Bush said....

[Last Roman]

that firing Donald Rumsfeld would be like firing himself

*not a bad idea*

anyway, this isn't a Bush bashing thread, but rather a Rumy bashing thread.

several (7 to be specific-of course there are hundreds of generals) have come and said that secretary of defense Rumsfeld needs to be removed because he is arrogant and tries to mircomanage the war from Washington.

Seeing as how he has no previous military experience and the way the war is going, I agree.

What do you think?

[God]

Bush also said the quote in my signiture...

[vikingsiddhu]

Bush also said the quote in my signiture...

and you gave him life....

But I think we all know that the administration has its quirks.
Just hold your breath for a few more years.

God though can do more, right God?

[orange slice]

Bush also said the quote in my signiture...

ehem, maybe i said that quote??

well, maybe you should put "by orange slice".......

there you go

[Hub'ite]

Hell, if 7 US Generals are calling for his resignation then I think we should listen to them. Their the experts on war not Rumy.

[IamthePope]

Hell, if 7 US Generals are calling for his resignation then I think we should listen to them. Their the experts on war not Rumy.

And who would you replace him with? IMO Donald Rumsfeld is one of the most talented, capable, and intelligent goverment figure of the late 20th century. He's served in the cabinets of at least three administrations. He's handled every assignment hes been given in extraordinary fashion. He may be a micromanager and tough to get along with but that is only because he wants the best out of his subordinates. Rumsfeld is an awesome guy, you need only listen to him speak to be blown away by the depth of his understanding and the clearity of his language. Donald Rumsfeld is indispensible. If he's not serving as sec. of state, I'd want him in a more important gov't position.

[Last Roman]

And who would you replace him with? IMO Donald Rumsfeld is one of the most talented, capable, and intelligent goverment figure of the late 20th century.

you've got to be ****ing kidding me...

[Major.Stupidity]

And who would you replace him with? IMO Donald Rumsfeld is one of the most talented, capable, and intelligent goverment figure of the late 20th century. He's served in the cabinets of at least three administrations. He's handled every assignment hes been given in extraordinary fashion. He may be a micromanager and tough to get along with but that is only because he wants the best out of his subordinates. Rumsfeld is an awesome guy, you need only listen to him speak to be blown away by the depth of his understanding and the clearity of his language. Donald Rumsfeld is indispensible. If he's not serving as sec. of state, I'd want him in a more important gov't position.

The same was said about a man named Robert Strange McNamara....the rest they say is history....

[eltrevo]

And who would you replace him with? IMO Donald Rumsfeld is one of the most talented, capable, and intelligent goverment figure of the late 20th century. He's served in the cabinets of at least three administrations. He's handled every assignment hes been given in extraordinary fashion. He may be a micromanager and tough to get along with but that is only because he wants the best out of his subordinates. Rumsfeld is an awesome guy, you need only listen to him speak to be blown away by the depth of his understanding and the clearity of his language. Donald Rumsfeld is indispensible. If he's not serving as sec. of state, I'd want him in a more important gov't position.

HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT RUMMY HAS WROUGHT ON THE WORLD?!

[crazyj]

Hell, if 7 US Generals are calling for his resignation then I think we should listen to them. Their the experts on war not Rumy.

No, many of them are continuing a debate that has gone on long before the war, regarding Rumsfeld's force restructuring (which is brilliant) and other factors.

More importantly, has the retired Joint Chief (Richard Myers) said as such? Have any of the combatant commanders said as such? Has Franks said such? No. They think Rumsfeld does a great job integrating opinions and letting everyone have their say. Sure, some disagreed, and have used the opportunity to sell books (Zinni), evade prosecution (Riggs) or do anything they can to prevent a streamlining of the military that will bring the Army, USMC, and other branches into closer sync, with greater reliance on special forces and other force multipliers, and in the process reduce the huge heavy Cold War force that they are enamored with. For instance, many got ****** when he cut the Crusader artillery vehicle platform because he's interested in lighter vehicles that can be moved long distance quicker and cheaper (like the Strykers, which share a common chassis but can be configured with 8 different variants.)

There is much more going on here as well, like some hurt feelings over Rumsfeld's dismissal of Eric Shinseki (a fan of a monstrous Army) because Shinseki wanted a ridiculously high force structure and didn't compromise with Rummy over the issue of whether or not more forces meant more targest, more bodies, more money in Iraq.

There are military personnel who either love Rummy, think he's allright, or hate him for many different reasons. Nothing new. Look at Wesley Clark, the dumbass behind the bombing of cardboard targets in Bosnia who wrote a book detailing the end of the infantry. And yet, people turned to him to "analyze" the Iraq war, where he promptly declared a quaqmire during a sandstorm, and predicted millions and millions of dead civilians and a refugee problem of Biblical proportions. Yes, I respect the Generals' service but not their tactics here. There are far too many who support Rummy and who recognize what he was trying to do to the military (seemingly fighting against gravity itself when it came to changing the very type of military we field.)

This is a typical witch hunt. Don't forget the animosity between President Lincoln and General McClellan during the Civil War, with McClellan being a dumbass who was VERY popular with his troops but couldn't win a war, and his hurt feelings when he was replaced twice by Lincoln (eventually leading to Grant, who Lincoln stood by because "He fights.") Mac was gunning for the the Presidency as a Democrat and used every opportunity to impugne Lincoln's (and his staff's) military knowledge, competency, etc. because he was burned by them and wanted to run for office himself.

If they felt so strongly regarding certain issues, why didn't they bring them up to Rummy? And if they DID bring them up, why not resign, as their duty demanded, rather than continue to serve if they felt so abused and marginalized, and in fact serving a plan they thought would fail miserably? Their duty dictates that they keep it in house for the sake of military morale, and they dropped the ball big time by painting him in such a light, a light the majority of General officers who served on the same committees and helped with the same planning disagree with vehemently.

One last note: funny that during the 60's lib's said "this war is too important to leave in the hands of generals"....now its "this war is too important to leave in the hands of civilians"???? Give me a break. Bush can't break and fire Rummy (who has offered to resign twice, and been refused both times) because he's loyal, just as the troops expect their Commander in Chief to be. Why not fire all the troops in Iraq who have supposedly done such a poor job? Civilian oversight and control of the military is a bedrock of this country, and a few generals (out of THOUSANDS, not hundreds) saying "we don't like him" (for many, many, many reasons beyond the war) is no reason for us to hand them control of military decision making and Cabinet appointments post facto.

[David Deas]

Whats left of Rummy to bash? He's been caught doing so much stuff its ridiculous. He was supposed to resign earlier and didn't.

[Lusted]

Yes, thats why the Generals are calling for his resignation as well.

[Removed_user_012521]

Those generals as I recall (from ret. Gen Tommy Franks) were not to involved in the planning process, none of them. There are dozens of Generals who were, and there not complaining. These Generals are just trying to create a media storm. If they really had something to say they would have said it privatly, aviod a media storm because they are US Military Personnale. No. They waited untill they were out of the Military purposefully so when they did create a big show they could not be properly disciplined for it.

[IamthePope]

Those generals as I recall (from ret. Gen Tommy Franks) were not to involved in the planning process, none of them. There are dozens of Generals who were, and there not complaining. These Generals are just trying to create a media storm. If they really had something to say they would have said it privatly, aviod a media storm because they are US Military Personnale. No. They waited untill they were out of the Military purposefully so when they did create a big show they could not be properly disciplined for it.

I understand that the general's have greivances with Rumsfeld, but can anyone think of any time he has not performed admirably. I have a hard time thinking of such a time. Just watch his press conferences, he addresses all of these issues.

[Ahlerich]

I understand that the general's have greivances with Rumsfeld, but can anyone think of any time he has not performed admirably. I have a hard time thinking of such a time. Just watch his press conferences, he addresses all of these issues.

well i remember when the torture stuff first time has been published he said he knew nothing about the abu garib (forgot how to spell it)torture. only a few days later it came out the he knew about it and did not make effort to change the situation.

now i think that is pretty bad..the lying and the tolerating of torture

[hacker90]

///////////////////

[God]

well...

[danzig]

First off anyone who thinks Rumsfeld isnt intelligent and knows his stuff is kidding themselves and misjudging him, he has been one of the figures pushing the US military to adapt from its cold war/soviet style large scale combat into a lighter, more mobile force. Its one of the reasons some expensive systems that arent needed now a days (the Comache, Crusader howitzer) were canceled. For that he deserves credit as he attempted to push (often with alot of opposition from military personal and military contractors) the military to adapt to the mode of war were are likely to face for quite sometime. However, the problem with Rumsfeld seems to be if you dont follow his mode of thinking you are out of the decision making loop as far as he is concerned. So he is basically cutting himself off from critical input and ideas. Just because General X might not agree with Rumsfeld on Y doesnt mean General X's views on Z should be ignored and that seems to be the problem with Rumsfeld.

So basically imo, if these Generals think Rumsfeld should be removed then it should seriously be considered by the Bush admin...you cannot allienate your military leadership and expect them to function. Its one of the thing we should have learned by now but clearly we havent, hell we made same mistakes years earlier in Somalia where politicans made tactical decision (ie no armor).

[internationalist]

First off anyone who thinks Rumsfeld isnt intelligent and knows his stuff is kidding themselves and misjudging him, he has been one of the figures pushing the US military to adapt from its cold war/soviet style large scale combat into a lighter, more mobile force. Its one of the reasons some expensive systems that arent needed now a days (the Comache, Crusader howitzer) were canceled. For that he deserves credit as he attempted to push (often with alot of opposition from military personal and military contractors) the military to adapt to the mode of war were are likely to face for quite sometime. However, the problem with Rumsfeld seems to be if you dont follow his mode of thinking you are out of the decision making loop as far as he is concerned. So he is basically cutting himself off from critical input and ideas. Just because General X might not agree with Rumsfeld on Y doesnt mean General X's views on Z should be ignored and that seems to be the problem with Rumsfeld.

So basically imo, if these Generals think Rumsfeld should be removed then it should seriously be considered by the Bush admin...you cannot allienate your military leadership and expect them to function. Its one of the thing we should have learned by now but clearly we havent, hell we made same mistakes years earlier in Somalia where politicans made tactical decision (ie no armor).

*cue sarcastic voice* Yup. If it weren't for Rumsfeld "pushing the military to adapt...into a lighter more mobile force" we definately wouldn't have the perfect military to respond to insurgencies and guerilla warfare, and would be facing serious problems controlling Iraq.

[IamthePope]

*cue sarcastic voice* Yup. If it weren't for Rumsfeld "pushing the military to adapt...into a lighter more mobile force" we definately wouldn't have the perfect military to respond to insurgencies and guerilla warfare, and would be facing serious problems controlling Iraq.

I dont think this is at all the case. I doubt that more Howitzers and troops on the ground will contribute to winning the hearts of the Iraqis. Isnt that what most Dems are argueing we dont need.

As for Rumsfeld's cutting out Generals out of his decision making process, thats a regrettable character flaw that is apart of his rough management style that is also his greatest strength. His descisiveness, insight, and ability to get things done are what makes him great. While he may be rough around the edges, I'd rather have him than anyone else I can think of. Especially after 6 years on the job.