Cheney and Rumsfeld: Still Heroes to Some
Watching the non-stop coverage of the many events that unfolded in Boston and Washington commemorating the life of Ted Kennedy, I had a weird thought. It happened as the military detail at Arlington National Cemetery issued forth with a gun salute as this deeply flawed man was laid to rest.
On the day of the senator’s death I was invited onto Sky News to discuss the Kennedy legacy; behind me in the massive studio was a huge tableau of images of the family at various periods in its turbulent history. I was torn between condemning him for his lapses in moral conduct and praising him for being an indomitable champion of the downtrodden. The anchorman, Dermot Murnaghan, led me down both roads and I was glad the good and bad were included in the discourse. As Antony says at the end of Julius Caesar, “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
This leads me back to the aforesaid weird thought: July 9 marked the seventy-seventh birthday of Donald Rumsfeld. As I watched the presidential-level ceremonies accorded Ted Kennedy I thought of what an unremarkable funeral the former defense secretary will have, after having ended his career “in disgrace,” according to the liberal media and ex-neoconservative community.
Both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, throughout their service under a succession of Republican administrations, and despite accusations of being the “agents of oil, the military establishment, and pharmaceutical companies,” stayed with the same wives and appeared to be churchgoing family men. I am afraid I am not well-connected enough to know if they were actually womanizing wild boys (there were those noises from the vice presidential bunker at the Naval Observatory) but the one virtue that did seem to stand out was their patriotism.
Those who have read my editorials know about my staunch support for universal health care. I did admire Kennedy’s tireless campaigning for a health care program and was moved by his observation at a National Press Club appearance that he had just met the uninsured grandchildren of Massachusetts constituents he had encountered decades before and who were also without coverage. But the dedication to protecting the American people from the ultimate killer, world terrorism, was and is the rallying cry that makes Rumsfeld and Cheney the men who deserve twenty-one-gun salutes.
It’s hard to continue to take Gould remotely seriously, what with her misrepresentations and whitewashing of the careers of Rumsfeld and Cheney and this after her previous farcical defence of Dershowitz against Melanie Philips in his defence of Obama’s stance on Israel.
Rumsfeld and Cheney had a problem with radical Islam? Really? They pressured the president they served under, Bush Jr, to cool ties with the Saudis who fund extremist terror around the world? Uh no, not as far as we know, so what is Gould blathering on about?
Rumsfeld and Cheney are certainly guilty of arrogance and serving their own interests and that of the monied in the name of public service. What with Rumsfeld and his disgraceful “shock and awe” comments during the invasion of Iraq, his and Cheney’s miscalculations on Iraq, on the insurgency and Sunni-Shi’ite divisions continue to have their tragic consequences. Gould can’t even be bothered to mention Halliburton, conspicuous in its absence and so renders Gould’s paen to Cheney laughable and trite.
I certainly do not see Cheney and Rumsfeld as the loony Left do, they were human beings like the rest of us, good and bad like the rest of us – but to ignore their disastrous policy decisions as Gould does and to tell us that they were staunch opponents of radical Islam, renders Gould’s tribute one without merit.
Not sure what the careers and funerals of Rummy and Dick have to do with Kennedy’s funeral but I am pretty sure neither of them would care either. Anyway, I do not believe history will be kind to either of them. All Cheney cared about was his beloved big business cronies in America and Saudi Arabia, so no legacy there. And Rumsfeld, he was the antithesis of power projection. Rumsfeld carried out his responsibilities by embarrassing our military and in the end, our country. We are still trying to recover from his “shock and awe” Abu Grahib so called “missions accomplished” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Good Riddance to both and I just hope they dont go hunting together as we all know what happens when you trust either one of them with weapons.
Rumsfeld and Cheney did make serious mistakes, but they were honest mistakes and they worked to serve others not themselves. Listen to the frequency at which those men will say ‘I’ or ‘me’ in interviews.
I think Cheney is still badass enough he could be a viable candidate for President. Of course he’s not interested in doing that, but might be convinced to run if asked.
Roger Simon might appreciate the fact that Rumsfeld rocks out in a brown fedora now and then.
Ms. Gould, you have lived on that sceptered isle far too long and your brain has turned to mush. I haven’t read a sensible article by you for some time now.
“I am one of those folks who thought Seymour Hersh ought to have been incarcerated for revealing the Abu Ghraib story in the New Yorker; lest we forget, it was wartime and some things are best kept within the military community.”
I agree. I wanted to be a “good German” and not know what was being done in my name, but Si spoiled everything!
True Americans the both of them. They did what was right for America as true Patriot even in the face of the lies and constant scurrilous attack from the un-American left.
Cheney and Rumsfeld diserve are profound thanks for their decisive acations after 9/11. on the other hand……
The management of the NY Times: serial traitors.
The mainstream media: self-absorbed cowards, apologists and dupes.
Abu Ghraib: another fun weekend in Hollywood.
The Left: poseurs, pretenders, coddled infants, and crypto-fasctists.
I look forward to posting my own eulogies of both these grate men.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were and are exceptional men and devoted public servants. I grow sick and tired of comments about their careers by bobbleheads like Larry (#1) and Poor Citizen (#2). If they grew rich on the spoils of public service, then prove it. Show the money. All the left can do is condemn true men of public service while they praise Mr. Obama as a messiah when there is legislative proof that he does funnel money to his cronies. In a more decent time Ted Kennedy would have been humiliated for the public cad he was instead of lionized by a fawning liberal media and liberal sheep too lazy to think for themselves. If this nation stands and if it survives the chaos and destructuion being unleashed by Mr. Obama, it will be because of men like Cheney and Rumsfeld who once again shoulder the burden of the idiocy of others.
Historians will look favorably on these two men. I just hope the book is not entitled “The Last Days of the Great Republic.” Churchill once said that the British lion (its people) had won the war and it was just his priveleage to give the roar. All I hear now is the squeaks of liberal mice at the feet of great men and in the face of grave challenges.
The neglect and under-estimation of the terrorist menace by the previous administration (remember the Gorelick memo?)*, the state of crisis and urgency after 9/11, the obscurity in which any ensuing defense or offense operation unavoidably had to be performed in, the world confusion caused by the (historically) recent fall of the communist system and by the 90′ explosive globalization, did create in the 9/11th aftermnath an awfully difficult environment for the decision makers in Washington to carry on their duties – and facing these adversities Rumsfed, Cheney and W still managed to provide a good, productive leadership to the countless officers engaged in the defense of the USA.
To compare a sorry jester like Ted Kennedy with any of them, is like getting Pee-Wee Hermnan conduct Beethoven’s 8th – yet, the irresponsible anti-Americanism of this coutry’s left and liberal establishment managed to inflict this state of perceptions on the American psyche. Yes, Ted Keneddy is a hero and Rumsfeld, Cheney and W are some villains.
O tempora, O mores – seen that, heard that, and we’re re-living it, time and again, courtesy to the liberal pathology.
———–
* “The neglect and under-estimation of the terrorist menace by the previous administration (remember the Gorelick memo?)” – how long it will take to see Obama, Holder and their crew in a much, much worse position than susan Gorelick? Methinks not too long -
to: no. 9 Mr. Kipling,
You can learn to use a computer on your own time. I teach, but do not have the time to teach you because, by your comments you have little interest in truth or learning. However, if you cut and paste your entry and send it along to Sir Dick, he might share some of the “Millions” he made from Halliburton… and his “latest millions” he is being paid from an another big oil contract in Iraq..just google cheney on Guardian.co.uk for the “facts” you will find out about that. And yes, he was the vice president that talked more about his paranoid delusions concerning those that disagreed with than trying to come up with solutions to win the two hot wars he started (mission un-accomplished eh?),helping his oil cronies taking billions in profits and refusing to even consider the problems of ordinary Americans. So, before you wag your tongue again, please, for once, check the facts and you will finally begin to understand, what everyone else already knows. When you realize the truth, then you will get sick. The Truth: deal with it.
Finally I am going to say what I have wanted to for a long time.
1) Halliburton – Cheney quit Halliburton before he accepted the nomination for VP and put all his money in a blind trust. Was he an oil man, yes. So what. Oil still runs this country. Al Gore is a man who gets money from polution credits and Kennedy got money off of Scotch so they didn’t tax them. By the way can you say ACORN? At least Halliburton actually produced something instead of monopoly money (Gore) drunks (Kennedy) and banks in ruin (ACORN)
2) Abu Grahib – terrible thing, awful. But, what was done was hazing. You can find it at any military academy in America. That is where the ideas for what was done were hatched, not in Rumsfeld’s office. Stop it there and you will stop it in the future. As soon as I saw what they had done I knew, because I had a child in the corps at a college. These guys officers learned it there. Stop is there!
3) Katrina – Awful terrible, unthinkable. But, tell me why of all the hurricanes that happened under Bush’s watch this didn’t happen anywhere else. Florida had 4 huricanes in one season. A few weeks after Katrina there was a hurricane in Texas called Rita, I lived through it. Nothing like this happened in Texas or Florida or Alabama or Mississippi. Why only New Orleans? Bush’s fault? I don’t think so.
So there. I have said it. Go for it. Repeat again what the media told you over and over again. Were these men Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush perfect? No! Were they evil? No! They were slandered and made to look evil for one purpose. Because after 9/11 Bush had a 95% approval rating and if that continued no one would care again about the snail darter or the spotted owl. And there is A LOT of money tied up in community organizations that would loose. There are hundreds of charitable organizations that take in $200,000 for the poor and the snail darter and environmental causes that pay the local director $150,000 with an all volunteer staff. They get a lot of money from federal grants. If Bush continued to be popular no one would care so much about what Hollywood had to say or the Democratic Party. People were buying masks and guns, instead of the latest shoes in the latest magazines. People simply were not listening to the left anymore. So they couldn’t just wait for the natural drifting down of poll numbers to occur they had to distroy the man and his men. And they did. In time to elect Pres. Obama. Happy now? Even Glenn Beck won’t tell you that.
Glad I got that off my chest.
Dick Cheney is the 21st Century’s answer to Richard Nixon – a craven, ruthless sociopath who used the office of the vice presidency as little more than a greasy wheel to line the pockets of his buddies at Enron, Halliburton, KBR, Blckwater, Bechtel, etc.
His legacy will be cronyism, no-bid contracts, torture, lying on national television to the American public about the connecton between Saddam and al Qaeda, outing a covert CIA agent to cover his behind, allowing his friend Scooter Libby to fall on the sword for him over the scandal, and then, finally, after leaving office in disgrace and with a 30% approval rating and 0 credibility, continuing to attack both the outgoing and incoming president.
It’ll be a holiday in Hell when that old bridge troll finally buys the farm.
The attention Kennedy received the week after his death was outragious, considering the harm he has caused this country. He certainly isn’t worthy of burial at Arlington National Cemetary.
Like Reagan, Cheney and Rumsfeld aren’t perfect. No one is. And the media have destroyed them in the minds of the mainstream media watching public. But on their worst days, Cheney and Rumsfeld are far superior to the corrupt, socialist, American-hating, so-called leadership we have now. I suspect that most serious Americans would welcome a return to adult leadership at this point. More will join their ranks as things worsen, as is nevitable.
Rumsfield knowingly and willingly sent American Soldiers into combat without enough personnel support and without proper gear and armor.
When a Soldier asked the legimate question of why they had to dig through dump sites to get enough bullet proof glass for their humvees, Rumsfield gave one of the most awful, anti-Soldier anwsers I have ever heard.
How anyone can say that he was anything but incompetent at his job is beyond me.
“11. Poor Citizen:
to: no. 9 Mr. Kipling,
I teach,”
Well that may explain the sad state of affairs in our public education system and the general lack of knowledge so evident in our youth.
AMEN IONE and Ms. Gould – about d#&@ed time someone spoke truth about Rumsfeld & Cheney – unappreciated HEROES!
“15. Robert V:
Rumsfield knowingly and willingly sent American Soldiers into combat without enough personnel support and without proper gear and armor.”
LOL, really. I guess if Rumsfield is bad because we had to go to war with a Clinton/liberal depleted military then FDR is satan for the near half a million Americans he sent to war so Ill equipped.
To Poor Citizens @ 11: I ask you to prove your point that Dick Cheney used the office of Vice President to make himself rich and you respond with an insult. You then provide me with examples of how Dick Cheney made money before and after the Vice Presidency but you have still not shown how he used the office to enrich himself. It is not against the law to have a private sector job nor to use your connections in that regard. If so then Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, and many others on both sides of the aisle would be guilty. I still await the proof you should be able to provide. It is not my job to prove your point.
As to your secondary rant, I will only address one point. I am sorry that you are unable to address your own personal problems (i.e. “the problems of ordinary Americans”). However, it is not the role of the government to baby you or anyone else. You are an American so stand on your own two feet and take responsiblity for once instead of crying to mommy government. Read the Constitution and see that the role of government is actually very limited. Cheney focused on the essential element of national defense. He did not have time to look after the little ones.
That should read “the nearly Half a million Americans FDR killed when he sent to war…….”.
To Robert V @ 15: If I recall correctly, Rumsfeld said that you went to war with the Army you have not the one you wished you had. How is that demeaning to soldiers? It is a truthful statement. Was George Washington guilty or demeaning to his soldiers because he had them fight in deplorable conditions without proper clothing or shoes? If we waited until we had the perfect army to fight, we would never fight. All armies have had to adapt on the battlefield and improvise. Read your military history man!
To Dale @13: Do you believe everything the mainstream media tells you. What a load of crap! You must be reading from some liberal talking points. I challenge you to take even one of your allegations and show proof.
Robert V: “Rumsfield knowingly and willingly sent American Soldiers into combat without enough personnel support and without proper gear and armor.”
Give me a break. As a career military officer, I can tell you there hasn’t been an Army in history that went into combat with everything they needed or wanted. Rumsfeld was truthful and correct — Obama could use some lessons on this from Rumsfeld — when he said “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”
Oh, and isn’t the current administration and Democrat-controlled Congress cutting the F-22 fighter — leaving the Air Force with only 187 of the best fighter plane in the world — and Missile Defense — when Iran and North Korea are building nukes and rockets? When Obama/Pelosi/Reid are lavishly throwing money away at everything else, bankrupting the US in the process.
I will admire Don Rumsfeld for the rest of my life. Only useful idiots who wittingly or unwittingly spout pure Soviet propaganda feel any differently. The only reason history would treat them badly is if you political prostitutes write it – and I have no doubt you will. May you all get the Revolution you so badly hope for, and may Rumsfeld not have to live long enough to see it.
I completely agree with your assessment. The demonization of Cheney is absurd. I can’t think of a single thing he’s done in his life that I could fault him for. Yet he’s constantly being demonized as if he was evil incarnate. Rumsfeld has more faults than Cheney but still I don’t think it’s enough to condemn the man. While I think he was a good honest working man trying to do his best he did make some strategic blunders when it came to national security. And so did Churchill mind you. In fact Churchill had many more politically incorrect aspects of his life than Cheney and Rumsfeld combined. Yet they don’t detract from him still being a great man worthy of admiration and respect. You have to keep in mind that the left now controls just about every aspect of current Western society (hence its rapid decline). So if they want to smear someone for political purposes they can easily do so.
I would not take the insipid lefty rants on this thread too seriously. It was expected when you post a piece that runs down their irrational ideological prejudices and hatred. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc were not perfect but showed grace and were steady during some tough challenges. I would take them over the current spastic, feckless administration any day.
I think this article was a fair tribute to Cheney and Rumsfeld. They are both serious and sober minded men who who dedicated themselves to the job of doing whatever it took took to make sure America’s enemies could not attack or threaten us with impunity. I consider the fact that we did not experience a follow up attack to 9/11 evidence enough that they were effective. What they were NOT however, was telegenic and touchy-feely, “I feel your pain,” “Hope and Change” kind of men. Whatever they said, they meant it. They were not the type to tell you want you wanted to hear nor would they suffer fools easily. Just the kind of people I prefer in a time of war and national security crisis.
Now we have an administration that is a photo-negative image of the leaders who tried to keep this country safe and strong during a time of crisis. The majority of voters in this country wanted change and they sure got it. Now we see an interesting set of alliances forming up between Russia, Venezuela and Iran. I know they sense a grand opportunity to proceed unimpeded and utterly unconcerned about what the Obama adminstration is likely to do to counter their ambitions; ambitions which I guarantee you run counter to our interests and security.
#11 Poor Folk writes: “And yes, he[Chaney] was the vice president that talked more about his paranoid delusions concerning those that disagreed with than trying to come up with solutions to win the two hot wars he started…”
#15 Robert V. Kennedy: “Rumsfield[sic] knowingly and willingly sent American Soldiers into combat without enough personnel support and without proper gear and armor.”
The trolls are so hysterical about the dive in Obie’s popularity with independents and their dislike of his failing efforts to fascisticize the country that they are losing their grasp on reality.
Only the armies of countries led by dictators bent on attacking and destroying their enemies, such as North Korea and Iran, are well prepared for war, or think they are, when it starts. Secretaries of Defense and Vice-Presidents have no power to send troops into combat anywhere. Hussein started one hot war, the Taliban the other. Bush responded to warmakers.
Truman’s army, unprepared for the Korean war. FDR’s army, unprepared for fighting on two fronts, ETO and the Pacific. Kennedy’s army, unprepared for the initial battles of Viet Nam. Shall we go back to Lincoln? No, let’s look to the future shall we? Obama’s foreign policy and military weakened and unready to prevent North Korea and Iran from building and deploying nukes.
Trolls are highly susceptible to swine fever of the brain.
New bill to control legal costs. Regular readers will enjoy this, regular trolls not so much: (via Megan McCardle)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574387021307651050.html
Rumsfeld and Cheney are modern day heroes, the sort of people we would want our children to become. Clear-eyed, tenacious, patriotic and willing to call it as they see it. Because they do not pay homage to the hordes paying tribute to the politically correct theme of the day, decade or age, does not make them any less the heroes.
To the liberals who can’t see reality through their rose colored glasses I add a fitting comment: I wouldn’t be paranoid if people weren’t out to get me”.
no 9 kipling…
To borrow a word from one of your other schoolboy chums Mr. Williams. You said I insulted you?…take it from a real 25 year veteran…
Quote: (from kipling)…..”sick and tired of comments about their careers by “bobbleheads” like (larry #1) and (Poor Citizen #2)
obviously, your a typical neo=con and like a con you accuse me of insulting, when I never did and, in fact, your the one guilty of calling names. So, like with the facts about Dick, either choose to realise the truth or continue using the snow to believe your con fantasy. The Truth Kon: Deal with it…
Response to Poor Citizen @ 30: As of yet you have failed to present any proof to backup your assertions in the original post. I referenced the insult only because it was your first response and had nothing to do with proving your point. Ad hominem attacks are typical of the left when they have nothing of relevance to say. I refered to you as a “bobblehead” because you simply parroted the slander so typically found on the left.
As to being a neo-con (neo-conservative), you may rest assured that I am not. I am an old guard conservative. I trust that you know the difference. Either way, why do you use neo=con as an insult when it is simply descriptive of a political philosophy. I would hardly describe Cheney or Rumsfeld as neo-conservatives anyway.
As to your other ramblings, I am at a loss as to how to respond because I am not quite sure what you mean.
The lefties can harp as much as they want, it will not change the state of affairs. They attack Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush for one reason only: the lefties and these star president can never be as good as these men are. Men of character, men of steal, Patriots of this land.
Pathetic!!!
Rumsfeld was fired by Bush, and that’s saying something when you’re fired by W for being incompetent. Cheney’s Halliburton killed American military personnel through gross negligence and greed. These men aren’t heroes, they failures. They’re an embarrassment to the American spirit and the republic for which it stands. You defend them only because to do otherwise is to admit you were wrong. And you were.
Cheney and Rumsfield are honorable men that are despised by Marxists. That’s the entire story in a nutshell.
Response to Now and Then @33: Many conservatives did not agree with the firing of Rumsfeld. Were there mistakes made? Yes. But mistakes are made in every war. Rumsfeld was sacrificed for political reasons and it was a dumb move by the President to try and appease the left. It did not work. As to Cheney’s Halliburtion killing military personal, please elaborate and show proof. Also show how it was Cheney’s Halliburton since the VP had nothing to do with the company while in office.
I defend the two because they are honorable men who made tough decisions. They confronted an evil that you leftists would rather ignore until it finally overwhelms us all. They faught with a military depleted in resources after 8 years of Clinton/Gore and they did a pretty good job at keeping us safe. They were not perfect but they faught the good fight. I think it is a sad commentary on our society when ankle bitters of lesser men feel free to heap scorn on them without any evidence to back up their slander. Shame on you sir.
Rumsfeld was incompetent. He really was. It’s not that he was unknowledgable. He wasn’t. He was just arrogant. He ignored the clear advice of the militry professionals. Most people do. [Say what you want about McCain (and I say plenty), he called out Rummy again and again on this, and he was proven right.]
The Suits ignored the advice of the professional military, because they do not know just how truly educated is the modern military man in America. The college classes never stop, nor do the specific military training. Most Generals have a PhD, at least.
Cheney did a fine job as VP. He focussed on the areas of his knowledge. It was evident when he gave the televised speech critical of the current administration. Obama tried to pre-empt him… and clearly came off second-best. Style versus substance. Obama was hot air, and Cheney was the real deal. He spoke out because he was truly concerned for his country, unlike most professional politicians. It told me all I needed to know about him.
National heroes? No. Neither one of them. Kennedy neither. They simply served, but it required no heroism. In Kennedy’s case, being in one’s political sinecure forever is not heroism.
Response to Marc Malone @ 36: While I agree on a lot of what you said, I would differ on a few key points. I think Rumsfeld and Bush’s problem was not that they ignored the professional military men but rather that they listened too much to them and deferred too much to them. I had friends on the planning staff for the invasion and all of the top brass basically ignore the postwar / Phase IV type stuff. Their focus was on having the fastest infantry advance in history. Little thought was given to the aftermath and that is where the problems occured. Casey, Sanchez and others should have been canned early on as they all failed to deal with the developing situation. Yet, Rumsfeld and Bush deferred to these men and the situation got out of control. What we needed was a Lincoln, Truman, or Churchill who had no problem firing people.
Most of the modern military men I have encountered who have PhDs usually have them in Business Administration, Communications, or some such nonsense. Very rarely will you find someone like David Petraeus who has one in military history.
I have trouble crediting McCain with any of the success created by the eventual surge. McCain ran around screaming about more men and attacking Rumsfeld to gain political points. The question had more to do with how to use the men rather than just having men. Petraeus is the one who brought victory in the surge. McCain would have just given the enemy more targets. Manpower is important but strategy is essential.
Cheney and Rumsfield…
GWBs two most able advisers.
Rumsfield saw the importance of SOF in combating global terrorism. He oversaw the 2004 Quadrennial defense review. The review increased SOCOMs budget by almost 6 billion. It also gave SOCOM status of an active command rather than a supporting command(took the operators out of the hands of generals who never liked SOF, due to their “mystique”). On the other hand, he clearly fouled up on post war Iraq. This was his biggest negative.
Cheney’s impact has been much more public. I was only in middle school during Desert Storm, but I won’t forget Cheney’s press conferences, who could, who was older than 12 at the time? Further, I strongly suspect Cheney was at the center of the debate over “enhanced” interrogation. One of the few signs that the Administration took the threat of islamic terror seriously. His service since the end of his term has only added to his luster.
“praising him for being an indomitable champion of the downtrodden.”
ted kennedy spent his whole life wasting millons keeping up a decadent lifstyle-money that could have clothed,fed and sheltered countless people.he remained in power by giving away OTHER people’s money,the fact he will be remembered as a “champion of the poor” is a sick joke.
As well they should be !!
“Still heroes to some” . . . Yeah, it looks that “some” totals about 35 according to this post.
History, if the liberals don’t erase it, will look back kindly on the last administration. By the time this administration is through “Re-making America” they may very well become the good old days. And I, believe, given the way this administration is handling our borders, going after the CIA and the Lawyers that authorized the interogation techniques with the goal of going after Cheyney, there will be such a weak defense system in place that we may see even worse atrocities performed on US soil in the years to come.
Keeping America safe requires more than going down on foreign kings, supporting foreign dictators when they suppress their people, and turning a blind eye when they slap you. The more we ignore the threat of our enemies, the weaker we become. President Obama should pull Cheyeny and Rumsfeld in as Defense Czars. Right…….like that is going to happen
“Rumsfeld was incompetent.”
Baloney. The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are some of the most impressive military victories of all time.
And, the Bush/Rumsfeld team looks like Alexander the Great on steroids compared to military bumblers like Abraham Lincoln, Woody Wilson, FDR, and JFK/LBJ.
I have to address this because I was part of the 278th ACR when Rummy made his remarks about “going to war with the Army you’ve got” in Kuwait.
Look, the big issue was that we had been at Camp Shelby for months getting ready and during all that time nothing had been done to up-armor our vehicles. We had brand-new LMTVs, straight from the factory, it was known well in advance that they were going with us to Iraq, but no one in that process though “hey-maybe we should up-armor those trucks”. So when we got to Kuwait there was a mad-rush to do ad hoc up-armoring before we drove north. That was why that young troop asked Rummy to address the issue-and bear in mind that this happened in December 2004, 20 months or so after the invasion. Rummy’s excuse seemed pretty thin.
Conservatives love Rummy in large part because of the way he talked to the press (and I agree that he gave them well-deserved tongue lashings on a regular basis), but I don’t think most of us in the Army remember him as a very good SECDEF. He really ought to have been Bush’s press secretary.
“Look, the big issue was that we had been at Camp Shelby for months getting ready and during all that time nothing had been done to up-armor our vehicles.”
Look on the bright side. At least you didn’t have to fight the best tankers in the world, armed with Panther and Tiger tanks, from behind the wheel of an M4 Sherman.
Yes of course-because they weren’t adequately prepared then means we have absolutely no right to point out that we weren’t adequately prepared in 2004. Hey, the enemy is going to use whatever advantages he has at his disposal (whether that means superior armor or IEDs against soft-skinned vehicles), if you don’t employ whatever countermeasures you can to defeat his advantage, you are offering him the opportunity to defeat you. The Wehrmacht didn’t beat us then because we had numerous other advantages (air superiority against a doctrinal foe for one thing, the T-34 produced in large numbers to beat German armor on the eastern front for another) and Haji didn’t beat us now because we pushed more troops into theater (something RUmmy resisted for years) and rooted him out (yeah, I know the surge is a lot more complicated than that).
The point is that Rummy didn’t recognize how the enemy might use our weaknesses against us and the SECDEF really ought to do a better planning job than that. All he had to say to that soldier was “you’re right, somebody dropped the ball on that”. But his arrogance-useul in dealing with the press jackals-wouldn’t let him do that. Now Dave offers a similarly cute response. Most people saw Rummy’s remarks for what they were and Bush should have gotten rid of him then, instead he stuck with him for two more years while the war turned increasingly pear-shaped. In the end, we finally got the right team in place to win the war. But that was largely in spite of Rummy and his inflexibility. As I said, he should have been sent to deal with the press daily, that was his real strength. Let somebody with a smaller ego make DOD decisions.