the generals are starting to turn on donald rumsfeld
according to this new yorker article written by seymour hersh,
high ranking military sources are claiming that the secretary of defense is screwing up a perfectly winnable war by his misguided micromanagement. they call his memos "snowflakes".
high ranking military sources are claiming that the secretary of defense is screwing up a perfectly winnable war by his misguided micromanagement. they call his memos "snowflakes".
Comments
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
according to this new yorker article written by seymour hersh,
high ranking military sources are claiming that the secretary of defense is screwing up a perfectly winnable war by his misguided micromanagement. they call his memos "snowflakes".
It's not the first time that i heard that civilians (traduce politicians) interfere with the management of this war. As i said, its always sad when civilians try to be Stratege.
The Powel's Doctrine imply to put the more forces possible in a ground in order to have a tremendeous advantage over the ennemie, and not just carrying a sufficiant army. The powel's doctrine was a result of his former experience in Vietnam, an experience that led him sending a giant force in 1991 with the incredibely big victory whe known.
In other way, Rumsfeld was against a giant force, he was for a confortable force send there, in order to get the favor of the public opinion. He is also against the giant air-fly bombings of town before attacking : the clean war. He want's a popular war, but a popular war, means a complicated war for the hawks of the pentagone, who prefer a good great classical war with more deads, more destruction but an easy win.
Now this war has started , US must win. If war must be dirty, so let it be. It's unfortunate, but they have to think about it before beginning it.
When you cure cancer, you don't start a small chemotherapy to have the patient approval, and then replace it (or the result will be a failure ) by a bigger one. The way it's manage give me this impression, a strategie of war, planned for making it popular, and not the more efficient possible.
War is not an humanitarian task, the politicians should not try to hide this (sad) truth.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
As i said, its always sad when civilians try to be Stratege.
Or Presidents....
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Now this war has started , US must win. If war must be dirty, so let it be. It's unfortunate, but they have to think about it before beginning it.
That's the wrong attitude Powerdoc. You should never settle for killing people just to save face.
As for the link, this quote was telling: ?The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements come.?
Pflamm, finally you made your point, nobody will contradict the author of that claim
"The fighting is fierce and we do not know its duration," GW Bush.
American casualties are up to what... 40 now? A lot from accidents. I think we can handle anything "fierce" from the Iraqis. Personally I just think its a colorful word to use in speeches and in print.
Btw I'll remember to quote Bush more since you guys seem to put a lot of stock in his quotes. Funny how you bash and bash and bash but when he becomes useful to you, his word is law. LOL.
Originally posted by groverat
Are they obligated to listen to him?
I think the answer is pretty clear in the first paragraph, then again in the second and again in the third (that's as far as I have gotten so far).
You got something against reading?
Originally posted by bunge
Or Presidents....
That's the wrong attitude Powerdoc. You should never settle for killing people just to save face.
This has more to do than just save the face (something that i don't really care concerning the Bush admin). If US stop the war now, the implications will be terrible for all the world.
Saddam will be considered as an heroe of all the muslim or at least the arabic world ( a bloody tyrannic dictator considered as an heroe, don't you think it will be pathetic ?), the US will be considered as a weak people, unable to support the death of some soldiers, and so it will be good to attack him. US people will be still hated for having starting this war, but will be not be respected or feared anymore : an open door for all terrorists of the world.
To my opinion started (in these conditions) the war was bad, stopping it now would be dramatically worse.
Originally posted by giant
I think the answer is pretty clear in the first paragraph, then again in the second and again in the third (that's as far as I have gotten so far).
You got something against reading?
There's a difference between being obligated to do something and doing it.
Since he's a civilian it doesn't seem like he has real authority. So for him to "over-rule" any military man would seem like simple influence and leverage from his high civilian position.
I realize it's being done, bright boy, I'm asking if anyone knows the mechanics.
Rummy likes a man in uniform.
Powerdoc Said
As i said, its always sad when civilians try to be Stratege.
To which Bunge Replied:
Originally posted by bunge
Or Presidents....
To which I reply:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892070.asp?0na=x238B3E2-
He is not micromanaging nor is he making the Strategy. He is leaving that to the generals. Rather smartly I would say as it prevents him from making a "bush league" mistake on the battlefield.
(pun placed for your liberal enjoyment.
Now THAT'S entertainment.
And why are you lauding him for hating journalists you wanna be journalist? Or maybe you just hate journalists cause they all have jobs cause they were actually able to make it to job interviews on time.
OK just kidding, big platonic hug for you bitch.
Originally posted by groverat
I'm a self-hating journalist.
A self-hating journalist
Originally posted by groverat
There's a difference between being obligated to do something and doing it.
Since he's a civilian it doesn't seem like he has real authority. So for him to "over-rule" any military man would seem like simple influence and leverage from his high civilian position.
I realize it's being done, bright boy, I'm asking if anyone knows the mechanics.
RTFA! Did you ever think that [gasp!] the article might say a thing or two about it? In fact, it explains it clearly. Hell, that's what the article is about!
Again, your true colors are shining through. No wonder you post what you post; you hardly even skim headlines, much less read whole articles (not to mention NAC papers, neo-con strategic outlines, study papers by members of the admin, whole UN reports...).
Originally posted by groverat
You're right. I'm thinking about leaving it alone. I don't want a career in which I hate all of my colleagues. Perhaps I should be a plastic surgeon.
Now you understand why there is no plastic surgeon around me at less than 100 kilometers
Originally posted by NoahJ
To which Bunge Replied:
To which I reply:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892070.asp?0na=x238B3E2-
He is not micromanaging nor is he making the Strategy. He is leaving that to the generals. Rather smartly I would say as it prevents him from making a "bush league" mistake on the battlefield.
(pun placed for your liberal enjoyment.
i don't think we'll ever have to worry about president bush micromanaging anything.
and according to hersh's story comments from the president and secretary rumsfeld saying this was the general's plans and strategies we've been seeing is exactly what's pissing them off.
in fact rumsfeld bragged about the fact that he did an end-run around the pentagon on the night of bombing.
Originally posted by giant
RTFA! Did you ever think that [gasp!] the article might say a thing or two about it? In fact, it explains it clearly. Hell, that's what the article is about!
Again, your true colors are shining through. No wonder you post what you post; you hardly even skim headlines, much less read whole articles (not to mention NAC papers, neo-con strategic outlines, study papers by members of the admin, whole UN reports...).
Nowhere in the article does it spell this out. It does state that Rumsfield is a pushy SOB that will not listen to his military advisors and that he has replaced much of the top brass with people who will follow his lead. But it does not state whether or not he actually has the power to control the military leaders or if he is just able to do so because tehy will not stand up to him. Which is what Groverat stated all along if you would have read his posts.