Military Newspapers calling for Rummy's head

[gtownspur]

"Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Bull ."

-ChumpDump commenting on wether the invasions were done magnificently. Read Post response #43 of his.

This would lead anyone to believe he has the shortest memory of all time.

[ChumpDumper]

"Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Bull ."

-ChumpDump commenting on wether the invasions were done magnificently. Read Post response #43 of his.

This would lead anyone to believe he has the shortest memory of all time.

Yeah, I'm talking about the initial military operations to defeat organized military resistance. If you want to parse the meaning of "invasion" the rest of the evening feel free

[gtownspur]

.My point is Rummy made critical mistakes in the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So you're saying Rummy personally orchestrated Torah Borah?

And as far as IRaq, we killed AL Zarqawi, that didn't end anything.

If you're contention is he is perfect, say so.Osama is very happy how the invasion went, since it allowed him to escape.

I'll say it.

Osama is perfectly happy we invaded two muslim nations and wiped out his resources and have turned most of the arab royalty against him.

[ChumpDumper]

There is little doubt that the US can kick any other army's ass. That was never the problem. It was always what to do next.

[gtownspur]

Yeah, I'm talking about the initial military operations to defeat organized military resistance. If you want to parse the meaning of "invasion" the rest of the evening feel free

Continues to put foot in mouth.


That is the original invasion re .

We're no longer fighting an organized army.

Wake up.

[gtownspur]

There is little doubt that the US can kick any other army's ass. That was never the problem. It was always what to do next.

What to do next would have been to commit more troops to Iraq and still have more deaths and more escalation. Because more troop commitment didn't help in Vietnam.

We would of also had to have start a draft.

Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how one can say that a different general would have done better or worse.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying Rummy personally orchestrated Torah Borah?

Where does the buck stop with you? Who is responsible for the strategy used in Afghanistan and Iraq?

And as far as IRaq, we killed AL Zarqawi, that didn't end anything.

You mean after the insurgency had firmly entrenched itself in Iraq it didn't change anything to kill one of it's leaders? Sure.

Osama is perfectly happy we invaded two muslim nations and wiped out his resources and have turned most of the arab royalty against him.

He is alive to be perfectly happy. And the Taliban are back. Mission accomplished.

[gtownspur]

You mean after the insurgency had firmly entrenched itself in Iraq it didn't change anything to kill one of it's leaders?

I'll play devils advocate.

Yes! it will, after all we killed Zarqawi and now Iraq is a top tourist destination!!!

Sure.He is alive to be perfectly happy. And the Taliban are back. Mission accomplished.

You mean the Taliban is governing afghanistan and are driving out the military.

This will surely stop if we kill OSama!!

[ChumpDumper]

What to do next would have been to commit more troops to Iraq and still have more deaths and more escalation. Because more troop commitment didn't help in Vietnam.

So it is best to leave large parts of the country lawless and the borders open. Understood.

We would of also had to have start a draft.

So? We're at war aren't we?

Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how one can say that a different general would have done better or worse.

A differenct Secretary of Defense who planned for the occupation of two countries more than six weeks before an invasion would have made an enormous difference, as would one who would have appointed someone who had some actual knowledge of the mideast to oversee the occupation, as would one who would have cooperated better with the CIA which was already on the ground in Afghanistan, as would one who would have considered the consequences of throwing the entire Iraqi army out of work while leaving them armed to the teeth. And so on.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes! it will, after all we killed Zarqawi and now Iraq is a top tourist destination!!!

I certainly got that impression from the administration after getting him and Saddam and his sons.

You mean the Taliban is governing afghanistan and are driving out the military.

I mean the Taliban is firmly entrenched in Waziristan where nothing can be done about them and they are free to attack Afghanistan and plot other terraist acts at their leisure.

This will surely stop if we kill OSama!!

There's a good chance it would have stopped had he not been allowed to escape to Pakistan when even Iran was cooperating with us.

[gtownspur]

So it is best to leave large parts of the country lawless and the borders open. Understood.
I'm not sure how you're going to surveillence every square inch in IRaq?

So? We're at war aren't we?

YEs, Now go a step further and advocate a draft while we're at it.


A differenct Secretary of Defense who planned for the occupation of two countries more than six weeks before an invasion would have made an enormous difference, as would one who would have appointed someone who had some actual knowledge of the mideast to oversee the occupation,

Do you even know who that person is who oversees the whole operation?


as would one who would have cooperated better with the CIA which was already on the ground in Afghanistan,

Wait we didn't cooperate with the CIA?

YOu seem to know all this by detail.

Link?

as would one who would have considered the consequences of throwing the entire Iraqi army out of work while leaving them armed to the teeth. And so on.

That's right we should of rounded them all up with out due process and Abu Graihb them.

[gtownspur]

I certainly got that impression from the administration after getting him and Saddam and his sons.

You sure do get alot of impressions while managing to go off subject.

I mean the Taliban is firmly entrenched in Waziristan where nothing can be done about them and they are free to attack Afghanistan and plot other terraist acts at their leisure.There's a good chance it would have stopped had he not been allowed to escape to Pakistan when even Iran was cooperating with us.

SO the Taliban has gone from a powerful govt to a rag tag group of terrorist.
My how they've upgraded!!

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not sure how you're going to surveillence every square inch in IRaq?

I'm not sure how you're going to declare a country safe hiding in a green zone.

YEs, Now go a step further and advocate a draft while we're at it.

Why not? Why aren't we, as a nation, actually acting like we are at war and making the all-out sacrifices that are needed in a war?

Wait we didn't cooperate with the CIA?

YOu seem to know all this by detail.

Link?

Are you telling me you DON'T know about this?

Sad.

That's right we should of rounded them all up with out due process and Abu Graihb them.

That would have been better, since they wouldn't be killing our troops now.

[ChumpDumper]

You sure do get alot of impressions while managing to go off subject.

This certainly is the subject.

SO the Taliban has gone from a powerful govt to a rag tag group of terrorist.
My how they've upgraded!!

Nah, they just control Waziristan instead of Afghanistan. It's more of a lateral move.

[gtownspur]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]That's right we should of rounded them all up with out due process and Abu Graihb them.

That would have been better, since they wouldn't be killing our troops now.

Well why not do it to save civilians too?

[Yonivore]

Just in case you hadn't heard, all four are just industry magazines published by Gannett, which also owns USAToday. They're "military" magazines in the sense they cover the military.

But not "military magazines" in the sense that they're actually published by the armed forces.

The editorials they offer may or may be persuasive (haven't read them myself), and the editorials are in fact written by former military personnel.

Still, the media is breathlessly reporting this as if official military papers like Stars and Stripes had come out against Rumsfeld -- which would be so enormous it also wouldn't ever happen (can't criticize superiors, after all).

So, if you're imagining that the actual military is now in open revolt against Rumsfeld, you've been "inadvertantly misled" by our very fair and balanced media.

By the way, Fox has been hyping this all day, too.

[ChumpDumper]

Well why not do it to save civilians too?

Round up insurgents? Sure.

[ChumpDumper]

Just in case you hadn't heard, all four are just industry magazines published by Gannett, which also owns USAToday. They're "military" magazines in the sense they cover the military.

But not "military magazines" in the sense that they're actually published by the armed forces.

Already covered.

The editorials they offer may or may be persuasive (haven't read them myself), and the editorials are in fact written by former military personnel.

Still, the media is breathlessly reporting this as if official military papers like Stars and Stripes had come out against Rumsfeld -- which would be so enormous it also wouldn't ever happen (can't criticize superiors, after all).

So, if you're imagining that the actual military is now in open revolt against Rumsfeld, you've been "inadvertantly misled" by our very fair and balanced media.

By the way, Fox has been hyping this all day, too.

Nah, we're way past that.

[ChumpDumper]

Editorial

Time for Rumsfeld to go

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national iden y, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the ins ution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

[George Gervin's Afro]

Question for the war supporters. Intel was bad, we had no post war plan, and things are getting worse. Is anyone accountable?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, San Fran-cis-co values are to blame for everything.

[ChumpDumper]

Bump, mofos.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you mind providing a list of the "plenty of qualified guys out there" who are ready, willing and capable of taking over for Rumsfeld?

Robert Gates, apparently.

Now Bush is talking about bringing "fresh eyes" to the situation.

[DarkReign]

With all due respect, you guys got so ing pwnd on the Rummy issue. Seriously raped.

[PixelPusher]

They won't turn on him until bush does. Don't you get it? They're waiting for permission.

Permission granted.