g-doll wrote:
“Yes, I did read the article, although I can tell (see below) that you didn’t do me the same courtesy.”
I did read your article.
“I’m well aware of everything that went wrong at Torch, D-Day, and thereafter. It’s a stupid analogy because: a) it’s talking about a conventional war, not a counter-insurgency campaign, which is an entirely different animal,”
I’m sorry. I simply disagree. For instance, the hedgerow/village/house-to-house fighting/sniping of Normandy has at least a passing resemblance to the Iraqi War.
“and b) it’s simply used as a rhetorical club to attack anyone with legitimate critiques of this war as defeatist.”
There is much defeatist talk. However, I’m specifically asking you to use historical context as you attack Rumsfeld.
“I still think you’re well off the original topic, but whatever.”
You keep brining this up. Here is your opening salvo:
“Major General John Batiste (former commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq) joins General Anthony Zinni (former head of CENTCOMM), Major General Paul Eaton (formerly in charge of training the Iraqi Army), and Lieutenant General Greg Newbold (former director of operations on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff) in calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, on grounds that he is, in Eaton’s words, “incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically.””
I submit that the man is NOT incompetent strategically, operationally, or tactically. The Major Combat Operations phase was brillant (aka competence strategically, operationally, and tactically). You use the counter-insurgency as the club to make your statements.
As much as the next guy, I would have loved to see optimistic predictions by Rumsfeld and others come true. You will notice that I did not think the post-war phase would be easy or free of cost. Was Rumsfeld wrong on his predictions? Yes, he was.
Now, to castigate him as incompetent due to these predictions is too harsh. I took the next step by posting Hanson’s discussion. In it, he asks people who would have defined Ike/Marshall as “incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically” in 1942-1944 to get some perspective. They learned. They adapted.
“No, this is not saying hindsight is 20/20. There was a ton of planning by the State Department and the CIA about how to deal with the postwar situation in Iraq, plus the recent examples of stability operations in the Balkans, all of which was COMPLETELY ignored by the Pentagon, which was in charge of Iraq during and after the conventional war.”
Completely? Please help me with this one. I’m aware that State and CIA have contingency plans for just about everything. Was none of their pre-war planning implemented?
“This stuff, from big (security is goal #1, “search and destroy” against insurgents was proved futile thirty years ago in Vietnam,”
Futile? Please educate me on this.
“don’t disband the Iraqi Army)”
Another 20/20 comment. I remember many were afraid of the Baathist commanders’/troops’ loyal to saddam. Questionable loyalty and very questionable combat training.
I believe the goal was to break apart this apparatus (purge it, if you will of saddam loyalists) and build it back up.
“to small (provide enough fucking translators for goodness sake)”
I’m with you on this one.
“was readily apparent long before the war was launched.”
I agree, there were things that could have been handled better. But, “total imcompetence,” I just cannot follow you there.
“Who are my pals, Jeff, since you know me so well? I voted for Bush twice, and was and am for the war in Iraq,”
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I’ll bet you voted for al "doomsday: the day after tomorrow "gore and john “I’ll marry you with the right dowry attached” kerry.
I’ve heard democrats claim to be Republicans for the express purpose of “showing discontent within the party.”
“I am just disgusted with the incompetence of this White House and this Pentagon. So who are my pals then? Non-Kool Aid drinkers maybe?”
Again, I simply do not think you are who you say you are.
“Yup, I heard General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, make the same argument at a dinner two years ago. And with all due respect to him, it runs counter to almost everything that’s ever been written on the topic. That’s why it sounds suspiciously like an excuse for a bungled occupation and an obstinate Secretary of Defense.”
That’s quite a leap. Further, I remember clearly MANY people expressing these same fears.
ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT THE dEMOCRATS WOULDN’T HAVE USED THE COST OF ADDITIONAL TROOPS/MORE TARGETS/POTENTIALLY MORE CASUALTIES as a stick for which to attack the Administration? They say they “could have/should have/would have” done this or that, but, they have serious credibility issues in my eyes. Their lack of staying power is clear for all to see.
“Read Krepinevich, Van Creveld, or any of a host of military or civilian writers who know anything about counter-insurgency.”
g-doll, could you stomach more civilian casualties? Remember the libs on this forum updating potential civilian casualties? In fact, here you are trying to make a point using numbers: “And has given those hundreds of lives (and thousands of Iraqi ones to boot) right back”
I must tell you that I have wondered if more aggression may have been called for.
However, I am the first one to admit that I am not on the ground. I try hard to filter out bias from reporting, BUT, I’m not there.
I think you should probably keep that in the front of your mind when you become too critical of the Administration.
“No, I was attacking this article, which uses a bad analogy (historical interpretation, do I need to spell it out for you?) to defend Rumsfeld and co.”
Again, I disagree. I find that some people have a hard time drawing parallels with history if it undermines their current thinking.
Is it really that much of a stress to imagine you calling for Marshall’s head after Torch/Overlord?
Would we have been better off? No chance.
“Actually, it’s a pretty perceptive columnist for the Asia Times, not the LA Times. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you didn’t read the article.”
www.atimes.com.
Yes, I added an l.
“You have no idea what they said behind closed doors, and whether they decided that continuing to defend their country was worth more than taking a futile stand against the ideologues who run the Pentagon.”
Nor can YOU say that they didn’t agree lock stock and barrel with the assessment at the time.
See how that works?
Oh, if you are going to try and tell me that people don’t repent past decisions and blame others, save your breath.
“Who’s my target then Jeff, Bush?”
Yes. Of course it is.
“Sure, the tree rots from the roots, but if he had someone different in the Pentagon maybe this war would be run with a minimum of competence.”
Again, major combat operations were brillant. It’s probably fair to say that that gives him “a minimum of competence.”
"W’s “intimately involved with the situation” huh? You know why he probably hasn’t fired Rumsfeld yet? Because Bush has virtually zero knowledge of the military, and has let Rumsfeld (and Cheney) run the entire war. Watch this, the top video, I’m not sure if it’s more funny or sad:
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/funny-videos/"
Certainly not his finest moment. I would have handled it differently.
However, at least the man had the sack to admit he didn’t know. As with his lack of knowledge of the names of world leaders in 2000, I’ll bet he DOES educated himself on that question.
Do I expect the man to know all the details of every operation? Nope.
That was carter. It cannot be done.
Do I expect W. to look into this and answer the question that was asked? Yes, I do.
Again, you are a disgruntled democrat using a rather clumsy and transparent tactic.
However, I have given your point of view thought.
I hope you extend me the same courtesy.
JeffR