"Armor gaffe"!!?? A gaffe is when you tell someone they look nice "for a change." Knowing for almost a year that soldiers are dying because you haven't ordered enough armor, and not doing anything about it -- that is criminal. (And even that word might be generous.)

FWIW, here's a Wash Times article speculating on Rumsfeld's future:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet received affirmation from President Bush that he is staying on in the second term as defense chief...Word has reached us that one potential replacement for a senior position at the Pentagon is Sean O'Keefe, a former Navy secretary who now heads the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mr. O'Keefe is a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney and could end up with the jobs of deputy or even secretary of defense.

Of course Bush would not jettison the man responsible for countless fatal mistakes in the Iraq war! Doing so would appear to be an acknowledgement of the ineptitude of his administration, how flawed his own judgment is and, ultimately, how untrustworthy he is as a "leader". He prefers to keep the U.S. military under the authority of a stubborn incompetent man for another four years than even seeming to be admitting failures that most people are already awared of.

Don't forget the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings next month.

Rumsfeld is an arrogant prick who's juggling so many torches at once that he's bound to drop one, or two, or several, and burn himself and the country severely.

He's trying to reform an enormous bureacracy and fundamentally restructure the armed forces, all while fighting a series of wars that are among the most difficult, politically and militarily, to win. He's willing to take risks, sometimes large ones. And along with that risk-taking comes the very great chance that he will, on more than one occasion, fall flat on his face. As Abraham Lincoln said of an alcoholic who repeatedly presided over tactically questionable bloodbaths, yet wound up winning the war: "I cannot spare this man, he fights."

Comparisons to General Grant are out of place. The pre-Civil War Army was nowhere near as professional as today's armed forces, even in 19th Century context. Every book about the officer corps at the time points out how it was riddled with favoritism and incompetence - and how its overall quality suffered further when a number of competent men went with the CSA (e.g., Lee).

Rumsfeld doesn't have any of those excuses.

The comparison is not between armies - it's between two temperaments willing and able to persevere in the face of enormous hurdles, some of them self-erected (no smirking... :-) ).

Ahem. "Willing to persevere in the face of enormous difficulties" is not strongly correlated with "remotely competent." I'm sure he is determined. So was Westmoreland.

Clearly, Rumsfeld has become a bit of a lightning rod for leftists who failed to oust Bush altogether. A look at the people screaming loudest about him is proof of this inescapable point: This blithering about Rummy now, is nothing more than the pathetic and thoughtless bitterness of that loss, looking for a target.

I am just amazed that Mr Bush seems to not be the object of all of this concern. Mr Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President. He is not a lone agent. If there are problems with Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Bush is the one who should be receiving the heat. Sen McCain's concern about Mr Rumsfeld rings a little hollow considering he supported the man Mr Rumsfeld works for. I am not a fan of the Sec Def but hey he is doing what his boss wants. That is the joy of winning an election.

"This blithering about Rummy now, is nothing more than the pathetic and thoughtless bitterness of that loss, looking for a target."

So Bill Kristol and John McCain are railing at Rummy because they're sore over Bush's victory? You learn something new every day.

Seriously, you don't have to be a die-hard Bush-hater to think that Rumsfeld's egomania and obsession with proving the viability of a smaller, more mobile, lightly-armed military has done considerable damage to the American cause in Iraq and to the combat-effectiveness of our overstretched armed forces.

Does anyone here remember that prior to the Iraq war, Rummy was actually looking to cut the number of divisions in the Army, from 10 to 8? Imagine what a disaster Iraq would have been if he'd gotten his way on that issue.

Question for the gang -- how would things be better with Rummy gone? Sure, his advice was lousy, and our men in the field are suffering for it. But his advice meshed with what Bush wanted to do and his desire to do it with abandoning his persuit of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

So -- is the problem Rummy or is it Bush? And why do you think it will get better with Rummy gone?

It won't get better. But at least it won't get worse! Plus, justice would be done.

Frankly, I think Bush is keeping Rumsfeld on just as a gigantic "f*ck you" to all the people who consider the "armor gaffe" to be a "gaffe".

My opinion - and I bet the Administration's - is that this was just another MSM hit, just like the al Qaqaa bullsh*t story and all the rest of the MSM anti-Bush hit pieces. We all know how the media portrayed this - as a bunch of p*ssed off soldiers. But of course that portrayal was completely and utterly false, since the soldiers in question repeatedly cheered and applauded Rumsfeld - even on Rumsfeld's answer the to armor question. And of course we all know that the soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Rumsfeld's boss. Moreover we know that armor "issue" is bullsh*t anyway, since 2/3 to 3/4 of the Humvees in Iraq have armor, and the ones that don't are not used out in the field (they are used at bases only). But never mind all that, because the MSM portrays the soldiers as having to all go out in the field in Iraq without armor.

But, whatever. Kristol is p*ssed because he doesn't think Bush is using enough troops to quiet Iraq so that Kristol can advocate invading Syria, and he hopes that a new defense secretary can convince Bush to increase the size of the army. McCain and Hagel - gee, I have NO IDEA what could be motivating their criticism (in fact I was wondering about that as I saw McCain's criticism lead the Today Show "news" the other day).

Let me add - I will sit up and take notice if Duncan Hunter says he has no confidence in Rumsfeld. Until then... I consider it just a bunch of grandstanding.

Susan Collins, Trent Lott, Norm Coleman.

Eric:
So Bill Kristol and John McCain are railing at Rummy because they're sore over Bush's victory?

Using MCCain as a judgement about ANYHING in the GOP is foolhardy at best. I know he's the darling of the press just now, but why? Because he can be depended upon to come down tot he left of whatever the party, and it's leadership want. RINO comes to mind.

Jon:
I am just amazed that Mr Bush seems to not be the object of all of this concern. Mr Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President. He is not a lone agent. If there are problems with Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Bush is the one who should be receiving the heat

Which meshes rather well with my statement, in fact it proves my point. Given the most recent election, they Democrats consider Bush unassailable. So, take down one of the people he's clearly depended on more, and you might get a shot at the man himself.

And as further proof; Did anyone notice that Rummy was not nearly as high on the hitlist prior to the election?

Al, you do realize Rummy lied in his response right? That was another MSM hit job right? Seriously the rummy-apologists are hilarious. No shame, no shame whatsoever. Everyone is out to get poor old Rummy. Its not his fault. Party of personal responsibility my ass.

UH BITHEAD, You must have missed it when the communist america-first hating economist called for Rummy's resignation. I swear to god, do the rummy-apologists have no shame?

Well, Jor, if you have evidence that Rumsfeld lied, let's see it!

And, JakeV, Lott says that he doesn't think Rumsfeld isn't the person to bring the troops hope beginning in January after the election. Gosh, let's hope not! And I can't find what you are referring to with Coleman - care to enlighten me?

Al, from CNN. There are better stories about it, but htis is the first thing google found.

Rumsfeld told the troops that shortages of armor did not stem from a lack of money but were "a matter of physics." The manufacturers of add-on armor are producing it as fast as humanly possible, he said.

Two companies producing armor plating disputed that assertion and said they could produce as many as double the number of armor kits in a month.

Rummy needs to go. It's unanimous. It aint some left-wing conspiracy. I swear to god, republicans love their cult-of-victomology, especially when it applies to the rich and powerful. Truly hilarious.

Of course that NOT A LIE, Jor. The military is not lacking the kits themselves. It is a matter of putting the kits on the vehicles.

"Q (Off mike) -- I was just asking about the House Armed Services Committee. It seems like they have spearheaded this effort to fund spare metal from around the country and ship it to Kuwait because there's an urgent problem to get this level three stuff put on these trucks.

GEN. WHITCOMB: Sir, there's not really an urgent problem. First, I'm not familiar with the -- with that specific program on the part of Congress, although I certainly welcome it.

But we're not lacking at this point for our kits, our steel plating to fabricate the level three kits or the personnel to apply those kits. That's going. I mean, it's hard work. Our soldiers and our "soldiers in slacks," our civilian workforce, as you can see behind me, are working hard to do it. But it's not for lack of material, and it's not for lack of vehicles to put it on.

So we've got the well-planned and orchestrated schedule and a plan to do this. We're sticking to it. And we're on a good track to in fact accomplish our mission in that respect."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041209-1765.html (emphasis added)

Yet another made-up lie perpetrated by the MSM. Need I any more proof that all of this is just anti-Bush made-up crap with no basis in truth?

Uh Al, what I quoted you is either a direct lie or incompetence. You n eed to get your comprehension check. Your post is incomprehensible, it amounts to , "its hard work". That's not very clarifying at all. Like I said, keep the cult-of-victomology going. Everyone is out to get Rummy. Its a gigantic conspiracy against him.

"Using MCCain as a judgement about ANYHING in the GOP is foolhardy at best."

McCain breaks often with the GOP on domestic issues. But on foreign policy, his voting record and past rhetoric show him to be a tried-and-true hawk.

And what about Kristol and Lott?

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200412161101.asp

So, NOW suddenly, Lott is credible?
Seems an interestingly opportunistic shift.

That's it Bit. Keep dancing.

Hey BitHead, how about because basically everyone thinkgs Rummy shoudl go. From The Economist to the Nation. You really don't get more bipartisan than that. Stop acting like such a brain-dead Bush shill, and try and think for yourself for more than 30 seconds. Seriously, lame excuses for everyone.

Hilarious, isn't it?

Apparently, you didn't read the linkn I posted.

try reading, and actually learning something.
And quit trying to sound like an anti-Bush partisan. I recognize it's a tretch, but try, anyway.

Behind much of the criticism of Rumsfeld is the idea that he has disastrously skimped on troop levels, especially when it comes to the occupation. But insurgencies aren't crushed by sheer numbers. Would that it were so. Counter-insurgency depends on intelligence and a sound political strategy, which in this case involves integrating Iraqi forces into the fight and moving ahead with the elections. Given that more troops would require an even larger logistical tail (read: more Humvees and “soft” vehicles carrying supplies, i.e. more targets) to support them, it makes sense that commanders on the ground aren’t asking for significantly more troops.

The agenda of most of Rumsfeld's critics is clear: to wound the administration and discredit the war effort by taking the scalp of one of its architects. Some of those coming at Rumsfeld from the right have a more subtle concern. They can't bear to admit that Iraq has been more difficult than they ever dared imagine, because of the irreducible reality of political and social conditions on the ground. Remaking societies by military means can be harder, bloodier work than some neoconservatives care to acknowledge. That doesn't mean it’s not worth it, or that our project still won't succeed in Iraq. We suspect that the January elections will produce a strong a civic statement of the sort we saw in Afghanistan, and thus help shift the political dynamic against the forces of violence.

Al, Bithead, other reliable righties. My challenge to you. Why should Rumsfeld stay? What does he bring to the table that we are going to need the next four years? If you can -- concentrate on Iraq rather than military reform. (Rummy may be so damaged goods that reform is impossible.)

Appalled Moderate - Can I answer that I think he is doing a good job in Iraq? I mean, it's an article of faith among the left that Iraq is a debacle and hopeless. But I think it's going pretty well, and much more likely than not we will have a positive outcome. Elections within 2 years? No civil war, despite the insurgency? A free press? Yeah, there's an insurgency, which is not what I predicted, but there are a lot of predictions about the war that didn't come true - more among the left than among the right, I think. I'm pretty darn optimistic about Iraq. And some of the credit for that goes to Rumsfeld.

And so I see no need to change horses in midstream when we're going pretty well already.

Hell Bit, if your gonna backup your case with an editorial from NR, you might as well just grab a Rummy quote.

Here's a question for you and Al: What's an acceptable US body count so that we can see a ballot box in Bagdhad? Moreover, how many of our boys lives is it worth so that we can see a Theocracy elected in Iraq?

So, in truth, Waffle, you're not wiling to accept any arguments but those caling for removal of the man.

And Al writes thre remaining points I was going to address, rather well. One addition, however; Mr. Bush is the President, and Rumsefeld serves at HIS pleasure... not that of the Democrats. I take as a given the concept that they're going to bicth and moan about Mr. Bush and his people since they've done nothing but for the last 4 years. At the very least, in this light, around 90% of the sludge being thown their way can be discounted.

'Armor' gaffe:
Yes, this is just an MSM scripted problem. I've been to these types of events (Wolfowitz came to visit our unit in Bosnia a few years ago, as did General Myers on our way there). Soldiers are encouraged to ask questions in these events-in some sense, its a chance for the soldiers to bypass the normal chain of command (i.e. you wouldn't critique your direct boss in this way, but when you are that far down the chain of command, you can ask these types of questions without fear of reprimand-as long as you're not rude about it). So a soldier asking a question like that in an environment like that is not at all unusual, nor does it indicate some kind of 'desperation' or 'dissatisfaction.'
In particular, it doesn't indicate it when the soldier was actually prompted by an attached reporter to ask the question! (gee, MSM caught in more corrupt behavior? Who would have guessed...).
Within the military, Rumsfeld is held to be an obnoxious guy-not at really liked, I don't think. By and large, though, I like him. If he's pissing off you clowns, he's got to be doing something right.

Steve

So, in truth, Waffle, you're not wiling to accept any arguments but those caling for removal of the man.

On the contrary, if you know of someone else responsible, please let us know.

The "bitching and moanining" is well deserved and I'm guessing you probably know this. With so much faith invested in the policy and the administration I can understand why you see an ambush around every corner, and somehow that seems appropriate.

Hey, Steve, did the reporter make all the other soldiers cheer when that question got asked?

Lo, the power of the media.

I heard an NPR clip where they didn't cut off the cheering, and it was like the questioner had said "Free Beer for Everyone!"

As for Bithead and Al, Rummy could get up & say "Hey, I suck, I'm the worse SecDef in the history of the position," and they would STILL be defending him. Rumsfeld planned the conquest of another nation on COMPLETELY UNBELIEVABLE premises, without a Plan B. That fact, alone, shows that whatever his merits as a CEO, he is a terrible SecDef. People who can't see this have no meaningful standards for the SecDef's position, and would presumably have no qualms about appointing Michael Jackson to the position (as long as it was Bush tapping The Gloved One).

did the reporter make all the other soldiers cheer when that question got asked?

Did the reporter make all the other soldiers applaud and cheer Rumsfeld's answer to the question?

Bithead is quite correct. The current fuss about Rummy is due to the fact that Ashcroft resigned.

Rummy is now the symbol for what President Bush's opposition doesn't like about the fact that he is President and they aren't. It doesn't matter what Rumsfeld does or doesn't do, hasn't or hasn't done, or that he is Secretary of Defense, etc.

John Ashcroft served as that symbol when he was Attorney General. He isn't there anymore so Bush's opposition has created a new one. And I mean "create". They fabricated stories about Ashcroft. They will about Rumsfeld.

But this is really about their dislike of President Bush being President.

There are a lot of predictions about the war that didn't come true - more among the left than among the right, I think.

Lets see

-- Predictions we would be greet with flowers. FALSE after the first week.

-- Predictions that we would find WMDs. FALSE.
-- Predictions that this action would lead to the solution of the Palestinian problem ("The Road to Peace in the Middle East lies through Iraq"). FALSE
-- Predictions (Projections) that we would spend -- Statements and claims that Iraq would fund its own reconstruction. FALSE
-- Predictions that we would find significant operational links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. FALSE.
-- Predictions that US troops would be down to around 30K in one year. FALSE.
-- Predictions that both Iran and North Korea would roll over and play dead. FALSE.

Yup, I see it now. The right's predictions of post-war Iraq have been devastatingly wrong in just about every single way. Its almost criminal incompetence.

Bithead: Clearly, Rumsfeld has become a bit of a lightning rod for leftists

Kristol, Schwarzkopf, Scarborough, McCain, Drezner, and Djerejian are leftists? Wow, was I confused.

It seems to me that this debate proves the point that Rumsfeld should go. When a SecDef, during a war, becomes such a lightning-rod (even on his "own side"), it's best for a president to find someone new. There are a number of possible replacements, and no cabinet secretary deserves to keep his post one day longer than he's benefiting the country.

The main reason to get rid of Rumsfeld is not that there's no hope in Iraq; it's that there remains hope in Iraq. The administration and country need to move beyond Rumsfeld. I admire the president's sense of personal loyalty, but only up to the point it begins to impact negatively the war effort (or any other public policy effort). At that point, it becomes a harmful stubborness.

It seems to me that this debate proves the point that Rumsfeld should go. When a SecDef, during a war, becomes such a lightning-rod (even on his "own side"), it's best for a president to find someone new.

In other words, when an Administration figure is critisized, the President ought to just give in to the criticism, no matter how unfair it may be?

Screw that. When someone in your administration is subject to unfair criticism, that is all the more reason to support him.

Of course any prominent public official will be criticized often, and intensely. If that criticism is unfair, that official should be defended by his superiors.

But to say that the major criticisms of Rumsfeld are "unfair" is an opinion I don't share. I actually agree with most of them, but even if you don't, to say they're "unfair" is extreme. The criticisms offered by the various people cited in Drezner's original post are "fair" by any definition of the word I know.

If the president chooses to defend Rumsfeld, it would be useful if he could make a substantive defense. President Bush has never really responded directly to any criticism, and has even seemed to take the side of the Tennessee army reservist in the recent armor controversy. His support of Rumsfeld, I would repeat, is stubborn, rather than principled.

In regard to Rumsfeld personnally, the fact that he is a lightning-rod is a fact of his own creation. If his ego is his downfall, that's his problem. No president should be expected to support a cabinet member like Rumsfeld.

I responded to this on another thread, but I'll do it again.

The issue for Bush isn't whether to get rid of Rumsfeld. The question for Bush is when to get rid of Rumsfeld to get the maximum political benefit.

When somebody new replaces Rumsfeld, Al and Bithead will be saying that all the problems in iraq and all the problems for the military are now solved. But it will take time for the solutions to be completely implemented. So Bush will get a breathing spell where criticism of any iraq strategies etc will be considered premature. The new guy is going to fix everything but he hasn't had time to get them fixed yet.

So given that the new guy gets a honeymoon of X months, then the obvious time to replace Rumsfeld is X months before the 2006 elections. Or maybe X months before the 2008 elections.

Is there any other time it makes sense for Rumsfeld to go? Those are the only times that matter. Never mind what kind of job he's doing for the army. He could be doing great, he could be doing awful, it makes no difference to the right time to get rid of him.

Just suppose that the iraq war is secretly doing really well. A lot of moderate and republcan voters don't know it's going well. Two years from now they still won't know, unless it's over by then. So get rid of Rumsfeld and put in somebody new, and they'll give the new guy the benefit of the doubt until after the elections.

Never mind what liberals think. The only reason to pay attention to liberals now is if you're the kind of person who likes to go to the zoo and poke sticks at the endangered animals. "Oh, look, a rare endangered zebra. Let's poke sticks at it and make it mad and see if we can get it to run into the walls and hurt itself." Why would anybody even argue with liberals any more? It's like arguing with communists, they're completely discredited.

But a lot of people who do matter are worried about the war, and even if we're winning hands down, the way to get them to stop worrying for awhile is to get rid of Rumsfeld. And the time to get them to stop worrying is when it does Bush the most good. Then if the new guy gets the benefits from Rumsfeld's hard-won victory, that's even better for Bush.

In the meantime people are arguing like they think it matters. By the time Bush is ready to dump Rumsfeld the situation will have changed a lot, and we'll have gone through eight or ten new scandals or flaps or atrocities or whatever, and nobody will much remember what we were saying about this one. None of you guys, or the media, or for that matter the Senate have much clout with Bush at the moment. He gets to do whatever the hell he wants and you have no say whatsoever in it. If you like you can write him a letter telling him you agree with him 100% about everything and he won't care in the least, any more than he'd care if you disagreed or if you had some crackpot scheme to reform social security or something.

This year it makes absolutely no difference what you think.

God Almighty - what a fuss. Thanks for holding the line, Al. Big surprise that things have gone south of the mid-range on the poster page after our intrepid professor started "percentagelikley-hooding" with his tenured-types.

Still - how's this grab you, Jor:

We (the rank and file troops) want him to stay. Why? Because we love him. Absolutely, com-f'n-pletely love him. Cheers? You want to talk about cheering? Did you hear the cheers 278 gave him when he closed his remarks? Standing -O.

And why?

Because he tells it like it is, and he fills the room with that no B.S., Nick-Nolte-esque thing in his voice and goes after smart-asses.

This is his great crime? Please. What? Have you guys run out of jewish neocons to slander?

That said - I offer quarter on this: I have a tremendous amount of respect for Bill Kristol, and am going to have to read up to understand his beef.

J Thomas,

I think you're too cynical. The idea that President Bush should be (or is) singularly concerned with the elections of 06 or 08 is not realistic. Yes, he can't dismiss those elections, but there's not much chance he'll lose in 06. As for 08, that's not really his concern. The idea that W would hesitate from firing Rumsfeld for electoral considerations isn't realistic.

I'd suggest a nice solitaire program to occupy your time.

Andrew, you might very likely be right about that.

In that case, why should Bush dump Rumsfeld at all? Since it doesn't really matter to Bush how well Rumsfeld runs the war, and it doesn't matter to Bush how well Rumsfeld transforms the army, and it doesn't matter to Bush how anything affects the 2006 or 2008 elections, why should he even care who's Defense Secretary?

In any event, we're all just kibitzers at this point. It doesn't matter what I think or what you think or what Kristol thinks or even what Rove thinks. We can all blather to our hearts' content and Bush will do whatever the hell he wants.

Deja vu all over again.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001281.html#016923

"Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Should Rummy resign?

In the wake of the ever-widening prisoner scandal (see the heretofore secret Red Cross report here and the Washington Post story about it here), a lot of people are calling for Rummy's head ...
...
... In the meantime, it seems inescapable to me that Donald Rumsfeld should resign as Secretary of Defense. It's not just Abu Ghraib -- it's the whole damn Mongolian cluster-f#*k of the postwar occupation.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise -- but the arguments better be really, really, good ones.
...
posted by Dan on 05.11.04 at 11:18 AM"

"I wish there was a way I could make money from the doomies.

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

One of nice things about Google's advanced search is that it archives these responses. So next year I can search for, and find, the following statement:

Daniel Drezner, I told you so.

And I will.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 05.11.04 at 06:45 PM [permalink]"

I didn't have to wait that long.

Frankly, I think Bush is keeping Rumsfeld on just as a gigantic "f*ck you" to all the people who consider the "armor gaffe" to be a "gaffe". -- Al

Well, I'm no longer in the military, so I guess I can take it. Sure sucks for the grunts though.

As a person who thinks Bush is wrong about almost everything, I don't see how Rummy's scalp advances the Dem's cause. Ashcroft's gone, but Bush isn't hurt. If Rumsfeld resigned tomorrow, Bush's agenda would not be slowed in the slightest, and he'd again appoint someone I disagree with. But maybe, just maybe, Rumsfeld's successor would take this issue seriously.

I really don't understand why everyone doesn't agree on this.

Exactly right, Tom. "Much ado", as I had just said.

What is it they see in him that they find so offensive in themselves?

"Banish plump (Don), and banish all the world", eh?

When somebody new replaces Rumsfeld, Al and Bithead will be saying that all the problems in iraq and all the problems for the military are now solved

Not I.

I have always supposed it will take several decades to get to that stage, at least... if such a state is ever to be had... and regardless of who is in charge.

And guess what? If you think back, or, in lieu of memory, do a little research, you'll find that's the situation the President described to us going into this.

Maybe I overstated it a little, Bithead. But are you saying it will take decades to get iraq stable?

And you *support* that?

Rumsfield fight alright the question is whom is he fighting. He's fighting two wars. One is his idea of modern transformation of the military. He believes it can be done by using techonology and weapons enhanced with them. The second one is the one he has. He seems to be be caught up in the dilemma of which one to go forward with.

The choice should be with the one he has not the first which is the one he would like to fight. And that's why he has to go. The Army cannot continue to bleed because Rumsfield has no "situational awareness." That means you must set priorities based on the situation you find yourself in. Currently that is "GUERILLA WARFARE" in the whole country where we are putting in place the infrastructure to hold elections and this has been the case for at least the last year. If these elections fail to take place we will have lost the war politically and there will be all kinds of hell to pay. In order to do this we must provide security not only to the Iraqi's but our troops.

So Rumsfield must go to indicate that the political war is what must be won by FORCE OF ARMS. When you publically downplay the ability to get those arms onto the field of battle to win the political war he must go so he does not FIGHT our aims.

Maybe I overstated it a little, Bithead. But are you saying it will take decades to get iraq stable?

Depends on your def of 'stable'. And yes, 'stability' is quite a reduction of demand from "all the problems in Iraq, and all the problems for the military being solved"

That is, in reality two questions. Having all the issues in the Military solved will doubtless take a decades... and those solutions will induce their own problems; such is the very nature of any large org.

As to getting all the problems in Iraq solved, yes, I've no doubt it'll take quite some years... not all of which needs be military action.

Think carefully, here. The place has been a outhouse for two centuries, now, and is not likely to be easily changed into the near-paradise that it's income should have allowed, assuming decent leadership.

And you *support* that?

Have you a better choice? After all, can you tell me a hotspot anywhere in the world where the Islamic nutcases aren't the cause?

I mean really.... given the choice of the Islamo-fascists gaining another foothold, or slamming that door and making a freind for the US in the process... I vote for the latter.... and that is the choice to be made here, regardless of the time involved.

After all, can you tell me a hotspot anywhere in the world where the Islamic nutcases aren't the cause

Sri Lanka
Columbia
And while its a relatively small and isolated place, an Indian state had a terrorist attack initiated by Christian sepatatists that killed 36 people a couple of months ago.

So, we spent $200 B (and probably half a trillion over the next few decades), 1300 American lives (and definitely more before this is all done), lost our credibility over what ? To bring stability to Iraq ? That was our grand goal ? Couldn't our blood, treasure and credibility have been spent in better ways to fight terrorism ?

Sri Lanmka IS in fact a Muslim issue.
I suggest running... no... SPRINTING back to school. You clearly need the extra research.

Lost our credibility with whom?
France?
Germany?
You'll forgive me if I don't worry about the Prostitute's judgement of my virginity.

Laughable.

What is it they see in him that they find so offensive in themselves? -- Tommy G

Before psychoanalyzing the critics, perhaps you should take a look at this Republican Senator's comments:

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins...noted that the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which she sits, raised the issues of shortages of body armor and fortified Humvees in Iraq during a hearing in March....

Collins, R-Maine, said she was troubled that the Army’s request for production of an additional 100 Humvees a month was made only after a soldier asked Rumsfeld during a town-hall meeting in Kuwait about armor shortages in Iraq.

"Why was this request not placed earlier to increase fully armored Humvee production from 450 to 550 a month at a time when many of us brought to the Pentagons attention the shortages relayed to us by our constituent-troops and their families?" the senator’s letter said.

Now I know that Collins is considered a "moderate" Republican, but I don't think she'd lie to help the Dems -- nor does she have presidential ambitions. If what she says is true, then Rumsfeld's behavior is inexcusable, no matter what the media says. He was warned about lack of armor 9 months ago, and didn't order full production until last week.

As for the partisan advantage to be gained from this, J Thomas has pointed out above that we've essentially elected a monarchy for the next 2 to 4 years. It's highly unlikely that Rumsfeld's resignation would hurt the Repubs in '06 or '08.

"Now I know that Collins is considered a "moderate" Republican..."

Oh Carl...now *I* know that the pope is considered Catholic.

Susan Collins, Carl? Psychoanalysis indeed. Don't waste my time.

(Chuckle)

Well, I'm no longer in the military, so I guess I can take it. Sure sucks for the grunts though.

Sucks for the grunts, eh? Completely false. Turns out that the grunts were COMPLETELY ARMORED within 24 hours of the question to Rumsfeld:

"GEN. SPEAKES: The first point is that you'll recollect that one of the questions was the status of the 278 ACR; in other words, the date that we had the visit by the secretary of Defense, we had a question about their up-armoring status. When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278 ACR were up-armored, and they are a part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq. ...

Q On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.

Q At the time of the question -- summarize this, now -- that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.

Q If he hadn't asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041215-1801.html

So, actually, the "armor gaffe" as Drezner put it, turns out to be an ARMOR HOAX - another anti-Bush hit piece by the MSM that turns out to be completely and utterly false. There was ABSOLUTELY NO armor problem with the soldier's unit - in fact his Unit already almost completely armored, and in fact WAS COMPLETELY ARMORED within 24 hours.

"Gaffe" my ass. More simple left-wing propaganda.

Al, there have been times when you seemed to me somewhat cynical. About Kerrey, for example.

But now suddenly I see how utterly naive you are.

General Speakes desperately plays CYA and you don't give it a second thought.

[...shakes head sadly, wondering how grown americans can be so completely noncynical....]

Thomas, you'd better stop wasting time here and work on your mathematics back at Mr. Djerejian's - Stop tilting at HMMWV's.

Tom H,

This only goes to show you that the usual suspects don't have John Ashcroft to kick around any more and they have chosen Rumsfeld as the next human symbol for their various political phobias.

Had Senator Kerry taken the lead in supporting the military none of this would have happened.

BTW any of you anti-Rummy military geniuses know anything about operations research?

i.e. how a heavier force (weight wise) affects the amount of fuel required to support the force?

In anticipation of that, are any of the anti-Rummy crowd anticipating the need for armored fuel trucks?

How will the up armoring of fuel trucks affect the number of fuel convoys necessary?

etc.

You don't just fix one thing without affecting every thing else.

Which is why you bring in the OR guys to crunch the numbers before making a decision.

i.e. are we trading fewer HumVee casualties for more fuel truck hits? With less fuel how is force mobility affected?

etc. etc. etc.

Logistics my friends is the key to military operations. A subject which the anti-Rummy people seem to be totally unacquainted with.

The amateur is interested in fighting. The professional is interested in support. Total support.