aps said:
I am curious what GySgt thinks of Rumseld.
It's because of my haircut right? OK...here goes...
To be an effective critic, you must also know when to praise. We also must recognize that the military has a plethora of Active and retired Generals. How many are complaining? Combat deaths indicate that we are serious about destroying the enemy, that we are willing to do whatever it takes. I would be far more distrustful of a campaign without casualties.
Afghanistan was an important milestone in getting over the no-ground-forces nonsense of the Clinton years--it proved irrefutably that there are times when our troops must go in and do the job themselves. The "stand-off-and-bomb-them" or "casualty free wars" menatily of the 90's is history. War is, ultimately, a contest of wills. And our war with terrorism is a knife-fight to the bone. When Americans die, the sole correct response is to hit back even harder. Our enemy is intent on killing us and surviving, just as we are intent on destroying him. But too many of our Army Generals and a few Marine Generals had gotten used to fighting "safe" wars (A product of the misleading Gulf War). They are the dinosaurs without vision (lost without another superpower to focus on) and have specific complaints about Iraq that are justified, but they are retiring and clearing space for the future leaders we need. These type of individuals lack the vision to see the very grey world of Islamic fundamentalism. They are focused on the symptoms (terrorism and terrorists) rather than the disease - one does not mend a compound fracture by placing a bandaid over the protrusion.
However, people should recognize that there has been an ongoing feud between Rummy and Army leaders, specifically, since before the invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld's insistence that a modest strike force can do the job that big Army was used to doing, does not meet the needs of all those Army Commanders who are clinging to the Cold War era. Iraq and Afghanistan proved him right and the dinosaurs wrong. His mistakes were made after the invasions, but Generals are proud. They don't like being told that their tactics, honed over decades, are a thing of the past.
In an age when ground-force missions will only continue to increase, and after suffering chronic troop shortages in Iraq, Rumsfeld recommends cutting Army and Marine combat units. Faced with the urgent need to replenish Marine and Army equipment destroyed or worn out in Iraq, we're buying high-tech toys that have no missions (Cold War preparations). The Marine Commandant has threatened to retire (about four weeks ago) unless Marine forces remain at current strength.
He is frequently dismissive of senior military officers' advice, which was evident with the amount of troop withdraw immediately after Baghdad fell - hence the lack of Army troops on the ground and the return of Marines that fall of 2003. His dismissives (with President Bush's approval) were also unfortunately true for first Fallujah and the price of his mistake was second Fallujah (a Vietnam political era mistake creeping up to the present). In Afghanistan, Bin Ladden escaped to the North and into the mountains. He was not expected to go that route, because it would mean that he would be cornered. It was a tactical error on Osama's part and a tactical error on ours not to have the troop strength to cover that improbable escape.
Rumsfeld has the vision that is required to meet the demands needed to face our current and future threat, however, he lacks the humility and the ability to know when to listen to his field commanders. For the most part, the Commanders are running the military show, but when times become crucial, his arrogance trumps all wisdom. There were angering mistakes in Iraq, none of which were at the ground level and most I will not type here, but Iraq as a whole was not the mistake.
My biggest problem with Rumsfeld is not of his own design. He is focused on military action. He does not tend to swim in the politics of this confusion. This is more of our President's mistakes. It infuriates me to no end that I have not heard the correct words and terminologies come out of President Bush's mouth on the international stage. We have made bold moves in the world and not just in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the words to explain these moves have been simple and obtuse....
- We are not targeting Islam, just the Radical Islamists – we better say so and it needs to be often.
- When we make inevitable and justifiable tactical military strikes on enemy targets we must apologize for the collateral damage.
- We have to support the moderate voices (indirectly). We are currently doing this in many locations, but not nearly enough.
- We (because no one else will) must resolve Israeli/Palestinian and Indian/Pakistani disputes. This should be a stage focus and the acts of Saddam and Iranian influences to continue the conflict through poor Palestininans should be thrown into the spotlight.
- We should reestablish funding for cultural outreach programs cut following end of "Cold War." This was a good program to win hearts and minds. Afer the Cold War ended and there was no more super power to oppose us, we were lost and without direction. We have that direction again and we need to recognize this.
- We need to establish Support Programs that are dedicated to providing educational reform in threatened countries. Governments with strong governmental oversight over the education of their young must be rewarded; likewise those that do not provide such oversight must be punished.
Aside from the occassional frustrating hint, we aren't hearing any of this from the White House and with Rumsfeld's sights solely focused on military action, we are projecting a negative tone to the "War on Terror." There is no substitute for killing the enemy. However, we face an enemy that does not wear a uniform, does not fight for a country, does not murder for survival, does not care about human decency (at least not in our terms). He fights for a Radical and perverted ideal and he fights for his "god." We have to make an international center stage of focusing our efforts on the long term enemy - the creation of more Radical Islamists. By doing the above and at least engaging heavily in the IO (Information Operation) war, we will garner worldwide support for this effort from all those snooty visionless countries that call themselves our "allies" who are doing the bare minimum as we take the beating from it.
The face of the War on Terror is Rumsfeld, which is set on war. This is wrong and it has hurt our efforts. The President of the free world needs to be that face and he needs to do it with the boldness that our military actions have displayed.
