Help or harm? Sound off on Rumsfeld's military strategy. You are the professionals, be interesting to see these responses. Has he made things worse, was there the potential ever there to secure the country and factions involved, or has he demonstrated brilliance?

Question:
What effect has Rumsfeld's strategy of de-emphasis on boots on the ground, reduction of numbers in theater and supply, outsourcing of some security tasks, had on the prosecution and success of the mission in Iraq?

Choices:
Very successful
Somewhat successful
Unsuccessful-Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
No effect, things would be the way they are regardless

 

The one wrong thing about the situation we are now in is that they didn't foresee the need to use our military as nation builders. Military are not suited for that role. Great at rearranging the landscape, but not so great at putting it all back together.

On top of that, we find ourselves enbroiled in a civil-war for control of everything. It'd be different if religious factions weren't involved in every aspect of day to day life over there. That should have been taken into account.

quote:

Originally posted by thegunny:
The one wrong thing about the situation we are now in is that they didn't foresee the need to use our military as nation builders. Military are not suited for that role. Great at rearranging the landscape, but not so great at putting it all back together.

On top of that, we find ourselves enbroiled in a civil-war for control of everything. It'd be different if religious factions weren't involved in every aspect of day to day life over there. That should have been taken into account.

Aye, none of that is something we faced after WW2. A bit of nation-(re)building or rather remodeling in Japan, yes, but not the shite (literally) going on in the sandpile. Neocons were warned about this. hearts and minds was about more than hershey bars and nylons over there. Better to have heeded the old slogan from the getgo, "When you have em by the balls, hearts and minds will follow."

I think what Rumsfeld did wrong, was to send the lads to iraq, with too-light armour, and too little body armour.

Basically, the humvees were not armoured as much as they susually are.

Rumsfeld wanted to reform the US Military to a "light force, capabil of facing the challenge of modern terrorism, instead of the heavy force that would have taken on the Soveits".

His emphasis was to try chnage the US Army's Role, not for conventional warfare, but to take on terrorism. This didn't work. If he ficused the strategy on sending more heavily armoured regiments to Iraq, we would ahve had a lot mroe success there.

That's just my opinion though.

I disagree Aufklarer.

Shinseki was the culprit. His idea of changing the Army was faulty. Army transformation into the "new" BCT concept or "modular Army" is a misnomer. The transformation has literally been lost in translation. The BCT concept is not new by any means. Nor is the modular strike package. Most combat units are designed that way for sustainability in the CZ, and have been.

The HMMWV issue of up-armored trucks was purely selfishness and RHIP. Rank had its priviledges; a General got an up-armor in Kuwait whilst we on the ground had soft-skins in theatre.

There is nothing conventional about war. We looked at fighting in a symmetrical battlespace. In the beginning, Iraqi units conducted themselves as expected. Many ran or surrendered, those that stayed to fight were annihilated in nothing short of a "clean sweep." It was fairly easy. Ramadi, Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul, Al Anbar were relatively quiet. Even Baghdad; something changed in the late summer-early fall of 2003. We encountered a different threat. A trained threat. Ambushes now used flanking shots, L-shaped ambushes, fixed AT shots with supressing MG fire. Double stack AT mines with secondary fuel bombs. The battlefield changed. Guerilla tactics were refined and skilled. IEDs increased exponentially. Command detonated triggers, RF triggers, timed detonations, etc.

When an IED or VBIED can detonate with enough force to flip a 32-ton vehicle on its top, someone knows what they are doing. So we had to fight fire with firepower. The politicos decided we weren't supposed to crush everything in our path. The President had already declared an end of combat ops, we had to start playing by "rules." Even when we were the only ones playing by them. Words like "likely and identifiable threats" or "graduated levels of force" become commonplace. Firing when fired upon makes for dead US soldiers. We've known that since before Vietnam.

Our 70-ton Abrams and 32-ton CFVs were being nailed with RPG-18s. Sniper fire increased, and harassing fires increased to suppress us. These are tactics the modern world has used for years. Somehow, some way, the enemy received relevant and ready training. We could not fight it adequately because we had to consider the "impact" of unbridled chaos, or obey some convention, or rules of engagement. We sent the heavy armor. We sent the Mechanized INF and the Armored CAV. The terrain limited our ability to fight, and Armor dies in MOUT. We proved that in WWII. Reactive armor was not available for everyone until late in the op. It began mass production in early 2004, after most of us had been there for 14 months.

A more adequate description is no one got on point soon enough. A day late and dollar short left a lot of out there to get pummelled. We licked our wounds and buried our dead. We sit and brood, waiting for the day we can go back and execute our mission with lethal accuracy and deadly proficiency and leave the politics behind. At least the enemy shoots me in the front.

The President had already declared an end of combat ops, we had to start playing by "rules." Even when we were the only ones playing by them. Words like "likely and identifiable threats" or "graduated levels of force" become commonplace. Firing when fired upon makes for dead US soldiers. We've known that since before Vietnam.

I heard a Fox military analyst saying he thought Rumsfeld should have been gone 3 years ago. He said he (Rummie) was controlling deployment down to 100 troop units(!!) and commanders couldn't do anything.

Aside from the inherent evils of Nazism and NSDP polcies and Hitler and the ultimate superiority of Allied forces, isn't one big reason the Nazis lost was a politician who continually interfered with military professionals prosecution of a war and deployment of forces, etc. etc.?
But I would have thought that more recently Les Aspin pisspoor management of Somalia and 'Blackhawk Down' showed the evils of 2nd guessing what troops and officers in the theater need to do the job. He resigned after that; Rumsfeld didnt resign soon enough.

If the election results are dismal for a lot of us, this is to me the good thing: Rumsfeld is out and (essentially) James Baker is in. Had the R's retained hold of Congress, things would have continued the way they were I think. Not sure it's soon enough to save Iraq from civil war but maybe we can preserve the lives of some Amercian heroes.

Political Bravo Sierra screws up another one. When you send Dawgs into a fight, let them bite and make sure there's enough of them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PT,

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

I don't think that GW will allow this to go forward putting Rummy in harms way, what are your thoughts?

Of course the US will not adhere to this, do you think the nazi's would have turned them selves in if they had not lost the war. It does not change the fact of what happened but he wont be held accountalbe nor will Bush. They will walk away to play golf after getting thousands of US troops killed, ripping soldiers away from there families, torture. Wait what am I thinking people on this site think thoes types of activities are noble and honorable.

They made the right decisons when they needed to be made. They have committed no war crimes, irregardless of what some Europeans think or feel. Didn't see them (EU) taking much action when it would have counted.

There is no precedent for any of this type of action against President Bush or Mr Rumsfeld. They did what had to be done, whether you agree with it or not. At least they didn't just sit on thier hands like the majority of democraps will do.

Besides, ain't nothing wrong with a good golf game. They have a right to some relaxation don't they? At least they ain't getting knob jobs in the oval office......

Getting thousands killed? Wow. How spiteful. Maybe we should remember another President that got tens of thousands killed, propogated torture and these supposed "unlawful" interrogation techniques..or is mentioning John F. Kennedy's name too wrong?

Yeah, 'cause Rummy has soooooo much control of what happens at the unit level in the military. Hell, maybe he'll come all the way down to a platoon and give us our weekly safety brief. That way, when a Soldier runs away from his drilling National Guard unit like rppearso, we can blame Rummy. Its his fault, obviously!! Heaven forbid! The people already prosecuted were responsible..for shit's sake..they were there. Rummy wasn't. Its a shame little sissies wanna blame MG Wojo, or Rummy, for some shit they had zero control over. MG Wojdakowski was the Deputy Commander of V Corps. He wasn't the senior man there...thats asinine. I should know, his son was my PL and his signature is on my Purple Heart and 2 ARCOMs w/ V, and I had Thanksgiving dinner with him on my FOB in Al Qa'im. Yes, blame Walter. Yes, blame Donald. It'll never fly. Its a little thing called Plausible Deniability. Been around since before Korea. Talk about some consipracy theorists.

So because they have plausible deniability that makes what they do right, moral and just. So as long as you paper shuffle your way out of being held responsible its honorable then. How about the men and women that carry out these orders, are these orders truely optional, because I know about "voulenteering" in the military, if you dont volunteer there will be backlash in some unrelated area of your life to make your life suck. Oh wait they will get cavscout to do it because then he can shoot someone in the back and have plausible deniability then you can come back and get a medal or "honor"

I'm getting fed up with your continued malicious attacks against a decorated veteran of this site. He is one that any of our regular members in here would gladly serve with both in and out of the military. He is typical of the vast majority of volunteers serving both past and present in our armed forces.

You say things via your keyboard that you wouldn't have the courage or balls to say to his face. Really consider yourself a voice of the people and rate yourself as one of the brave, the few the proud?????

You really are proving our earlier assertions that you are a total waste of human skin. Most are praying that you never get the opportunity to breed.

Then I hope it was a joke when he spoke of shooting people in the back. I dont care how decorated you are, if you could shoot someone in the back your not honorable. I probably would not say it to his face because I dont want to be shot in the back or on a more realistic note I would not want to be assulted. Thats the reason I did not act out in basic because I was a prisoner and the drills were the guards, its not like I could come down on them with authority and go home I had to live with them terrorizing me so I wanted to minimize the terrorization (giving them the least ammo possible while still maintaining my individuality and keeping from being brain washed), it has nothing to do with "having the balls" and has everything to do with having the brains to know when the appropriate times are for doing certian things. Your not going to go to a KKK rally and preach about black rights but that does not mean they should still be slaves, just like you wouldent go to a military gathering and talk about human rights, but over the keyboard I dont have to worry about assult so I am just seeing if I can get some insight as to the justification the military uses to deem certian activities (basic, plausible deniability missions, or just general dishonorable actions and attitudes, etc) as honorable.

rppearso: WHAT THE F***? What men and women carrying out what orders!?!? You are so ignorant it baffles me. You think Secretary Rumsfeld ordered them to make a pyramid of Mujahedin?!? Are you completely delusional?
Plausible deniability is never given from the top down. Subordinates execute it as to keep the higher ups from catching the blame for something they did not do.

I'm in the business of fighting and winning our Nation's wars, conflicts, etc by ANY and ALL means necessary. If that means shooting you ,(I would actually shoot you in the face if I had to waste a bullet on you; I'd want you to see my face when salvation strikes and you realize you are worthless) to protect my unit, or protect the mission. retardo, you don't understand putting the mission first. So, you don't see the honor in having to do some evil to get some right. And yes, that is honorable. It is moral. It is good. Thats why pussies like you don't serve. You don't ask yourself, "Are you ready to do what is necessary to win?" You ask if you posess the fortitude to DO what is necessary. You do not, I do. Gunny does, HarryP, Rocketeer and family, Sammy, Coachman, etc etc etc. all have it. You still do not. You will never address these issues in voice. You are too big of a chickenshit to go on base(wah! its stressful), face your fat ass to the music, take your dishonorable discharge for being a quitter, failure to meet medical fitness standards, and get out completely. You still want someone else to do it for you.
You don't have the balls to even turn yourself over to your unit and let them deal with you. Let alone stop by a local base or recruiting station, and be brave enough to run your yap like that to REAL Soldiers.

quote:

Oh wait they will get cavscout to do it because then he can shoot someone in the back and have plausible deniability then you can come back and get a medal or "honor"

quote:

just like you wouldent go to a military gathering and talk about human rights

Was your head implanted up your azz at birth or did you just get it stuck up there?
If it weren't for our military you wouldn't HAVE any human rights, dickweed. Or would you complain about your local FD putting out your house fire cos you want to have a weenie roast?

Don't worry, dude, you can't hack it in the Armed Forces but you'll always have a job as long as there's--

Thats the same thing the nazi's said, (wah, you dont want to burn people alive, fing pussy) The end does not justify the means. The fact that the army believes that shows what a twisted view of honor they have hence the reason I do not want to put myself in harms way of them any more than I have to.

1) Unless a person is directly related to human rights violations they will not be prosecuted. And even then nothing may happen. (Hussein before the war? et cetera)

2) Comparing ANY free nation's military to a fascist nationalistic military is preposterous. Even Saddam's former military could not be compared to the Nazi German SS. It's an insult to every nation's soldier. There will be people that violate the free world's laws wherever you look. Politics, military, businesses... But to even insinuate that those habits are a general trend with direct evidence contradicting your claim is, in every sense of the word, stupid.

I respect you for THINKING deeply about WHY to enlist in the armed forces. However, it is clear that your reasons for not joining are misguided. Are your causes for suspicion unfounded? No. However your conclusions are.



And by the way (to others), democrats aren't evil, immoral, whimps. Kerry was a whimp, but that's as close as anyone'll get. This partisan polarization is not healthy for the country, and people need to grow wise to the fact that BOTH democrats and reagan republicans/neocons are REAL people, and demonizing them proves nothing and helps noone.

Like it or not, some people (whether you call them evil, or merely fanatics) can be understood, and be dialogued with, but may never be able to be negotiated with.

Hence alternate means of negotiation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ronnec,

Hello Ronnec,

You sound like a very level headed person. I am actually in the army national guard in the process of getting out, I no longer attend drill as I have been disenrolled from OCS. I have been there and done it, and you are right, soldiers are not baby raping and murdering on a daily basis, my major complaint is the insesent hazing, verbal abuse and hostile atmospheres when its not nessicary, I do not consider that type of behavior honorable, its exactly the same as fraternity hazing and very few think that is honorable so why should the military get a free ticket to misbehave just because there high level function is honorable. Yes serving your country to protect freedom is very honorable its what goes on behind closed doors that is the farthest thing from honorable and its very clear from PT and cavscouts posts that this type of poor behavior is acceptable and even practiced by them which matches up exactly with the experence I had which leads me to believe the widespread dishonor of the US military. They can also provide no rational explaination as to how this can somehow be justified as honorable other than to say your an fing pussy.

We've answered your questions repeatedly, you just don't like the answer becuase you haven't been able to wrap your mind around the reality of military training and the need to instill discipline where none existed before.

You recently mentioned that you got yelled at because while standing in a troop formation you failed to come to parade rest because you were thinking. You allowed your mind to wander when you should have been listening to commands. Military formations have a distinct purpose and function. You weren't standing on the street corner, you were standing in a military formation and the expectation was that you were aware of where you were and knew that you would at some point receive commands from the instructor. As a result you blame him and the rest of the entire military establishment for your own stupid mistake.