was right and Rumsfeld was wrong, and that guy was right and Rumsfeld was wrong, and this woman makes a good point...well, how many of these latter-day critics were right
on every decision that had to be made?
You could do the same thing with any boss responsible for making large number of critical decisions.
I'm also in disagreement with the "several hundred thousand troops" meme. Maybe several
million could cover every nook in cranny in a country the size of California, but the terrorist-insugency's ability to hid amongst the civilian population was the culprit, in my opinion, not a low number of troops. And several hundred thousand troops in theater would very likely have validated the liberals before the war who spoke of "tens of thousands" of bodybags...
...which brings me to my final point. Recognizing the human tragedy of each soldier killed, 2300 KIA during three years of war is a remarkable achievement conservation of force, not so much a testament to Rumsfeld as to the commanders on the ground, but c'mon, critics were predicting thousands of dead
in the invasion alone.
Don't let yourself get stampeded here, Rusty.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 09:01 PM (RHG+K)
20
DPB--Rumsfeld was WARNED of such a likelihood (loosely organized militants mixed amongst the civilian populace) by high-level CIA and seasoned military brass in the pre-invasion planning stages of the war. He chose to ignore their opinions because needing three times the number of personnel to keep the peace as to capture it didn't fit his ideals of a down-sized military. Then, post-invasion, he was warned by theater commanders of a strengthening and ever-more organized insurgency using, among other things, civilian deaths to whip up discontent in the very populace we were trying to win over. Again, explained away as dead-enders in their final gasps. These were not merely mistakes made by someone making a large number of critical decisions; these were failures made by a man who was given warning after warning and chose to ignore them until even he couldn't any longer. Quit beating the worn-out "victim of politics" drum and face up to the fact he's a f**k up in his role. Let someone else try.
Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2006 10:50 PM (oxMjD)
21
So Mark, it's your position that all of Rumsfeld's advisors were absolutely unanimous on every occasion you believe he was wrong, and that not a single soul advised him to take a different course? That's remarkable.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 11:09 PM (RHG+K)
22
Alternatively, you didn't read my post before responding.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 11:11 PM (RHG+K)
23
insanity...
the entire concept...
pure folly...
it took years for President Lincoln, to find a worthwhile General to wage a serious effort against the South...
Iraq remains an historic achievement, with record low casualty rates, strategic success, and swift accomplishment...
the fast food, instant mindset, has corrupted many opinions.
no one could liberate a Nation of 25 Million, in the heart of the troubled Arab Region with such amazing success...
such endeavors are difficult, and you have lost serious context, on the reality of the mission.
Rumsfeld is outstanding... Give him a raise...
Posted by: brooklyn at March 20, 2006 11:57 PM (zN+Cl)
24
I won't disagree with you in your respect for Rumsfeld or in your belief that it's time for him to go, but do consider that he has pursued his doctrine because it is our purpose to
be in Iraq. Victorious, yes ---but the idea has always been to
be there. To project our power there for as long as possible and
not to have smashed everything and withdrawn immediately.
We have other work to do in the region. We are in Iraq at a sustainable level that leaves us free to respond elsewhere, if need be.
But we must not look to get out any time soon.
Posted by: Toby Petzold at March 21, 2006 12:33 AM (i05d+)
25
Rocketsbrain is neutral on Rumsfield for the moment. I too like his frank speaking. There is much too little of this within the Beltway.
After all the CIA is in an all out organizational war with the CINC to CYA its failure to foresee the events of the last five years. They're too entrenched in their own bureaucratic morass to carry out their prime mission to defend this Country.
I agree we have done a poor job on the War of Information which is key to ultimately winning the GWOT (
See this piece from Redstate) Rumsfield has supported the release of the Saddam docs to use the Blogosphere to force leverage the intel analysis of this documents.
See Athena.
Rocketsbrain prediction - amended with VP Cheney roster change as suggested above.
If the Russians and the Chinese can't reign in Iranian President MAD and his religious mentor Yazdi, then the
"Rove" trump card will be played e.g. Saddam's WMD was moved to Syria with Russian assistance. The Chinese and their surogate, the NORKS, will be outed for aiding the Iranian Manhatten Project.
RBT doubts President MAD et al will be detered because they truly believe in the return of the 12th Imam. They have also been consolidating their power base with similar ultra religious conservatives. They will not be detered by conventional MAD policies.
The Israelis will not let the Mad Mullahs go nuclear.
We will assist to ensure the mission is successful. The Great Satan will get blamed whether we help or not.
The Rove trump card will be played once the strike is launched which will leave the LL and the MSM swinging in the breeze.
This will be a very lethal lightening strike with both air and ground special forces to render key sites useless. This will be a one night's stand.
The Shiia will cry foul however the Sunnis will complain loudly but privately will be pleased.
VP Cheney will take the fall and retire early. Rice will be put forth as his replacement. Perhaps Cheney will go to DOD and Rumsfield will be retired and sent to the "farm."
RBT
Posted by: rocketsbrain at March 21, 2006 01:20 AM (bU5l0)
26
The success in Iraq now is due to a trained Iraqi police force and army. No one could keep the original Iraq army together with Baathist officers and conscripted soldiers. It's no one's fault Iraq security had to be rebuilt from the ground up in a process that takes years instead of months.
Posted by: dvorak at March 21, 2006 02:18 AM (BX3ky)
27
Including more ground troops whould have had practical consequences. They would have to come from somewhere. The reserves are already strained to the breaking point. Do we keep troops in theater until the end of hostilities or rotate them out? Do we reduce our commitments in other areas to provide troops to Iraq? It's easy to say more ground troops are needed, it's a different matter to provide them. The general on the ground has the responsibility to to say what they would like to have but it is the secretaries job to consider the global logistical picture.
To criticize the US performance in this war is unfair and uninformed. By historical standards the casualty rate is the lowest ever. The real problem is that that the war didn't end before the commerical break. Nothing a person can do is perfect and it is trivially easy to harp on inevitable flaws especially in war where you have a living thinking enemy who can react and adapt to your tactics.
Posted by: anonymous at March 21, 2006 02:50 AM (SNkm5)
28
Before US troops can leave Iraq certain things have had to happen:
1) A new Iraqi government has to form
2) The new government has to form compentent military and police forces.
These things can not be accomplished instantly.
While these were going on the US troops went methodically through the country pacifying one area and then moving on to a new area. Because it was done one area at a time it seemed that the US was in constant combat and the selective reporting by the media which reported combat but failed to report the "peace" gave the false impression that the resistance was intense simultaneously throughout the country.
The US performance was surperb not flawed, and it is comical to think that any of the critics could have done a better job.
Posted by: anonymous at March 21, 2006 03:03 AM (SNkm5)
29
I appreciated Rusty's thoughts, and those of the commenters.
Two cents here:
The low casualty rates Brooklyn cites really are unprecedented, especially considering the lethality of the enemies -- and friendlies -- in Iraq. I reckon a considerable amount of credit for that low rate should go to Rumsfeld's transformation push, which improved communication among units, increased lethality, and reduced headcounts. Fewer, more lethal and better-informed soldiers -- seems a good way to reduce casualties. Cause-and-effect, I guess.
And a few cents more:
The Department of Defense is more properly called the Department of War. Soldiers don't join up to hide behind a defensive wall, but to go out and kill our enemies. War is killing, baldly put.
As Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld should I think be judged first and foremost [and I find it surprisingly hard to say this, but...] first and foremost by how effectively his soldiers kill. In crudest terms: how many of theirs to how many of ours. By that measure, the low U.S. casualty rate speaks for itself. It's a strong indicator of Rumsfeld's fitness to serve as Secretary of Defense.
Iraqi reconstruction, civil affairs, diplomacy -- these all seem to me mere adjuncts of the mission of the Secretary of Defense. They should not be critical to our evaluations of his fitness. And of course many of these labors are directed by other government departments, such as the State Department. So credit and blame where it's due, is all I'm saying. (And that applies to the President as well, since he, rather than Rumsfeld, made the executive decision for war.)
Maybe one more cent:
One might ask, "What if full-blown civil war someday engulfs Iraq, and even the greater Middle East? How then would you rate Rumsfeld's fitness to serve?"
To which I'd say, so long as the chaos does not bloody our shores, or kill many of our military personnel abroad -- in that case I think the chaos shouldn't weigh heavily against the Secretary of Defense. In the final analysis he works for *US*, and us only.
Agree / disagree / renoberate?
Posted by: Tex at March 21, 2006 03:12 AM (U2XeS)
30
Being a public servant is not a picnic. Rumsfield is not doing it for the money and he is not doing it for his health. He is making a tremendous sacrifice and his reward is to be misquoted, misunderstood and vilified by the press. The headline: "It's time to fire Rumsfield" is just one more example of a smarmy self important pundit criticizing his betters. Rumsfield deserves better than that for his sacrifice and the superb job he has done.
Posted by: anonymous at March 21, 2006 03:30 AM (tQpsl)
31
Rummy Stays. Don't make me call Chuck Norris on you.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at March 21, 2006 04:46 AM (AvsR8)
32
I have to agree with a couple people who have made a very valid point. While everyone is laying blame at the feet of the war planning, the one thing we have bitched and moaned about constantly is the massive amounts of misinformation, leaks and sometimes outright lies by the MSM. What Rumsfeld and others have failed miserably at is communication.
While the MSM ran amok forming people's opinions for them, nothing was done. They were further emboldened and became more shrill over time because STILL no one countered their agenda driven reports. And we've been in nearly complete agreement that this has been a dream come true for the terror groups. Have we forgotten bin Laden's item by item iteration of DNC talking points?
Haven't we all agreed, wholeheartedly, that the silence of the administration has been the biggest failure? Haven't we all said at one time or another that we're wondering if in fact they WANT to fail by doing nothing to counter all the bullsh*t?
Rusty, you yourself have said over and over that without the support of the public wars are lost in spite of meticulous planning and execution. Bloggers have almost singlehandedly fought the information front of the war. It's not enough.
And now we want to throw Rumsfeld under the bus?
Posted by: Oyster at March 21, 2006 07:14 AM (YudAC)
33
I think we can all agree -- on both sides of the Iraq question -- that you can't get good results by running a department through intimidation and "groupthink." Rumsfeld ignored the generals, and cowed them, at all our peril. The real shame is the lack of accountability in the present government. From Tenet to Rummy to Franks to Bremer to Feith and Cambone and on and on, not one person who orchestrated the failure of Bush's (in my opinion unneccessary) Iraq invasion policy has been forced to step down. The only people forced out were those who correctly assessed the troop strength we would have needed to pull off a successful occupation.
Cheers, Dr. R.
Posted by: JoyReid at March 21, 2006 07:58 AM (o1EiK)
34
I think it is a bit naive to claim the problem is merely one of communications. After all, Torie Clarke was the Office Director for Hill & Knowlton in New York. I think she understands communications.
Rummy is no novice to the game either. You simply can't reconcile the statements made before, during and since the invasion. The fact is while American casualties have been relatively low (over 2,300 dead and over 16,000 wounded), it is certainly nothing to cheer about. There is also the now-documented fact that PTSD is rearing its ugly head and can likely be expected to manifest itself in 20% or more of the returning troops.
The costs of this debacle have yet to be totaled, but we know they are currently running around 215 Billion spent with at least another 65 Billion for FY2006. Before this is over we are looking at 1 Trillion bucks.
It is humorous, in an ironic sort of way, to hear people describe Rummy as a "straight talker"... it just proves how masterful he is at obfuscation. Sure, his sentences make sense syntactically, but semantically they bear little or no relation to the question he is "answering" with his tirade. The most recent example is his comparing our departure from Iraq to a hypothetical retreat from Germany. When Kissinger
and Brzezinski call that nonsense... it probably is.
Pretending the problem is merely one of perceptions is fine if you want to create your own reality, but even Torie Clark knows that ain't so...after all, look at the title of her new book:
Lipstick on a Pig : Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game
If you honestly think the problem is one of communications, then I would suggest someone might want to share Torie's first piece of advice with Rummy, and the president as well....
"Deliver bad news yourself, and when you screw up, say so—fast!"
Until they grasp the importance of honesty, debating whether Rumsfeld is the next man tossed overboard or not is about as meaningful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while the captain decides to stay the course -- in spite of all the warnings.
=
You can't fix stupid.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 08:21 AM (YU6U4)
35
Wow! did I miss this topic by going to bed early last night!
Myself and others wanted him fired 2 years ago - but kept it muted because 1) we agreed with the overall reasons and principals behind the war, and 2) it would only give ammunition to the opposition.
I would love to tear into Rumsfeld and voice my complaints - but the only thing that would achieve here is give the opposition an erection - they can play with themselves - I'm not going to help them.
Posted by: hondo at March 21, 2006 08:31 AM (9pQ6D)
36
hondo says:
I would love to tear into Rumsfeld and voice my complaints - but the only thing that would achieve here is give the opposition an erection - they can play with themselves - I'm not going to help them
That's a perfect example of why this is a problem. Until you honestly discuss mistakes made, it is impossible to benefit from any lessons learned. If you are so afraid of honest reflection because it will "give ammunition to the opposition" let me assure you of two things:
1) the opposition already knows there's a problem (that's why they are the opposition)
2) you don't need to worry about giving the opposition ammunition when you are busy shooting yourself in the foot.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 08:39 AM (Yl9Ux)
37
Er, asshole ...
If your going to quote me ... do it verbatim!
The two lines directly above say it all ... especially #1 comment!
That is KEY to the problem between us - everthing else is just noise.
Posted by: hondo at March 21, 2006 08:58 AM (9pQ6D)
38
But if Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have learned their lesson, then aren't we admitting that they screwed up somewhere along the road? And if someone screwed up, shouldn't they be held accountable? And if that someone turns out to be Donald Rumsfeld--as I believe it probably is--then why hasn't President Bush fired him?
Every war in human history can be described as a series of errors.
The winner of the war is the side that makes fewer errors, of smaller magnitude, and learns more from the errors it does make.
It has always been thus. More importantly, it will always be thus. This is due to the nature of war- two sides developing conflicting objectives and trying to achieve them, while simultaneously trying to determine the objectives of the other side and doing whatever can be don to prevent the other party from achieving them.
This is inherent in the nature of warfare.
Do not expect perfection of anyone involved in planning or executing any combat operation of any scale, you will always be disappointed. A lot of the time, what people in that situation are forced to do is to choose between choiced of varying badness, with nary a 'good choice' in sight.
Judging Rumsfeld by historical standards, rather than in comparison to an ideal war
that has never been achieved in human history, the man comes off rather well. As the Instapundit noted recently:
"ANOTHER "GRIM MILESTONE" IN IRAQ? Three years of cumulative casualties equal one month's worth from Vietnam."
I have some Viet Nam veterans in my family. They all have very deep respect for Mr. Rumsfeld's accomplishment, and I'd bet my paycheck that they all wish he'd run that war, too.
As far as the 'information war' is concerned... we have to face reality here. The MSM is not on our side, and they're not going to join our side. So the current administration has to decide between 1) calling the MSM on it (aka 'questioning their patriotism'), 2) setting up a 'Department of Propaganda' to get their side of the story out, or 3) ignore them, and hope alternative media will take up the slack. Options 1) and 2) are politically unappealing for various reasons.
...and finally, to the critics: it is not enough to say "X should have been done better". Anyone can do that, it's easy, especially with the benefit of hindsight.
Instead, try saying "We should have done Y instead of X". Then we can evaluate your proposals, compare them to the alternatives, and decide which we like better.
Posted by: rosignol at March 21, 2006 08:59 AM (ofA/v)
39
Bush Disagrees that Iraq in Civil War (Reuters)-
It is clear that Rumsfeld would also agree with this disagreement, therefore we should agree to disagree about this disagreement or are you disagreeing to agree since Bush obviously would also disagree with your agreement and therefore Rumsfeld would also agree with Bush while disagreeing with this purportedly insightful agreement?
Posted by: Holy Mole at March 21, 2006 10:17 AM (27NBf)
40
first to hondo:
you want to be rude, that is your choice. I did quote you verbatim. If you don't know what the word means, you shouldn't use it.
------
to rosignol, who said:
...and finally, to the critics: it is not enough to say "X should have been done better". Anyone can do that, it's easy, especially with the benefit of hindsight.
Instead, try saying "We should have done Y instead of X". Then we can evaluate your proposals, compare them to the alternatives, and decide which we like better
I have two responses..one for each of your comments.
First, the criticism of invading Iraq
BEFORE we invaded was pretty widespread. I said
BEFORE we invaded that using Iraq as a "test case" (the President's words not mine) for the Bush Doctrine (the colloquial name for the NSS of 2002) was a mistake for the following strategic reasons:
1) It discounted the economic impact of protracted war.
2) It disdained the diplomatic imperative of alliances in a nuclear age.
3) It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy.
4) It disrespected seasoned military commanders with combat experience.
That's a lot of fundamental problems.
I was not the only one saying that. In fact, there were a number of people who criticized this adventure as a major distraction from an unfinished job in Afghanistan. Including the following:
Gen. Clark (Supreme Allied Commander, NATO)
Gen. Hoare (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Gen. Schwartzkopf (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Gen. Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
Gen. Shalikashvili (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Gen. Shelton (Chairman, Joint Chiefts of Staff)
Gen. Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff)
Gen. Jones (Marine Commandant)
Gen. McPeak (Air Force Chief of Staff)
Gen. Zinni (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
I summed up their concerns by saying:
The only generals in favor of invading Iraq
Were General Electric, General Dynamic, and General Technologies.
------
Your second point is one I agree with. I have always made it clear that someone shows up in my office with a problem, they better at least have a suggestion for a solution.
Here's my response to your second point:
A lot of people (myself included) were arguing for aggressive inspections by UNMOVIC and IAEA to buy time for coalition building. After all, UNMOVIC uncovered and destroyed more WMD than either Desert Storm or the current adventure.
Of course that route would have its costs. So let's assume we had paid the entire tab for both UNMOVIC and the IAEA's global operations for the last three years.... as a way to bribe folks into joining our coalition. What would that have cost and where would we be now?
The total annual budget for UNMOVIC was about $60 Million. The total annual budget for the IAEA's global operations was a lot more, about $260 Million.
So... let's do the arithmetic:
$260,000,000,000.00 (three years of OIF)
- 180,000,000.00 (three years of UNMOVIC)
- 780,000,000.00 (three years of IAEA)
=259,040,000,000.00 (NET SAVINGS)
In other words, we could have saved about 99.75% of our money and:
Kept the global support we enjoyed on September 12th.
Not lost any troops.
Not overextended our Army.
Not emptied our treasury.
Without providing propaganda bonanzas for islamic fanatics.
Oh and I forgot.... Saddam would still be boxed in.
Here's the bad news. We are going to be stuck there for at least another decade. Do the math. It doesn't matter how you monkey with the numbers this war is going to be more expensive than Vietnam. Which is kind of ironic given the current crop of leaders came in saying they were going to run government like a business. Which brings me back to Rumsfeld.
Imagine if Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO and he went to a board of directors with takeover artists like Gates, Buffett, Branson, Turner, Icahn, and Trump and suggested a hostile takeover of a cash strapped competitor flush with assets...
And they all said "Don't do it because...."
you will bleed the cash reserves dry.
you will damage our credit rating .
you will drop our stock value .
you will damage strategic partnerships.
you will create a new class of competitors.
you will alienate your workforce.
you will trash our brand identity.
Imagine if he ignored them and everything they predicted happened? I wonder if folks would hold him accountable for his foolishness.
----
Finally, let me reiterate the distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq and repeat what I said to hondo quite awhile ago when he asked the (apparently rhetorical question):
Hondo asks: Then why are we even bothering in iraq or Afghanistan?
My response then and now is the same:
Good question.
Afghanistan... because the failed regime turned into a launching pad for international terrorists that attacked us. When we demanded they hand over the perpetrators, they refused. We invaded with the support of virtually every country in the world, including Iran, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. The realization of that threat to international stability was why central asian countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and others allowed us to set up military bases for operations. The opposition to that invasion was extremely muted. Congressional approval was virtually unanimous. Even Quakers went on record supporting it.
Iraq... There have been over 2 dozen reasons floated by this administration to justify the invasion. Now that the long predicted Civil War has begun, the only plausible reason left is to maintain control of oil contracts so they can be denominated in dollars not euros. In contrast to Afghanistan, opposition to this invasion was very vocal. About 1/3 of Democrats voted against it. Most of our allies refused to participate. Those who did have since cut back dramatically on their involvement. The consequence is the costs have spiraled out of control, we have damaged our standing around the world, we have stretched our military to the point that is no longer a credible deterrant. Gulliver has tied himself down and inflicted more damage on himself than anyone else could ever have done.
The worst part is the radical new doctrine of preemptive war has provided incentive for other nations to join together. The growing alliance known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCo) demonstrates the US will soon be confronting a political/economic/military alliance that it cannot defeat.
The pending admission of Pakistan and India to an alliance dominated by China demonstrates how the Bush Doctrine has successfully driven countries that are normally at each other's throats into each other's arms. The rise of SCO will mark the end of American hegemony as it will consist of 4 nuclear powers (with a 5th pending), 2 major oil producers, 2 major gas producers, 1/2 the world's population, and a land mass from the Baltic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 10:37 AM (IREfg)
41
backgr0und n015e,
you are remarkably astute
Posted by: Holy Mole at March 21, 2006 10:44 AM (27NBf)
42
My ha' penny:
Rumsfield stays. He's not perfect but he's good enough.
Don't fire anybody. Instead, hire more people. Hire people to get out the message, strongly and emphatically, that we will not lose this war, we cannot lose this war.
No WMD's found? Get over it. Rumsfield was wrong on how the war in Iraq would develop once the invasion stage was complete? Get over it. Haven't located Osama bin Laden yet? Get over it. Past misteps and tactical blunders? Get over them.
We must win. We will win. We cannot lose this war.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at March 21, 2006 11:22 AM (aH6Zf)
43
"I think it is a bit naive to claim the problem is merely one of communications."
This is what I find so tiring. I never said that. I never implied that. But don't let that stop you, Background Noise, from implying it first and foremost so you can go on your long and drawn out dissertation to assert your superior stance. And then implying it a couple more times to hammer it home. I merely expounded on one point, a valid and verifiable point, out of many brought up here. Communications have been awful, from the administration to the MSM and the fact that little or nothing was done to counter misinformation or selective information put out by the MSM. I was speaking the the waning support of the public as an important factor and why. Instead you go off into left field and don't even counter that very point; your sole purpose being to discredit something I didn't even say.
You seem to be having a difficult time in understanding what anyone says here on any and all subjects. Much of your debate is based on what you infer rather than what is said. So much so that you're led to argue every point made until someone stops arguing with you and points out that your condescending manner might be a barricade to understanding, at which point you deem them unworthy of your intellectual prowess and dismiss them as the problem.
Frankly, I'm tired of it. So do us both a favor and dismiss me too as an unworthy adversary as you've already done with at least two other people. That'll leave you on top in your own mind, which seems to be your priority, and I will be done with you.
Posted by: Oyster at March 21, 2006 12:34 PM (g9UJq)
44
Ms. Background Noise does indeed make a lot of noise. Just to put the harridan down:
> 1) It discounted the economic impact of protracted war.
Look out your window. See the children begging in the street? No? Right. Economy's going gangbusters. Subtext: You're delusional.
> "The only generals in favor of invading Iraq..."
...were irrelevant to the political decision. It's called civilian government, whom we elect. Subtext: You had your chance Nov. 2004. Dems blew it. Go claw Dean's eyes out.
> "...aggressive inspections by UNMOVIC..."
...amuse tyrants the world over. More efficient inspections are performed by another agency you might have heard of: the USMC.
Nothing inspects naughty spots quite like a Javelin.
> "...Saddam would still be boxed in."
And given he lives in a iron box *today*... Subtext: You don't know when to stop using an inadvisable metaphor.
> "We are going to be stuck there for at least another decade."
Garrison: n. ( OFr. garir, "to watch" ) -- "troops stationed in a fort". See South Korea, Roman Empire, Escape from New York.
> "Even Quakers went on record supporting [the invasion of Afghanistan]."
As did the Southern Baptists. But unlike Quakers, SBs don't lose themselves in fits of trembling, shouting, dancing, shaking, and speaking in tongues. Also unlike Quakers, they're allowed to have sex -- which might explain above.
It also explains why there are only 4 -- *four* -- Quakers in the U.S. today. (Sabbathday Lake, Maine, if you're planning a shaky-quaky sleep-over. And are you, Ms. Noise? Remember, no sex.)
"shaky-quaky sleep-over": my work here is done. :-b
Posted by: Tex at March 21, 2006 01:32 PM (U2XeS)
45
Oyster's statements:
1. "What Rumsfeld and others have failed miserably at is communication."
2. Haven't we all agreed, wholeheartedly, that the silence of the administration has been the biggest failure?
3. And we've been in nearly complete agreement that this has been a dream come true for the terror groups.
Background Noise' statement:""I think it is a bit naive to claim the problem is merely one of communications."
Oyster's retort: "This is what I find so tiring. I never said that."
My statement: You didn't?
Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2006 01:33 PM (UHKaK)
46
Rummy is old and I understand he has a catheter attached to a piss bag that is strapped to his ankle.
Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at March 21, 2006 02:39 PM (kgBuS)
47
The return of the Libtard Amoeba! did you finish coloring with your chunky Crayola's?
He has a catheter? damn, well at least he can empty it himself -- and doesn't need mommy to pull off his Depends during blogging sessions in the basement, eh Libtard?
Posted by: davec at March 21, 2006 02:55 PM (CcXvt)
48
Tex...
Thank you for flaunting your ignorance.
Heroic Dreamer.... you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Maybe words of wisdom from a younger, and wiser, Donald Rumsfeld will help you get the point:
Plan backward as well as forward. Set objectives and trace back to see how to achieve them. You may find that no path can get you there.
Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is “bold, exciting, innovative and new.” There are many ideas that are “bold, exciting, innovative and new,” but also foolish.
Beware of the argument that “this is a period for investment; improvements will come in the out years.” The tension between the short term and long term can be constructive, but there is no long term without a short term.
Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.
If you are lost -- climb, conserve, and confess.
-- U.S. Navy SNJ Flight Manual
===
Oyster,
It would be unfair to lump you in the same pile as the jesusland boys... they're bigots. That's one reason why I dismiss them.
If you want to argue the problem is misinformation, leaks and lies... that's fine. I would agree with you on that. You want to talk about misinformation, lies and leaks -- let's go to the source. Unfortunately, I don't think you can hang that albatross around the neck of MSM. They may have been complicit, but they are not the source. They reported what Rumsfeld, Bush , Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al. said. Pretending that the MSM was able to run roughshod over these people because no one advanced the administration's point of view is hard to swallow. That's why I take issue with your criticism pointing to communications as a problem. Focusing on communications... whether merely the problem, mostly the problem, or largely the problem ... misses the point that people are abandoning the president because of the growing divide between what people in this administration say and what actuallly is happening.
Bush knows it. At today's press conference he kept referring back to the comment about the woman in Cleveland, a former supporter of his, who said "He's lost me." Here's why:
Bush's strengths have been
Commitment
Clarity
Consistency
Credibility
If you go back and look at why people voted for him over Kerry and just look at those "Personal Qualities" .... that accounts for about 80% of his support. People who picked those qualities as MOST important voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
He's still committed.
He's still clear.
He's still consistent.
The woman in Cleveland represents the reason his numbers have tanked. He has lost credibility. That is not something you can pin on the MSM. When General Electric is simultaneously the largest contractor in Iraq and majority owner of NBC, it's hard to claim they are badmouthing the war in Iraq by putting out lies and misinformation that undermines people's confidence.
Shooting the messenger is the same sort of revisionism you hear about Vietnam. Lots of people like to rewrite history and say Walter Cronkite turned America against the war in Vietnam. Nonsense. He reflected public opinion, but he did not lead it. His first comments questioning the likelihood of success came almost a month after Tet. At that point, McCarthy was only polling about 11%. Even with all the protesters at the convention in Chicago, McCarthy didn't get the nomination and Nixon beat Humphrey in the general election.
The real turning point came with the release of the Pentagon Papers three years later. Then, like now, the issue was credibility.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 03:02 PM (7b75u)
49
Background Noise: I do get your point...your point is to make background noise -
blah, blah, blah - like a leaf blower - freeway traffic - cement mixer - road construction - long, very long, comments going nowhere special, quotes and misquotes, out of context, unnecessary, boring
... so no discussion can result.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at March 21, 2006 03:17 PM (aH6Zf)
50
Seems plain that Background makes his observations, supports them with a line of reasoning that can be followed, if not neccessarily agreed upon, and makes conclusions that are consistent with his previous lines of reasoning. It's the fragmented babblings and non sequitirs of the Heroic Dreamers of the blogosphere that make rational discourse all but impossible.
Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2006 03:40 PM (UHKaK)
51
dream on noise
The topic served up was an openning for you - but all you have is the same song - you just do minor adaptations to fit the moment and hope it sells -
We will see - the only polls that count are the one's done on the first Tuesday's in November.
Posted by: hondo at March 21, 2006 03:40 PM (9pQ6D)
52
“….you go to war with the Army you have… not the Army you might want or wish to have…..”
~Donald Rumsfeld
Just what “rabbit” were we to pull out of the hat in order to achieve the overwhelming force as called for by the Powell Doctrine? The high water mark for US military power in terms of sheer numbers in the last 30 years was 1990, just in time for the First Gulf War. All branches of the military saw dramatic reductions in force levels during the 90s. The Army itself went from 19 divisions to 10 by the time President Bush took office. Granted the first Bush Administration recommended the Army to be reduced to 12 divisions after Desert Storm, it was the Clinton Administration that opted for an even smaller force. The number of divisions committed to Desert Storm was 10. In 2003 that was the entire US Army. You’re not advocating committing the entire US Army to one theatre of operations, are you? Bottomline, there simply wasn’t enough “boots” to begin with. Those two extra divisions that Clinton cut out would have come in handy then and now, don’t you think? It is simply ironic that Senator Clinton has put forward a proposal to add 40,000 troops to the Army, the very troops her husband cut out in the first place.
Also forgotten is the fact that combat readiness went out the door during the Clinton Administration and the first order of business for the new Bush Administration became to bring the existing units back up to “snuff”. A process that was just underway when 9/11 happened. Given the available force at the time of the liberation of Iraq, it is remarkable that it went, and continues to go, as well as it did.
“Amidst all the clutter, beyond all the obstacles, aside from all the static, are the goals set? Put your head down, do the best job possible, let the flak pass, and work towards those goals.”
~Donald Rumsfeld
I for one vote for Rumsfeld to stay.
Posted by: Tarnsman at March 21, 2006 03:47 PM (DkkHZ)
53
Yeah, Tarnsman, we all read the WSJ article. And if you knew something other than what you learned yesterday, you'd know the Powell Doctrine alone did not call for overwhelming force; this was accepted doctrine in the armed forces throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. And military downsizing began in earnest during the first Bush presidency under Defense Secretary Cheney, not during the Clinton presidency. Yes, Powell supported overwhelming force; he also supported a much larger follow up to keep the peace tha had been won...upwards of 400,000 peacekeeprs as opposed to tropps. Know your facts!
Posted by: OyOy at March 21, 2006 04:07 PM (UHKaK)
54
I too would like to know the real reason we are in Iraq. I think the oil contracts are a very big part of that reason. I also think there is another. I am just not sure what it is.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 21, 2006 04:13 PM (D2g/j)
55
Following up on Oyster's thoughts, re: poor communication:
It looks like the State Department, under Rice's command, is now being forced into much improved field diplomacy and communication, as colorfully commented by Ralph Peters:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62028.htm
J. R. Dunn calls this "transformational diplomacy" (official policy name?) in his multi-part essay, "Prospects of Terror: An Inquiry into Jihadi Alternatives":
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5345
"Transformational diplomacy": a nice label for the frog-march of our wine-stained European diplomats into the most dangerous (and wine-free) corners of the Earth. :-)
Posted by: Tex at March 21, 2006 05:10 PM (PGzrn)
56
I agree with 8ackground noise! Democracy has been rendered unpalatable by our misleader who hi-jacked the election process and demonstrated to the world what a fragile system democracy is that it can be bought by a green, tyrannical wannabe. His approach to spreading Democracy around the world is like trying to get a dog to come to you by beating it!
We need sensible leadership that will work hard day and night trying to figure a way out of this mess even if it means missing a photo-op, golf game, 5-week war-time vacations, playing guitar with the old folks during hurricanes, or autistic basketball. http://votetoimpeach.org
The world is my oyster! Round 'em up and rope 'em off!
Posted by: Thesaurus at March 22, 2006 10:59 AM (Y2ILH)
57
Someone wrote:
I agree with 8ackground noise! Democracy has been rendered unpalatable by our misleader who hi-jacked the election process and demonstrated to the world what a fragile system democracy is that it can be bought by a green, tyrannical wannabe.
Since I never said democracy was unpalatable (indigestible, inedible, disgusting,unpleasant,revolting,nasty,bad). It is hard for you to agree (concur,be of the same opinion, see eye to eye) with what I wrote.
Thanks for sharing (giving,alloting,distributing) your opinion.
==
What's another word for Thesaurus?
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 22, 2006 01:29 PM (+INRh)
58
Sorry Background noise. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I like your viewpoints and think that we are in the same camp! This particular blog is vexed with a failure to communicate. That being said let me fly loose with my repeated diatribe:
Round 'em up and rope 'em off! Oh, and while we're at it go to http://www.votetoimpeach.org to impeach the chimp that went in with brawn instead of brains to force-feed Democracy to the unwilling.
Thesaurus = namwarts
Posted by: Thesaurus at March 22, 2006 02:25 PM (Y2ILH)
59
Yes, I too believe Thesaurus and Background Noise to be in the same camp. Everyone here knows what camp that is.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 22, 2006 05:30 PM (rUyw4)
60
Thesaurus, I will say this for Jawa ...while it has its share of whack jobs there is at least an effort by some to address issues with substance.
Moreover, they are not prone to banning people because they can't tolerate blasphemy against Party Doctrine. That is certainly more than you can say for RedState or Townhall or even LittleGreenFootballs which has had to close its registrations to protect its orthodoxy from being overrun by the "reality based" world.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 22, 2006 06:17 PM (K5Ko+)
61
Let me make myself as clear as I possibly can.
Information that flows from the MSM to the public often bears little resemblance to what was communicated to them from the administration as it is spun and riddled with opinion. Yes, this happens from both sides, but predominately from the leftists in the media.
Often the administration does nothing to counter what misinformation gets communicated to the public by the MSM.
The MSM has done a fabulous job of telling us of every bit of bad news and of every drop of blood spilled. By their own admission we were told bluntly "unfortunately the bad news makes the headlines". Is this an admission that they cannot control this? Is this an admission that good news or positive occurrances are not what they wish to disseminate to the public?
There are many people, who by reading only MSM accounts, are under the impression that you cannot walk down a street anywhere in Iraq without getting your head blown off. This is simply not the case. At least 90% of Iraq is quiet and people are rebuilding and living their daily lives. We wouldn't know this without the few freelance writers willing to go there and see for themselves. The MSM focuses on that 10% of the country almost to the exclusion of the rest.
If no one else sees any of this as a problem, fine. It IS part of the problem. That's all I was saying.
When I say "I am tired" Here is what I mean:
Background:
"If you want to argue the problem is misinformation, leaks and lies... that's fine."
I clarified this as "part" of the problem.
"I would agree with you on that."
Thank you. But again, "part" of the problem. It has an enormous impact on public opinion.
"You want to talk about misinformation, lies and leaks -- let's go to the source."
I did. The administration is the source of much of it. Their communication or lack thereof has been awful. I said so. You then countered with Torie Clark's credentials.
"Unfortunately, I don't think you can hang that albatross around the neck of MSM."
Yes, I can and I do.
" They may have been complicit, but they are not the source. They reported what Rumsfeld, Bush , Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al. said."
"May have been complicit?" This is where I have the biggest problem. The op-ed sections, in particular, take what is said and spin it out of control. Even the "reporting" section twists this information with horribly misleading headlines, continue this theme with the first half dozen paragraphs, then bury the crux of the matter in the continuation of the story on page A-6. Often, if they didn't actually label the op-ed section as such, you couldn't tell the difference between it and the front page.
Look at the airtime and publication space given to Cindy Sheehan, Jack Murtha, and every other opponent of the administration and compare that to airtime and publication space given to those who support it. Look at the airtime and publication space given to republican corruption and compare it to airtime and publication space given to democrat corruption. Look at the airtime and publication space given to bad news coming out of Iraq and compare it to airtime and publication space given to good news coming out of Iraq. I won't go on.
Mark: No. It was not my intention. We have a lot more problems in Iraq, logistically, tactically and otherwise, than just communication. I said I was addressing that issue as an important one. Not to imply that it was the only problem. But it plays a vast role in forming public opinion which is in turn used by the enemy to great advantage. It is also used as fodder for some to write to their representatives demanding withdrawal. These representatives in turn continue to undermine the administration, not just as is pertinent to the war, but in every single decision made in regard to everything from domestic issues to foreign policy. Whether or not it actually changes administration policy is another thing, but it does have an impact on it as we've seen from history. But guess who gets the most airtime.
Few people doubt that the media plays a significant role in wars being won and lost.
I wont say anymore about it. If I haven't made my thoughts clear, then it's the best I can do. Take what you will of it. I'm done.
Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 07:35 AM (YudAC)
62
Oyster,
I agree with your general thrust that the media distorts information. Where we disagree is how that distortion is focused. Because of the tremendous explosion in media outlets, anyone arguing either your position or mine can point to evidence that supports their argument.
I would point out that when you look how people rate professions for trustworthiness, etc. Journalists, politicians, and used car dealers are routinely at the bottom. I don't think Americans are fooled by journalists OR politicians ... at least I don't think they trust either very much.
Having said that , it is impossible to ignore the David Caruso-like drop in popularity Bush has seen over the last few years. When bedrock conservatives like Buckley, Buchanan, Wills, and Rollins are abandoning ship...it's not because they are being manipulated by a liberal media.
I think that the recent press conference really shows this problem in stark detail. There's no filter there. Just look at the
White House transcript. Search for "Helen" and you will see the question, and the response. Three years into the war in Iraq, and the president cannot give a direct answer to a simple obvious question of why we went to war with Iraq.
I've said it before.... Bush beat Kerry because he projected the following personal qualities:
Commitment
Clarity
Consistency
Credibility
You don't have to look any further than that press conference to see he remains committed, clear, and consistent... but he has lost credibility. The President of the United States has to accept responsibility for that. Arguing the alternative is effectively saying he's right and 180 Million people (~60%) are wrong. If we were talking about vision... you might be able to make the argument by claiming he had better information than those people. But if you are arguing history... that's a lot harder to swallow.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 23, 2006 10:12 AM (9AVlt)
63
I'm for the Powell doctrine. But that's neither here nor there. How can you say you're transforming the Army into a lighter, faster, more agile Army, and then turn around and launch the largest recruiting campaign in history? The Army has its own video game and NASCAR for God's sake.
Here's what's happening. Soldiers are getting out faster than they can be replaced. The primary reason is that our leaders (ahem, primarily Rumsfeld) has failed to acknowledge the numerous INTERNAL problems that the military deals with everyday.
Posted by: Rich at March 27, 2006 07:18 PM (0hzhL)
64
You wroted:
"Nations aren't talked into military invasions, they join military coalitions because they believe it is in their national interests to do so."
Dude! Do you realllllly still believe that?
If you mean no ambassador-types approach a nation either by talking, writing, blackmail, insults, cajolationism, strategeristic persuasionistic stick/carrot wave/waggerism, sign-language or grain alcohol to join a military coalition; if you mean absolutely no sovereign entities present them with a sweet, sweet platterful of business opportunities, debt-forgiveness, sex, drugs and those pictures of Jenna Bush as a reward for their sacrifices of blood, sweat and so forth, then how do they presume to "believe" that joining a military coalition is in their "best interests"? Don't tell me. A thousand royal chimps sitting at a thousand gold-plated typewriters eventually produce....
Dude! Stop! You're killin' us!
Posted by: rabbit hole at April 14, 2006 10:31 AM (hCLe1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
World record large mouth bass caught yesterday at Dixon Lake, in San Diego County by Mac Weakley. Yes, the world's biggest bass was caught in California. Take that Confederate Yankee. The fish weighed 25 lbs. 1 oz, breaking the previous record of 22 lbs. 4 ozs set by George W. Perry at Montgomery Lake in Georgia in 1932. 
That was the question this young ladyÂ’s Father-In-Law asked her. Eleven year old Gulsoma is tougher than the culture that traded her as a four year old bride. Please read Kevin SitesÂ’ article on young Gulsoma from Afghanistan and Kevin provides a link where support for this brave young lady can be sent. As you can see from the picture of her to the right she has suffered much.
