Comments on: Cheney and Rumsfeld: Still Heroes to Some

By: CavMedic

CavMedic — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:56:34 +0000

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.

By: Dave Surls

Dave Surls — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:47:51 +0000

“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.

By: CavMedic

CavMedic — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:18:35 +0000

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.

By: Dave Surls

Dave Surls — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:55:45 +0000

“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.

By: DoctorT

DoctorT — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:04:28 +0000

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

By: Now and Then

Now and Then — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:55:17 +0000

“Still heroes to some” . . . Yeah, it looks that “some” totals about 35 according to this post.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:18:18 +0000

As well they should be !!

By: frank grimes

frank grimes — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:05:52 +0000

“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.

By: Peter Montbriand

Peter Montbriand — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:40:29 +0000

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.

By: Kipling

Kipling — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:26:05 +0000

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.