Rumsfeld...

Wow, Toker, you must be giddy. All your dreams coming true.

You bet but my dreams should be your dreams when it comes to Iraq. Rumsfeld is one of the BIG reasons Iraq has not gone well.

Funny how just last week Bush was adamant about saying Rummy was staying.

I’m probably more giddy than you right-wingers were in 2004.

You are gonna poop if Montana and Virginia turn out how it looks like they will turn out in the Senate.

Irrational exuberance

It would be nice if Bush felt like he could stick with Rumsfeld, but with a Democrat majority coming in, Rumsfeld would not be allowed to do his job anyway. Instead of impeaching Bush, the Dems were planning to hogtie Rummy in investigations and hearings. That wouldn’t allow for a very efficient way to oversee the military.

I don’t see what he was or could have done anyway.

His stupid fucking “light force” idea. Go in and flatten whatever you need to flatten, why do we #### around like we do?
If you are going to use force, USE it. Otherwise we are just over there being cops for a bunch of people who have zero desire to be policed.

Quote (clark_griswold @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
His stupid fucking "light force" idea. Go in and flatten whatever you need to flatten, why do we #### around like we do?
If you are going to use force, USE it. Otherwise we are just over there being cops for a bunch of people who have zero desire to be policed.

Even though I never thought we should have invaded Iraq, I could not agree with you more. Like my mother used to say, "If you are going to do something, never do it half-a$$ed". But now we are caught up in a war that is getting worse by the day with no end in sight. So another saying of my mother's comes to mind; "Sh1t or get off the pot."

Hey, this is kind of fun using profanity constantly... :)

As far as Rumsfeld goes, it seems to me that it is easy acting tough when you have the backing of the majority. As soon as that majority became the minority, he cut and Rumsfeld... so much for his integrity...

Quote (clark_griswold @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
His stupid fucking “light force” idea. Go in and flatten whatever you need to flatten, why do we #### around like we do?
If you are going to use force, USE it. Otherwise we are just over there being cops for a bunch of people who have zero desire to be policed.

It worked for the Romans. Nothing like public executions along major roads to get the populace in line. :D
Quote (clark_griswold @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
I don't see what he was or could have done anyway.

His stupid fucking "light force" idea. Go in and flatten whatever you need to flatten, why do we #### around like we do?
If you are going to use force, USE it. Otherwise we are just over there being cops for a bunch of people who have zero desire to be policed.

Everyone who had any military experience told him the idea was stupid. Everyone. He wouldn't listen. I am almost but not quite a pacifist, but I agree with you guys, if war it has to be, then make sure you can do it as quickly and effectively as possible. For his stupid ideas about minimal forces and being greeted as liberators with flowers, he needed to be gone, a long, long time ago.

I have to say, Bush's press conference today had the Prez in the best form I have heard in a long time. He actually spoke his mind, honestly, and sounded like someone who wanted to make things right. I still don't agree with him on most things, but it was great to see that democratic processes can force or help guide folks to do the right thing. I don't want him to be prez, but I mind it a lot less when I hear that he is actually committed to integrity in the democratic process (at least when forced to). We'll see if his actions match his words; I hope they will.
Quote (clark_griswold @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
I don't see what he was or could have done anyway.

His stupid fucking "light force" idea. Go in and flatten whatever you need to flatten, why do we #### around like we do?
If you are going to use force, USE it. Otherwise we are just over there being cops for a bunch of people who have zero desire to be policed.

That sounds good on the surface, but a similar attitude during Vietnam (when we greatly increased troop levels) led directly to exponentially higher numbers of American casualties — and obviously we didn't get the job done despite the greater presence and commitment. Second, you risk not only more American casualties, but a much greater number of civilian casualties and collateral damage. Third, it would have made us look much more like the imperial power that the left wants people to believe that we are. And fourth, the enemy is diffused among the people. If we were fighting regimented forces, it would be a much different operation. As it is, we have to be lean and mobile. Fifth, flattening the area increases reconstruction costs (which we would be obligated to provide). And sixth, there's no guarantee we would accomplish our objectives any quicker than we already are.

I think my line of thinking had more to do with the initial phase. If we had delivered on the “Powell Doctrine” and gone in with overwhelming and certain force, would these pockets of unregimented forces ever existed?

Of course I know we were and are always hamstrung by how it would "appear"

Just my silly little uneducated theory and question.

Quote (clark_griswold @ Nov. 08 2006,18:01)
I think my line of thinking had more to do with the initial phase. If we had delivered on the "Powell Doctrine" and gone in with overwhelming and certain force, would these pockets of unregimented forces ever existed?

Of course I know we were and are always hamstrung by how it would "appear"

Just my silly little uneducated theory and question.

Maybe it would have worked, but based on our history, it just looked like there were valid reasons to stay with lighter forces. Also, I think our success in the Gulf War and the lack of a postwar insurgency led us to have inaccurate expectations for Iraq.

Rumsfeld et al made a crucial mistake when they initially let Bagdad decay into chaos. Then they continue to make mistakes, including disbanding Saddam’s old army. As I indicated in another post, I just read a very good article on that.

sure, I will buy all those things…BUT, why dick around?

I have read “Plan of Attack” but I think I need to re-read it as I don’t remember the compelling reasons presented(if any…) for the decision to go in light.

:D :) :D :p

ksdb, it sounds like you have just made a good case for not going in in the first place.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
but with a Democrat majority coming in, Rumsfeld would not be allowed to do his job anyway.

By doing his job, you mean “staying the course” and continuing on the way we have been with the largest Iraqi & US casualities. Too funny Joe!

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
I think my line of thinking had more to do with the initial phase. If we had delivered on the “Powell Doctrine” and gone in with overwhelming and certain force, would these pockets of unregimented forces ever existed?

What are you talking about? Do you remember shock & awe? We overtook Iraq in no time flat. The problem that exist today have absolutely nothing to do with the original mission. They have to do with everything that was done after that. You guys need to read about what happened over there & why it has led to the situation that we are in today.

Rumsfeld made a bunch of bad decisions - decisions that flew in the face of his military. He was determined to change the existing way of thinking, which in & of itself was not necessarily bad, but he was listening to what has happening in Iraq. And Rumsfeld wasn’t the only one who made bad decision, Bremer was another one. Also, some military leaders there made the wrong decisions.

But I’ll never forget Rumsfeld’s greatest line:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.

–Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding “stuff happens,” April 11, 2003

No Don - people are not free to do what they want & commit crimes, etc., etc., etc.
Quote (Guest @ Nov. 09 2006,09:13)
ksdb, it sounds like you have just made a good case for not going in in the first place.

I guess maybe if you only read every other word I wrote that might be the case.