Rummy is holding us back

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lennyjoe

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,283
Location
Southwestern Ohio
Whats your take on this?

Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq
Sat Mar 29, 6:39 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon (news - web sites) planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq (news - web sites), New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.


"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."


It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.


"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.


A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article.


Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war.


He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait.


Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.


Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.


"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.


The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory.


Some 125,000 U.S. and British troops are now in Iraq. U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to bring in another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April. //


Personally, I am very leary of our Sec of Defense's decision making.
 
Last edited:
the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying
Well Lenny, if you want to believe an anonymous source over someone as forthright and plain spoken as Rumsfeld, I can't help you. :(

BTW if you think that Rueters and the New Yorker have anything in mind other than a crushing defeat for our country - complete with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our troops - then I can't help you either.

I would think that your being on active duty would give you a better insight into who are our enemies vs. who is on our side.

Hint: The entire staff of the New Yorker would happily dance on your grave for you having committed the crime of defending our country with honor and courage.
 
:rolleyes:

We're in the process of handing out the biggest royal ***-whipping since Omdurman, but the New Yorker thinks that Rumsfeld's judgement is unsound because 4ID wasn't in-country before the bodies started hitting the floor?

Mmmmmmmkay. :rolleyes:

I'll stick with the people who do military things for a living on this one, thanks.

Mike
 
It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

Oh, sweet Vishnu!

Hey! Vasco De Gama! Howzabout you go drag your atlas out and show me what other country bordering Iraq had a snowball's chance in Hades of letting us stage ground troops? Syria? Iran? :rolleyes:


Friggin' Reuters and The New Yorker! That's exactly who I turn to when I want accurate military analyses. (...and I get my restaurant reviews from Jane's.)
 
There's just not much to add to what jmbg29, Coronach, and Tamara said.

But if you think any of the Clinton Perfumed Princes or functionaries still at the Pentagon have the cojones to tell anybody anything that happens in planning sessions with Rummy, you're nuts.
 
Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.

World War One was a stalemate. Millions of men died on both sides, and nobody gained an inch of ground at times.

In this war, after a week, we've more or less taken 40% of the country, with only a few disjointed pockets of resistance. We've taken less than two hundred casualties all told (less than forty dead, I believe) whereas the Iraqis have lost probably thousands of soldiers. We've lost like two tanks, whereas the Iraqis have lost prettymuch every one we catch in the open.

Yeah, it's a stalemate alright. :rolleyes:
 
I would think that your being on active duty would give you a better insight into who are our enemies vs. who is on our side.

I do. I just hate it when the professionals at arms are kept from doing what is necessary to achieve victory. Expecially by a politician.

BTW if you think that Rueters and the New Yorker have anything in mind other than a crushing defeat for our country - complete with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our troops - then I can't help you either.

I also take into account who produced this article. My point is I hope that the Gov doesnt tie one hand behind our back. Give the professionals everything they need to fight the war.
 
Lenny, I agree with you, re: politicians tying the hands of the military in a shooting war. And as soon as I see any sign of it happening, I'll get back with you.

The only thing I can see as questionable was going before the 4th ID was in place and ready to roll, as the original gameplan was to have them charging in from the north. Now they're coming in as relief. So? If 3ID and the Devil Dawgs had gotten stomped on their charge north, these guys might have a point.

They didn't, and they don't.

Heck, now you have a completely fresh unit coming in, able to either relieve a unit up front, quell resistance in the rear, or join in the full-bore slaughter that will be the Battle of Baghdad.

Mike
 
I do. I just hate it when the professionals at arms are kept from doing what is necessary to achieve victory. Expecially by a politician.
As do I. I see zero evidence that this has happened.
I also take into account who produced this article.
Well, if you are, then you just don't know the people that produced that article as well as you should.
My point is I hope that the Gov doesnt tie one hand behind our back. Give the professionals everything they need to fight the war.
If that is your point, then we agree. I saw nothing in the thread's title, or your opening post to indicate that is what you meant.
Personally, I am very leary of our Sec of Defense's decision making.
What, other than this laughable Rueters/New Yawka story, makes you "leary"? If you don't mind my asking.
 
This whole thing is too early to call. Let's worry about deconstructing what who did when and where after Iraq is having free elections with more than one candidate on the ballot. It may very well be that the ground commanders wanted more time...they always do. Maybe the 4th should have been in on the inital attack, and the 101st should have been dropped in toto north of Baghdad.

Maybe they should have called me up and offered to pay me to run through the streets of Basra Filipino style with a pair of machetes mowing down those damn Fedayeen. :mad:

A few years from now there will be a "real Story of the Iraq War" on the History Channel. Until then, let's just pour it on 'em!!!

(they really do need a bloodlust smilie icon for what I am trying to express)
 
All you need to know about this "article" is that it is by Seymour Hersh, who is a liberal hit piece writer.

Hmmmm. Do I find a guy who wrote a book detailing American "war atrocities" in Gulf War I credible? This guy went after Gen. McCaffrey for "massacring" retreating and surrendering Iraqis.:rolleyes:

I think the only real criticism that can be leveled is twofold: First, the State Department didn't deliver Turkey or cut them out soon enough. The 4th ID was always planned to be deployed, but now they are ready to go on the personnel side but the equipment is farting around the Arabian peninsula.

Seconly, perhaps the 4th should have been scratched after not gaining Turkish access and a second Marine Division brought to bear as they deploy more rapidly.

What this war points up, like the last Gulf War also illustrated, is how the unglamorous world of air/sea lift, forward prepositioning, and logistics in general, gets the short-shrift when more snazzy weapons systems are the order of the day.

Let's account. The Air Force is ordering the F-22 when no Air Force in the world, save for the United States Navy/Marines, could deal with them for more than a week or two with their current F15s and 16s.

The Army was trying to make that Crusader monstrosity and the wacko OCSW.

The Marines have their Osprey (Albatross) which has killed more jarheads in the past fifteen years than the Iraqi Army has.

The Navy mercifully ended the Seawolf submarine program, but they will undoubtedly keep finding ways to not have an adequate supply of roll on/off ships to scrounge up.

If we ever did fight North Korea, they wouldn't give us months to get our pieces in place.:rolleyes:
 
An UNNAMED FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICER?!?!?

So, the source is someone who would not have been in on the planning in any case?

Others have pointed out the "Stalemate" fallacy.

The article is complete nonsense.
 
two points here:

1. Yeah it would be sweet if we had those six Army divisions (and all the additional Navy (can you say "air groups" can you say "battleship"), Marine, and Airforce assets) that clinton got rid of, but we ain't got 'em, and we're not gonna get 'em back all at once. Given that we pull this off, and it sure looks to me like we're going to do so, it will be the clintonistas' worst nightmare in that we as a nation can still act without worrying about the un et al. That in and of itself makes this game worth the candle, even if it wasn't to stomp out idiot like SH.


2. Boats is entirely correct about the NK's not giving us months and months to get our act together. Although, I would submit (though the Navy guys here probably know this much better than I do) that one of the real reasons the Navy wont invest in sufficient RO/RO capacity is that it would clearly demonstrate the need to bring back a fair number not only DD's, DE's, and CL's, but also CVL's. (And if I remember my limited command of Navy nomenclature correctly, to all you nonmilitary types that's Destroyers, Destroyer Escorts [sort of the 'sport/econo version of a destroyer], Light Cruisers, and Escort Carriers [sport/econo version of an aircraft carrier - called 'jeep carriers' during WWII].
 
Ok, let me take another aproach to this.

My whole point is that I hope the folks on the hill give us every means and equipment to complete the task they assign us. So far I see nothing that tells me they arn't but you never know what goes on behind closed doors.

Maybe I should climb out from under the rock I have been living under. The New Yorker, Reuters and even Janes credibility is not well known by me unlike others here.

So maybe I will do my homework before I post news and stuff and I will avoid political debates. Guess being in the military I should refrain from second guessing the Gov.

Being here I only get to see 20 minutes of CNN and the rest is BBC and whatever I can read online. CNN is even suspect in some areas.

So once again, All I meant was that I hope they dont limit our abilities to win a war. Like they did in the 60's

.
 
My whole point is that I hope the folks on the hill give us every means and equipment to complete the task they assign us.
Don't worry, I think they will. It's normal to be apprehensive, especially considering how things were handled during previous administrations. G.W. is commited to this and will do what it takes to get it done. He's not doing this for show or to establish a legacy. I think he believes in what he's doing.
Rumsfeld is a hawk and won't take B.S. from anyone. I think he will come through for the military.
CNN is even suspect in some areas.
They are suspect in alot of areas. They aren't called the Clinton/Communist News Network for nothing. Try Fox News if you can get it (probably not though). I know AFARTS (my own acronym for them, cause they kinda stink) is pretty limited for selection.
Anyway, this is a good place to drop by to get the news and get your head screwed on straight. This old crew chief and everyone else here is pulling for you over there.
 
We have taken 40% of what? The desert? I am concerned about the number of Americans who seem to think that once we showed up over there all the arabs were going to throw up their hands and surrender. If one was for or against this war is of no importance now. Whats done is done so lets get it over with as quickly as safely possible. My best info source is the retired military officers on this war. The active duty officers are only going to say what they are told to say. I do have concerns about interference of the politicians in running this war. Troop safety in some cases may not be of top priority vs politics. Keep in mind our troops are about to attempt to take a city with a population of 4000000! That is about 1/2 the population of the city of New York! I fear it will not be easy. If all doesn't go well blaming Klinton won't cut it. Those excuses are long gone now. Also to any "Brit Bashers" let me say that their troops seem to be doing very well. I am bloodly impressed ol chaps! ;)
 
How about grabbing Seymour Hersh and beating the living daylights out of him until he gives up the unidentified source. Chances are there is no source, just his own little mind writing an article to get reactions and cause trouble.
 
Tom B,

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't put odds on Iraq coming out on top, here. Remarks about "controlling 40% of the desert" aside, we have also inflictid wildly disproportionate losses on the enemy armed forces. We are going to win, of that I have no doubt.

However, those who think it's going to be a bloodless Nintendo game are simply being unrealistic. A best case scenario would be a relatively upper echelon Iraqi deciding that his best chance of continuin to suck wind past his teeth would be to show up at the allied lines with a white flag in one hand and Saddam's head in the other. I ain't holding my breath, but one can always dream.
 
Lennyjoe,

Being here I only get to see 20 minutes of CNN and the rest is BBC and whatever I can read online. CNN is even suspect in some areas.

Tell me about it! After an hour of being hyp-mo-tized by CNN at lunch, I drive home with this nagging feeiling that we're losing the war and Iraqi tank columns are poised in the Knoxville suburbs.

Don't worry, I don't think Washington has any intention of losing this one, no matter what they have to do.
 
Just a few red flags I noticed as I read the piece:

--Reuters
--New Yorker Magazine
--unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying
--veteran journalist Seymour Hersh
--cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying
--Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons (unattributed assertion).

There is no compelling reason I should give this article or the source article any credence.

Reminds me of Vietnam style reporting.

This is an article deliberately planted in the media which will serve as the source of questioning from a much larger group of "reporters".

Its an old media trick------don't like the way events are going? Create your own news.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being here I only get to see 20 minutes of CNN and the rest is BBC and whatever I can read online. CNN is even suspect in some areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see how this would influence your perspective. As Tamara mentioned in another thread, sometimes watching CNN vs. Fox can cause you to believe you are watching a different war.

If you have only limited access to what is being put out by the media around the world - and reactions to same - you might also drop in periodically at www.freerepublic.com. Click on "Articles" and/or "Breaking News". A couple of recent examples from, of all places, Canadian and French sources.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879438/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879418/posts
 
"Is it Vietnam yet? Is it Vietnam yet? Is it Vietnam yet? . . . . "

Aaaaahhh! These blown-dry morons in the media who do not know the difference between an automatic rifle and an automatic first down are now telling General Franks that he does not know what he is doing?

Tamara, there are Iraqi tank columns in the Land of Orange? Well, this morning at the bodega I did see on the cover of the NYT's sister paper, the Weekly World News, that thousands of North Koreans are in California posing as insurance salesmen.:D
 
'The only hope is that they can hold out until re-enforcements arrive." ***????

Somebody help me with the quote....
'the enemy has us surrounded. May god have mercy on the poor bastards.'

You would think that we were the Texicans trying to hold out at the Alamo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top