Get Out Now?

[Chief Faithful]

There are some interesting parallels developing. In Vietnam the biggest criticism was the politicians got in the way of letting the generals run the war. The result was a quagmire resulting in an un-winnable situation.

Recently, one of the biggest criticisms against Rumsfeld was not listening to his generals resulting in a lack of troop strength necessary to control the population when the government fell. This created fertile ground for the insurgency to grow.

Now we have a situation where the incoming leadership in Congress is calling for a timeline that the generals are advising is unwise. Is the effort in Iraq again being taken out of the hands of the on-ground experts simply for the sake of political reasons? Will this worsen the situation as in the past examples of politicians over riding the generals request?

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?hp&ex=1163653200&en=24984d8667d017f9&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[noa]

The Democrats can't make the troops withdraw. At least not as long as a Republican is in the White House.

[patteeu]

The Democrats can't make the troops withdraw. At least not as long as a Republican is in the White House.

Congress can withdraw funding for the war if they want to go to the wall. But even if we accept that for all practical purposes they can't make the troops withdraw, does that make it OK for them to say any irresponsible thing that comes to mind (or that they cynically think will win them political points)?

Leaving aside what the democrats in Congress say or do, do you think we should listen to the Generals who seem to still be saying the same things the Bush administration and SecDef Rumsfeld have been saying?

[Calcountry]

The Democrats can't make the troops withdraw. At least not as long as a Republican is in the White House.Sure they can, they can cut the funding and envoke the war powers act.

[noa]

Congress can withdraw funding for the war if they want to go to the wall. But even if we accept that for all practical purposes they can't make the troops withdraw, does that make it OK for them to say any irresponsible thing that comes to mind (or that they cynically think will win them political points)?

Leaving aside what the democrats in Congress say or do, do you think we should listen to the Generals who seem to still be saying the same things the Bush administration and SecDef Rumsfeld have been saying?


First, I don't think the Dems are stupid enough to cut funding to the troops. That's just a scare tactic employed by Hannity and the like.
Second, yes, I think we should listen to generals. However, I don't think you are correct in saying that the generals and Rumsfeld and Bush have always been on the same page.

[Calcountry]

Congress can withdraw funding for the war if they want to go to the wall. But even if we accept that for all practical purposes they can't make the troops withdraw, does that make it OK for them to say any irresponsible thing that comes to mind (or that they cynically think will win them political points)?

Leaving aside what the democrats in Congress say or do, do you think we should listen to the Generals who seem to still be saying the same things the Bush administration and SecDef Rumsfeld have been saying?Heck no. I seen this movie by Michael Moore, and it told me the truth about that chit in Iraq.

We need to get our boys out now.

This is Bush's war.

[noa]

Sure they can, they can cut the funding and envoke the war powers act.

Look, if there's one thing we can all agree on, its that politicians want to stay in power. Cutting funding for the troops is political suicide.

[Calcountry]

First, I don't think the Dems are stupid enough to cut funding to the troops. That's just a scare tactic employed by Hannity and the like.
Second, yes, I think we should listen to generals. However, I don't think you are correct in saying that the generals and Rumsfeld and Bush have always been on the same page.Scare tactic. Oh yeah, I forgot, you won the congress with a blank check, i.e., the Dems never made a promise or a plan about what they were going to do or NOT do.

What a crock of chit.

BTW, I am still waiting for the Democrats vision for the WOT, or if they even consider us at war. Perhaps we can stand down, and put the country back on a peace footing. Terror alert level green, all is well.

[noa]

Heck no. I seen this movie by Michael Moore, and it told me the truth about that chit in Iraq.

We need to get our boys out now.

This is Bush's war.


Because everyone who is concerned about Iraq loves Michael Moore. That would mean that 60% of the people who voted in the midterms are huge Michael Moore fans.

[Calcountry]

Look, if there's one thing we can all agree on, its that politicians want to stay in power. Cutting funding for the troops is political suicide.Fine, then just tell Bush you are going to impeach him unless he pulls them out by such and such date.

Done.

[noa]

Scare tactic. Oh yeah, I forgot, you won the congress with a blank check, i.e., the Dems never made a promise or a plan about what they were going to do or NOT do.

What a crock of chit.



When did the Democrats ever say they would cut funding to the troops? IMO, people who spread that idea are the ones full of chit.

[noa]

Fine, then just tell Bush you are going to impeach him unless he pulls them out by such and such date.

Done.


The Democrats won't impeach. You are predicting the apocalypse. Just wait and see what happens. The Democrats won't cut funding to the troops and they won't impeach because both moves would go against their interest of maintaining power.

[Calcountry]

Because everyone who is concerned about Iraq loves Michael Moore. That would mean that 60% of the people who voted in the midterms are huge Michael Moore fans.80% of my left cheek is next to 50 percent of my chit.

[Calcountry]

The Democrats won't impeach. You are predicting the apocalypse. Just wait and see what happens. The Democrats won't cut funding to the troops and they won't impeach because both moves would go against their interest of maintaining power.Just wait and see what happens.

So there we have it, 8 days after the election, and there is the official line of the Democratic vision for America. Just wait and see.


Just wait and see:

If Iran gets a Nuke
If they do, what will we do about it? Talk to Syria?


Just wait and see:
If the terrorists get fissionable material from Iran, and open it up at the Super Bowl(God Forbid, but this is a football site)

Just wait and see:
If the Dems raise taxes

Just wait and see:
If the Dems obstruct the Supreme Court nominees if there is another one

Just wait and see:
If the Dems fund pro Death legislation(abortion, partial abortions, semi abortions, Dr. Kevorkian's, Terry Schiavo, etc. et. al)


Just wait and see:

Nice.

I am still waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

[noa]

Just wait and see what happens.

So there we have it, 8 days after the election, and there is the official line of the Democratic vision for America. Just wait and see.


Just wait and see:

If Iran gets a Nuke
If they do, what will we do about it? Talk to Syria?


Just wait and see:
If the terrorists get fissionable material from Iran, and open it up at the Super Bowl(God Forbid, but this is a football site)

Just wait and see:
If the Dems raise taxes

Just wait and see:
If the Dems obstruct the Supreme Court nominees if there is another one

Just wait and see:
If the Dems fund pro Death legislation(abortion, partial abortions, semi abortions, Dr. Kevorkian's, Terry Schiavo, etc. et. al)


Just wait and see:

Nice.

I am still waiting, but I won't hold my breath.


Good God. You must have very high blood pressure. I said wait and see because the Dems don't actually take power until January, and despite the fact that they have never said anything about cutting funding to the troops and that their leadership has openly opposed impeachment, you are still predicting both those things. When you won't believe what they are saying, then you just have to wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding.
Also, I don't pretend to think that my opinion is the official Democratic vision of America.

[Chief Faithful]

I do like when the Democratic leadership says pressure needs to be put on the Iraqi government to get control of their own. But, you cannot have a political solution if the government is not in a stable situation.

I hope the leadership listens and heeds the advise of the generals and allows them to help stabilize the situation before Congress starts to take their tools away. They need to finish the job before they cut and ru...excuse me... before the phased redeployment.

[noa]

I do like when the Democratic leadership says pressure needs to be put on the Iraqi government to get control of their own. But, you cannot have a political solution if the government is not in a stable situation.

I hope the leadership listens and heeds the advise of the generals and allows them to help stabilize the situation before Congress starts to take their tools away. They need to finish the job before they cut and ru...excuse me... before the phased redeployment.


I also hope that the Dems listen to the experts. It wouldn't be smart to let the public decide our policy on the war. Still, I'm going to repeat myself and say that the only way the Dems can take away the tools of the generals would be to cut funding, and I firmly believe they won't do that. The war policies and strategies will come out of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. If any phased redeployment does happen, it will be because Bush gave it the okay.

[patteeu]

First, I don't think the Dems are stupid enough to cut funding to the troops. That's just a scare tactic employed by Hannity and the like.

I don't think they will either. That's what I meant by "for all practical purposes."


Second, yes, I think we should listen to generals. However, I don't think you are correct in saying that the generals and Rumsfeld and Bush have always been on the same page.

The testimony of Generals Casey and Abizad on the hill today seems to be right in line with what the administration has been saying. What's the most recent example you can give me of top generals in Iraq like those two disagreeing with Rumsfeld or Bush?

[Chief Faithful]

Still, I'm going to repeat myself and say that the only way the Dems can take away the tools of the generals would be to cut funding, and I firmly believe they won't do that. The war policies and strategies will come out of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. If any phased redeployment does happen, it will be because Bush gave it the okay.

I agree, but they can put a lot of heat politically ending in the same result.

[StcChief]

name two things that can't be used in the same sentence.

Democratic vision

[Laz]

Congress can withdraw funding for the war if they want to go to the wall. But even if we accept that for all practical purposes they can't make the troops withdraw, does that make it OK for them to say any irresponsible thing that comes to mind (or that they cynically think will win them political points)?

Leaving aside what the democrats in Congress say or do, do you think we should listen to the Generals who seem to still be saying the same things the Bush administration and SecDef Rumsfeld have been saying?
and if they did so, every republican in the U.S would start shouting about how the Dems don't support the troops and how they are cutting funds because they want all the soldiers die.




laz
~been around long enough to know the bullchit routine by now~

[Laz]

name two things that can't be used in the same sentence.

Democratic vision
But ...

asshole Republican


... fit together just fine.

[noa]

The testimony of Generals Casey and Abizad on the hill today seems to be right in line with what the administration has been saying. What's the most recent example you can give me of top generals in Iraq like those two disagreeing with Rumsfeld or Bush?


The most recent I can remember is six months ago, when Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division in Iraq called for Rumsfeld's resignation.

[Calcountry]

I do like when the Democratic leadership says pressure needs to be put on the Iraqi government to get control of their own. But, you cannot have a political solution if the government is not in a stable situation.

I hope the leadership listens and heeds the advise of the generals and allows them to help stabilize the situation before Congress starts to take their tools away. They need to finish the job before they cut and ru...excuse me... before the phased redeployment.Political correctness will be the death of our country.

[Calcountry]

Good God. You must have very high blood pressure. I said wait and see because the Dems don't actually take power until January, and despite the fact that they have never said anything about cutting funding to the troops and that their leadership has openly opposed impeachment, you are still predicting both those things. When you won't believe what they are saying, then you just have to wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding.
Also, I don't pretend to think that my opinion is the official Democratic vision of America.Which god do you believe in?

[banyon]

Political correctness will be the death of our country.

Congrats, you've used soundbyte language to criticize others for using soundbyte language.

[Calcountry]

Congrats, you've used soundbyte language to criticize others for using soundbyte language.:rolleyes:

[mlyonsd]

The testimony of Generals Casey and Abizad on the hill today seems to be right in line with what the administration has been saying. What's the most recent example you can give me of top generals in Iraq like those two disagreeing with Rumsfeld or Bush?

Amazing isn't it? Rumsfield is gone and the Generals are saying the same ole thing.

Is it possible Rummy trusted his Generals too much?

[Nightwish]

BTW, I am still waiting for the Democrats vision for the WOT, or if they even consider us at war.There is no real WoT, I've told you people that before. After 9/11, Americans were scared of everything that moved, which made us complacent in the face of any legislation that promised (however empty those promises may be) to make us safer, to protect us from the boogeyman on our doorstep. Otherwise, such an atrocious monstrosity as the Patriot Act wouldn't have stood a chance. As I've pointed out several times, whenever the terrorists target us, we go after them, now and in the past, under Bush and under every President before him (yes, including Clinton, for you Clinton-bashers); and whenever the terrorists target people who are of no interest to us, we ignore them, now and in the past, under Bush and under every President before him (yes, including Clinton, for you Clinton-lovers). This "war on terror" is a rhetorical soundbite, a war of words, and you've bitten into it hook, line and sinker. And that's exactly how complacent the power elite want you to be. It's what makes them the power elite.
Perhaps we can stand down, and put the country back on a peace footing. Terror alert level green, all is well.One thing I think we can all count on, we won't be seeing the terror alert played as a political card on the eve of elections, debates and the Democratic convention. I have a feeling that, unlike the Republicans, the Dems "ain't gonna play dat."

[noa]

Is it possible Rummy trusted his Generals too much?


No. In 2001, Tommy Franks asked for 500,000 troops. Rumsfeld told him no and told him to come back with a plan involving fewer troops. Franks came back asking for 400,000 troops. Rumsfeld said no. Then 245,000 (Rumsfeld said no) and finally 140,000 troops. We won the war easily, but it would have helped to have additional troops for the insurgency.

[Nightwish]

What's the most recent example you can give me of top generals in Iraq like those two disagreeing with Rumsfeld or Bush?And remaining as top generals in Iraq?

[MarcBulger]

Nightwish I wonder what type of Patriot Act the British used when they indicated a couple weeks ago that they found as many as 30 plans to attack Britian and the US.

[Logical]

....
Leaving aside what the democrats in Congress say or do, do you think we should listen to the Generals who seem to still be saying the same things the Bush administration and SecDef Rumsfeld have been saying?

Leaving aside the Generals are not saying what Bush and the admninistration have been saying, you have no point at all.

[Logical]

and if they did so, every republican in the U.S would start shouting about how the Dems don't support the troops and how they are cutting funds because they want all the soldiers die.




laz
~been around long enough to know the bullchit routine by now~

Yup

[patteeu]

The most recent I can remember is six months ago, when Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division in Iraq called for Rumsfeld's resignation.

I can't find any specific complaint that these guys had so it's hard to evaluate their claims, but neither of these guys were the top military guy in charge of the war. They had military superiors. The guys at the top, so far as I'm aware, have not complained that their advice is not being heeded by civilian leadership and in fact, they've said just the opposite. Now I'm sure that there are generals with ideas that are not adopted, but that's going to happen no matter who is making the decisions. And I'm sure that when a general makes a recommendation that is rejected and the alternative policy ends up badly, that general probably feels vindicated and thinks he knew better, but that doesn't mean that that guy has always been right. So if the top generals are onboard with Rumsfeld, what's so remarkable about a few lesser generals who don't like how things went down? AFAICT, it's not like there was a united proposal by the entire general staff and it was rejected by Rumsfeld and Bush. But who knows, maybe there was. :shrug:

In any event, Rumsfeld is gone, so the more relevant point now is that Abizad and Casey are speaking out against democrat proposals to begin a phased withdrawal and are saying essentially what Rumsfeld and Bush have been saying for some time now. Should we listen to the generals?

[patteeu]

And remaining as top generals in Iraq?

Either or.

[patteeu]

No. In 2001, Tommy Franks asked for 500,000 troops. Rumsfeld told him no and told him to come back with a plan involving fewer troops. Franks came back asking for 400,000 troops. Rumsfeld said no. Then 245,000 (Rumsfeld said no) and finally 140,000 troops. We won the war easily, but it would have helped to have additional troops for the insurgency.

Tommy Franks endorsed Bush for a 2nd term. That doesn't sound to me like the response of a guy who was bulldozed into a plan he didn't believe in.

[patteeu]

Leaving aside the Generals are not saying what Bush and the admninistration have been saying, you have no point at all.

Sure they are. Read about it yourself:

U.S. military leaders oppose timetable on Iraq (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16021038.htm)

Excerpts:


In an exclusive interview in Baghdad, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told McClatchy Newspapers that the situation in Iraq remains too unstable to withdraw troops and that setting a date for U.S. troops to start leaving would "just allow folks to wait us out."
"We have always thought that we would gradually reduce our forces. So I am not against reducing troops," Casey said. "It's just got to be balanced with the Iraqi security forces and the situation on the ground. That's always been the strategy."
Asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., if more U.S. troops were needed in Iraq, Abizaid said he believed that troop levels "need to stay where they are."

Later, he told Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that sending 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq might "achieve a temporary effect," but that he didn't believe the Army and the Marine Corps could "sustain the commitment."

Abizaid also told McCain that he'd met with Casey and every division commander in Iraq and asked them if more U.S. forces would "add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq."

"And they all said no," Abizaid said. "And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more."

[Logical]

Tommy Franks endorsed Bush for a 2nd term. That doesn't sound to me like the response of a guy who was bulldozed into a plan he didn't believe in.You truly are a lost soul.

[mlyonsd]

You truly are a lost soul.
Who did Franks support in the last election? I really don't know.

[patteeu]

You truly are a lost soul.

Help me find my way by telling me what part of that post you object to and why.

[Chief Faithful]

Here is a surprise, the proposal from Congress does not call for accelating the training of Iraqi forces. It looks like Congress is going to the mat to take the effort out of the generals hands.

Sharp Divides in Congress Over Iraq (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119035,00.html)

"So far, McCain and Levin can agree that Abizaid's testimony this week was unsatisfying. Both called the General's recommendation of accelerating the training of Iraqi forces an unacceptable status quo.

"I regret deeply that you seem to think that the status quo and the rate of progress we're making is acceptable," McCain told Abizaid. "I think most Americans do not.""

[patteeu]

Here is a surprise, the proposal from Congress does not call for accelating the training of Iraqi forces. It looks like Congress is going to the mat to take the effort out of the generals hands.

Sharp Divides in Congress Over Iraq (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119035,00.html)

"So far, McCain and Levin can agree that Abizaid's testimony this week was unsatisfying. Both called the General's recommendation of accelerating the training of Iraqi forces an unacceptable status quo.

"I regret deeply that you seem to think that the status quo and the rate of progress we're making is acceptable," McCain told Abizaid. "I think most Americans do not.""

Yep. The people who have been complaining about not listening to the generals don't seem to want to listen to the generals.

[noa]

Yep. The people who have been complaining about not listening to the generals don't seem to want to listen to the generals.


The only caveat is that the generals didn't propose anything new. All they said was that reducing troop levels would be a bad idea, and adding troops isn't a good plan either. What you are left with is the status quo, and that plan doesn't seem to be working right now, so that's why Americans wanted to hear something different.

[Chief Faithful]

The only caveat is that the generals didn't propose anything new. All they said was that reducing troop levels would be a bad idea, and adding troops isn't a good plan either. What you are left with is the status quo, and that plan doesn't seem to be working right now, so that's why Americans wanted to hear something different.

Have the Americans been hearing from the Generals or rehtoric from the politicians? The Generals have beens saying all along they want to speed up the hand-over to the Iraqi military so troops can be drawn down. Status quo is to not speed up the hand-over.

[patteeu]

The only caveat is that the generals didn't propose anything new. All they said was that reducing troop levels would be a bad idea, and adding troops isn't a good plan either. What you are left with is the status quo, and that plan doesn't seem to be working right now, so that's why Americans wanted to hear something different.

Either we should listen to the generals or we shouldn't. Too many people are trying to have it both ways, yourself included. You want to listen to them when they are saying what you want to hear, but not when they say things you don't like. I can understand how people can criticize Rumsfeld generically for the results his military has achieved so far, but I can't understand how they can pretend that the recipe on how to achieve better results was readily apparent all along if only he'd have listened to his generals.

[noa]

Status quo is to not speed up the hand-over.


I disagree. I think the objective has always been to hand over power as quickly as reasonably possible. Not changing troop levels and not changing our goals is status quo.
I'm not disagreeing with what the general said, just saying that is sounds like he's advocating doing more of the same.

[noa]

Either we should listen to the generals or we shouldn't. Too many people are trying to have it both ways, yourself included. You want to listen to them when they are saying what you want to hear, but not when they say things you don't like. I can understand how people can criticize Rumsfeld generically for the results his military has achieved so far, but I can't understand how they can pretend that the recipe on how to achieve better results was readily apparent all along if only he'd have listened to his generals.


Well, considering the original recommendation was for 500,00 troops and we ended up going in with 140,000 troops, I would say that the complaint is more than generic. I know Franks supports Bush, and I'm sure he wouldn't have put forth a plan that he wasn't comfortable with, but with hindsight, I think it is clear that more troops would have helped us deal with the insurgency after we toppled the regime.
I'm not saying that we should ignore the generals, nor am I disagreeing with their assessment. I'm just saying that the generals didn't propose a new strategy, so its no surprise that people who wanted change in Iraq are not satisfied with what they said.

[Nightwish]

Well, considering the original recommendation was for 500,00 troops and we ended up going in with 140,000 troops, I would say that the complaint is more than generic.
Patteeu isn't going to listen to that. Y'know, only listening to the generals when they say what you want to hear, and all that. Trying to have it both ways, and all that. Don't waste your time trying to convince patteeu that General Franks actually ever told Rumsfeld we would need almost four times more troops than we used. In pat's world, that never happened.

[Calcountry]

Well, considering the original recommendation was for 500,00 troops and we ended up going in with 140,000 troops, I would say that the complaint is more than generic. I know Franks supports Bush, and I'm sure he wouldn't have put forth a plan that he wasn't comfortable with, but with hindsight, I think it is clear that more troops would have helped us deal with the insurgency after we toppled the regime.
I'm not saying that we should ignore the generals, nor am I disagreeing with their assessment. I'm just saying that the generals didn't propose a new strategy, so its no surprise that people who wanted change in Iraq are not satisfied with what they said.Hindsight is always 20/20, but then, SOME Democrats would have been griping about the need to hae so many troops deployed, and how it was going to be a quagmire even if we did that?

Sorry, but that would just be more targets for the insurgents, so in that scenario, assuming the same or more casualties, then SOME Democrats would have griped about us overcommitting and not listening to some of the advisors that reccomended fewer troops.

[Chief Faithful]

Time for LtCol Oliver North to chime in.

For an additional taste of the way things are going to be, Air Force One was still heading west when the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned General John Abizaid, the senior U.S. officer fighting the global war on terror, to appear before them to discuss next steps in Iraq. Though the General argued against setting timelines for withdrawing U.S. forces and stated, "the prudent course ahead is to keep the troop levels about where they are," it didn’t matter to incoming committee chairman, Carl Levin (D-MI). He’s already decided that we must "begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."

Hype and Hope (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,119056,00.html?wh=news)

[patteeu]

Well, considering the original recommendation was for 500,00 troops and we ended up going in with 140,000 troops, I would say that the complaint is more than generic. I know Franks supports Bush, and I'm sure he wouldn't have put forth a plan that he wasn't comfortable with, but with hindsight, I think it is clear that more troops would have helped us deal with the insurgency after we toppled the regime.
I'm not saying that we should ignore the generals, nor am I disagreeing with their assessment. I'm just saying that the generals didn't propose a new strategy, so its no surprise that people who wanted change in Iraq are not satisfied with what they said.

Patteeu isn't going to listen to that. Y'know, only listening to the generals when they say what you want to hear, and all that. Trying to have it both ways, and all that. Don't waste your time trying to convince patteeu that General Franks actually ever told Rumsfeld we would need almost four times more troops than we used. In pat's world, that never happened.

What is the source for the 500k, 400k, 250k, 140k story?

Here is what I found regarding the initial Iraq planning process:

MYTH 1: Secretary Rumsfeld ignored military advice to increase troop levels in Iraq. (http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/For-the-record/docs/2006-10-31a.html)

FACTS: The opposite is true. Rather than ignoring the recommendations of senior military commanders, civilian leaders have relied heavily on their advice.


In the early planning phases of the Iraq war, for example, although Secretary Rumsfeld was ready to approve plans to deploy up to 400,000 troops if needed, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command, opted instead for a campaign emphasizing speed rather than mass.

Whatever one’s views on troop levels, it is absolutely false to suggest that civilian leaders ignored commanders’ input.

Gen. Franks described part of the Iraq war planning process on page 333 of his memoirs: “As I concluded my summary of the existing 1003 plan, I noted that we’d trimmed planned force levels from 500,000 troops to around 400,000. But even that was still way too large, I told the secretary.” Gen. Franks also notes on a number of occasions that rather than “rejecting” military advice, Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly listened to commanders’ advice in designing a plan for Iraq. On page 313, for example, Gen. Franks wrote, “Don Rumsfeld was a hard taskmaster – but he never tried to control the tactics of our war-fight.”

On July 9, 2003, Gen. Franks testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that:

“There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this secretary’s going to say ‘yes.’ I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.”

On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained:

“[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don’t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we’re at the point in the mission where it’s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we’re maintaining the right balance.”

On Oct. 11, 2006, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded:

“I don’t – right now, my answer is no. … [I]f I think I need more, I’ll ask for more and bring more in.”

[go bowe]

Yep. The people who have been complaining about not listening to the generals don't seem to want to listen to the generals.that's because there are 2 different sets of generals...

one group of retired generals and admirals saying what they think about the iraq situation and about the generals in charge on the ground, without fear of retribution of any kind...

or one group of generals who are still serving and hoping to advance their careers?

generally (omg, was that a pun?, making public statements that are critical of your superiors is never helpful for one's career in the military...

[patteeu]

that's because there are 2 different sets of generals...

one group of retired generals and admirals saying what they think about the iraq situation and about the generals in charge on the ground, without fear of retribution of any kind...

or one group of generals who are still serving and hoping to advance their careers?

generally (omg, was that a pun?, making public statements that are critical of your superiors is never helpful for one's career in the military...

If these retired generals (or the generals still on the job for that matter) are putting personal ambition ahead of the good of their country, they aren't really very good people to have in charge of our military. I'm not making any specific accusations, but generally speaking (oops, I did it too, haha), there could be other reasons why a retired general might be bitter about Don Rumsfeld besides thoughts about what the best interest of the country would be. That's why a good resignation in protest (especially against one's personal interests) is one of the more impressive forms of dissent.

[noa]

What is the source for the 500k, 400k, 250k, 140k story?

Here is what I found regarding the initial Iraq planning process:


Your source is a DoD website. Here's an article about Rumsfeld micromanaging and demanding plans with fewer troops:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030407fa_fact1

I have no doubt that you will question the author's honesty and objectivity, but if you're going to cite a DoD website, I think its fair to cite this.

[patteeu]

Your source is a DoD website. Here's an article about Rumsfeld micromanaging and demanding plans with fewer troops:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030407fa_fact1

I have no doubt that you will question the author's honesty and objectivity, but if you're going to cite a DoD website, I think its fair to cite this.

I don't even have to get to the author's honesty/objectivity issues to point out the relative weakness of your source. My source quotes Tommy Franks' own words (along with words from other identified generals at the top of the food chain). Your source quotes unidentified "war planners." I only had time to scan through right now, but I couldn't find a single identified source (from inside the planning process) in the whole article. Is there something I'm missing here?

[noa]

I don't even have to get to the author's honesty/objectivity issues to point out the relative weakness of your source. My source quotes Tommy Franks' own words (along with words from other identified generals at the top of the food chain). Your source quotes unidentified "war planners." I only had time to scan through right now, but I couldn't find a single identified source (from inside the planning process) in the whole article. Is there something I'm missing here?


His sources don't want to be identified because they want to keep their jobs. Kind of like Deepthroat. Even though you couldn't prove who he was, his info was real, so to a certain extent, you have to trust the journalist. I have a hard time believing he would just invent this stuff out of thin air, but anything is possible. I have an even harder time believing that the DoD's site is going to post anything critical of itself.
As to why I'm a bit skeptical of the Franks quotes you cited, here's a tidbit from the article:

"Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who “will do what he’s told.” A former intelligence official asked, “Why didn’t he go to the President?” A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”

Again, I know Hersh is a questionable source to cite. I just thought it would balance well with your citation of the DoD's own website :p

[Adept Havelock]

If these retired generals (or the generals still on the job for that matter) are putting personal ambition ahead of the good of their country, they aren't really very good people to have in charge of our military. I'm not making any specific accusations, but generally speaking (oops, I did it too, haha), there could be other reasons why a retired general might be bitter about Don Rumsfeld besides thoughts about what the best interest of the country would be. That's why a good resignation in protest (especially against one's personal interests) is one of the more impressive forms of dissent.


It could be the Generals still serving are also considering their own personal ambitions when it comes to this issue, as they are the ones with military careers on the line if they disagree with their superiors. :shrug:

[BucEyedPea]

I see Bushie Jr is pouting, behind Daddy on the cover of Newsweek!
Meanwhile, the Georgie-the-petulant is throwing a temper tantrum by launching his own investigation while the Baker group gets underway. I hear he isn't crazy about Papa's intervention. Papa don't preach!

LOL ROFL a family feud in the Imperial House!!

We're probably pulling out. I don't care what they windup calling it: "phased withdrawal" or whatever. You can just bank of this pull-out getting called a "victory" by the Bushies to save face.

[Adept Havelock]

We're probably pulling out. I don't care what they windup calling it: "phased withdrawal" or whatever. You can just bank of this pull-out getting called a "victory" by the Bushies to save face.

Unless they decide they can get more political milage out of calling it a "defeat" and blaming it on a party that was out of power for roughly 75% of the war. ;)

[Iowanian]

OK.

Does everyone advocating that, have the stomoch to sit back and watch those animals butcher each other for the next couple of years, while Iran and Syria exert their influences?

[Nightwish]

OK.

Does everyone advocating that, have the stomoch to sit back and watch those animals butcher each other for the next couple of years, while Iran and Syria exert their influences?
It's what they've done for thousands of years. The Muslims started their own history of bloody infighting. The only ones who will end it will be them.

[Logical]

OK.

Does everyone advocating that, have the stomoch to sit back and watch those animals butcher each other for the next couple of years, while Iran and Syria exert their influences?

I prefer that to seeing our troops needlessly butchered for no gain for our country. Top that off with wasting 300 billion a year for no gain and you have a real lose = lose.

[Logical]

I see Bushie Jr is pouting, behind Daddy on the cover of Newsweek!
Meanwhile, the Georgie-the-petulant is throwing a temper tantrum by launching his own investigation while the Baker group gets underway. I hear he isn't crazy about Papa's intervention. Papa don't preach!

LOL ROFL a family feud in the Imperial House!!

We're probably pulling out. I don't care what they windup calling it: "phased withdrawal" or whatever. You can just bank of this pull-out getting called a "victory" by the Bushies to save face.

If they can find a way to call it a victory and have it stick while withdrawing then I say go for it.

[BucEyedPea]

OK.

Does everyone advocating that, have the stomoch to sit back and watch those animals butcher each other for the next couple of years, while Iran and Syria exert their influences?

I'm reading that we don't have enough cards to determine what Iran and Syria do, and that they can make it easier for us to leave or more difficult.

[patteeu]

It could be the Generals still serving are also considering their own personal ambitions when it comes to this issue, as they are the ones with military careers on the line if they disagree with their superiors. :shrug:

That's what this means:

or the generals still on the job for that matter

[patteeu]

His sources don't want to be identified because they want to keep their jobs. Kind of like Deepthroat. Even though you couldn't prove who he was, his info was real, so to a certain extent, you have to trust the journalist. I have a hard time believing he would just invent this stuff out of thin air, but anything is possible. I have an even harder time believing that the DoD's site is going to post anything critical of itself.
As to why I'm a bit skeptical of the Franks quotes you cited, here's a tidbit from the article:

"Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who “will do what he’s told.” A former intelligence official asked, “Why didn’t he go to the President?” A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”

Again, I know Hersh is a questionable source to cite. I just thought it would balance well with your citation of the DoD's own website :p

If these guys weren't prepared to lay their stars on the table (or in the case of your Hersch article, even their identities), then it's on them. To his credit, General Franks, in his own, attributed words, takes responsibility for the force size in the final plan.

Before I checked up on it, you and Nightwish were running with the story that Rumsfeld dictated the changes from 500k down to 140k as if it were established fact. Now we see that not only is that story in doubt, but we have the most senior of the military planners declaring that he made those decisions and explicitly denying that Rumsfeld forced it on him. That's considerably more powerful, IMO, than another one of Seymour Hersch's sensational "exposes." At the very least, I think it's appropriate to stop acting like it's an established fact that Rumsfeld chose to go to war with too few troops against the advice of the uniformed military.

[go bowe]

bush is da debil...

[Nightwish]

At the very least, I think it's appropriate to stop acting like it's an established fact that Rumsfeld chose to go to war with too few troops against the advice of the uniformed military.
Is it more appropriate to act as if the story that is, to you, "in doubt," is in fact a lie, and that the argument that Rumsfeld never ignored any of the recommendations of his generals is an established fact? Perhaps that's not the position you've taken, but you sure give the impression that you have.

[patteeu]

Is it more appropriate to act as if the story that is, to you, "in doubt," is in fact a lie, and that the argument that Rumsfeld never ignored any of the recommendations of his generals is an established fact? Perhaps that's not the position you've taken, but you sure give the impression that you have.

I think it's likely that a number of different opinions were expressed during the planning for the war and that those options were evaluated and a decision was made that couldn't possibly have made everyone happy.

Personally, I'm OK with civilian leadership evaluating recommendations from the uniformed military and making a decision. That's the way our system is supposed to work. I don't think generals should be controlled by the opinions of colonels and I don't think SecDefs should be controlled by the opinions of generals.

My posts on this subject are to highlight a group of people who have rested their case against Rumsfeld on the notion that he defied advice that should have alerted him to what is now happening in Iraq. It's a lot easier to go back after the fact and cherry pick such prescient advice than it is to anticipate it when the advice is given. Right now, the generals are giving public advice in their recent testimony to Congress and these same people now want to ignore that advice. IOW, they want to do exactly the same thing they criticized Rumsfeld for allegedly doing.

[patteeu]

bush is da debil...

Are you going to decorate a tree for Cheneymas this year? :)

[Nightwish]

I think it's likely that a number of different opinions were expressed during the planning for the war and that those options were evaluated and a decision was made that couldn't possibly have made everyone happy.

Personally, I'm OK with civilian leadership evaluating recommendations from the uniformed military and making a decision. That's the way our system is supposed to work. I don't think generals should be controlled by the opinions of colonels and I don't think SecDefs should be controlled by the opinions of generals.

My posts on this subject are to highlight a group of people who have rested their case against Rumsfeld on the notion that he defied advice that should have alerted him to what is now happening in Iraq. It's a lot easier to go back after the fact and cherry pick such prescient advice than it is to anticipate it when the advice is given. Right now, the generals are giving public advice in their recent testimony to Congress and these same people now want to ignore that advice. IOW, they want to do exactly the same thing they criticized Rumsfeld for allegedly doing.
Maybe they are cherry-picking which generals they want to listen to and which they want to ignore. Fine. The record has shown, however, that the one's they are choosing to listen to are the ones who were right all along. And, no, it wouldn't have been hard to anticipate the problems that Rumsfeld was warned about early on. One only has to look at the rich and bloody history of the Sunnis and Shiites to anticipate there was going to be a major problem to deal with in the aftermath of toppling Saddam. Rumsfeld chose to ignore those people, to ignore that history, and I'm sorry, but he's not going to get a pass on that. That was just sheer, single-minded, agenda-driven stupidity.

[patteeu]

Maybe they are cherry-picking which generals they want to listen to and which they want to ignore. Fine. The record has shown, however, that the one's they are choosing to listen to are the ones who were right all along. And, no, it wouldn't have been hard to anticipate the problems that Rumsfeld was warned about early on. One only has to look at the rich and bloody history of the Sunnis and Shiites to anticipate there was going to be a major problem to deal with in the aftermath of toppling Saddam. Rumsfeld chose to ignore those people, to ignore that history, and I'm sorry, but he's not going to get a pass on that. That was just sheer, single-minded, agenda-driven stupidity.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your ongoing monday morning quarterbacking. I don't have a Seymour Hersch article to quote, but I'm confident that there were generals within the Pentagon who thought we would need a massive force to take down the Taliban and some who thought it was folly to have a land war in Afghanistan (where they have a rich and bloody history of repelling invaders) regardless of the force size, but we don't hear about those guys now. No need to wonder why.

And again, according to Rumsfeld's top commander, Rumsfeld chose to listen to his top commander.

[Nightwish]

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your ongoing monday morning quarterbacking.That's your problem. The record has shown we were right, whether you like it or not. And it's only monday morning quarterbacking if I had only started saying these things after the fact. I've been saying these things from the beginning, as you well know, and I've been right.

[patteeu]

That's your problem. The record has shown we were right, whether you like it or not. And it's only monday morning quarterbacking if I had only started saying these things after the fact. I've been saying these things from the beginning, as you well know, and I've been right.

I realize that we know each other from another board, but you joined this board in Nov 2005 and I joined that other board in Nov 2004, so I have no idea what you've been saying "from the beginning."

But the real issue regarding Rumsfeld isn't whether or not he followed the advice that turned out to be right (and I still reject that "your" side has been proven to be right), it's whether or not the criticism of him for not following the advice of his generals is valid and the strongest evidence available says it is not.

[Nightwish]

I realize that we know each other from another board, but you joined this board in Nov 2005 and I joined that other board in Nov 2004, so I have no idea what you've been saying "from the beginning."

But the real issue regarding Rumsfeld isn't whether or not he followed the advice that turned out to be right (and I still reject that "your" side has been proven to be right), it's whether or not the criticism of him for not following the advice of his generals is valid and the strongest evidence available says it is not.
The evidence that he may have listened to at least one general, a general who ended up being wrong, is a far cry from "the strongest evidence available."

[patteeu]

The evidence that he may have listened to at least one general, a general who ended up being wrong, is a far cry from "the strongest evidence available."

Personal testimony about one's own actions and against one's own self interest is one of the strongest types of evidence. It sure beats anonymous testimony related through a biased third party.

[Nightwish]

Personal testimony about one's own actions and against one's own self interest is one of the strongest types of evidence.
Except that the question is whether or not Rumsfeld was warned that more troops would be needed (he was), and that a plan for dealing with an insurgency in the aftermath would be needed (he was), and whether or not he ignored those warnings. General Franks' personal testimony that he did not himself request more troops offers no evidence against those allegations regarding Rumsfeld. It only serves as evidence that one specific general didn't request or warn that more troops would be needed. He spoke for nobody but himself, so your "strong evidence" is evidence of zilch.

[patteeu]

Except that the question is whether or not Rumsfeld was warned that more troops would be needed (he was), and that a plan for dealing with an insurgency in the aftermath would be needed (he was), and whether or not he ignored those warnings. General Franks' personal testimony that he did not himself request more troops offers no evidence against those allegations regarding Rumsfeld. It only serves as evidence that one specific general didn't request or warn that more troops would be needed. He spoke for nobody but himself, so your "strong evidence" is evidence of zilch.

Rumsfeld should, in the end, be judged on the basis of results, period. Whether or not some flunky involved in planning predicted this or that isn't really relevant as I'm sure that there were predictions that covered a wide range of possible outcomes. Even though you probably won't let yourself believe such a thing, I guarantee you that there were people at the Pentagon who predicted difficulty in the Afghanistan campaign, but since that didn't come to pass, no one is tooting their own horn over those predictions.

In fact, you need to read that Seymour Hersch article that noa949 posted. It turns out that that article is NOT about anonymous war planners who warned that the force size was too small to handle the post-combat occupation. It's about anonymous war planners who were complaining that the force size was too small to accomplish the invasion. It's all about how US forces were, at the time of the article, stuck with supply lines that were supposedly on the verge of collapse and how there weren't enough troops and working equipment to effect more than a stalemate if we were lucky. This is a mere 5 weeks before President Bush declared the end to major combat operations on that aircraft carrier after an extremely successful invasion.

These brilliant prognosticators that you and noa949 are hanging your hats on WERE WRONG. Rumsfeld and Franks WERE RIGHT and they proved it.

So get over yourself and cut out the hindsight-enabled revisionism. I don't care if some of these guys thought we needed more troops for post-combat, they lost their credibility in the combat phase of the war.

[Nightwish]

Rumsfeld should, in the end, be judged on the basis of results, period.
He has been. That's why he's out.

Whether or not some flunky involved in planning predicted this or that isn't really relevant as I'm sure that there were predictions that covered a wide range of possible outcomes.
From the patteeu dictionary:

Top Generals - generals who Rumsfeld chose to listen to.
Flunkies - generals who Rumsfeld chose not to listen to.

Even though you probably won't let yourself believe such a thing, I guarantee you that there were people at the Pentagon who predicted difficulty in the Afghanistan campaign, but since that didn't come to pass, no one is tooting their own horn over those predictions.
I don't give two shits about Afghanistan. Why are you wasting your time bringing that up?

In fact, you need to read that Seymour Hersch article that noa949 posted.
I also don't give two shits about the Seymour Hersch article. You must have me confused with noa949.

It turns out that that article is NOT about anonymous war planners who warned that the force size was too small to handle the post-combat occupation. It's about anonymous war planners who were complaining that the force size was too small to accomplish the invasion.
Turns out I didn't say anything about that article, nor use it as proof that a difficult occupation was predicted. Again, you're confusing me with noa949. He's the guy with the gametime still shot, I'm the guy with the dancing leprechaun.

It's all about how US forces were, at the time of the article, stuck with supply lines that were supposedly on the verge of collapse and how there weren't enough troops and working equipment to effect more than a stalemate if we were lucky. This is a mere 5 weeks before President Bush declared the end to major combat operations on that aircraft carrier after an extremely successful invasion.
Why are you arguing with me about his article? I haven't said a word about it.

These brilliant prognosticators that you and noa949 are hanging your hats on WERE WRONG. Rumsfeld and Franks WERE RIGHT and they proved it.
I don't speak for noa949, but the prognosticators I hang my hat on were right. Many people, from bloggers, to politicians, to military commanders, to journalists predicted that we didn't have enough troops to handle a post-Saddam aftermath, that we would be in for a long occupation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al guaranteed us would not happen, that deposing Saddam would open the floodgates for Al Qaeda to become active in Iraq, and that there would be a very real chance of civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. We were absolutely right on all counts. Those of you who naysaid all that were wrong. Deal with it.

So get over yourself and cut out the hindsight-enabled revisionism.
One of us needs to get over himself. It isn't me. I know you feel cornered because everybody around you is abandoning a ship that for some reason you're still too blind to realize is sinking, but really, you need to get over it, move on, man up and admit your side gave up the ghost.

I don't care if some of these guys thought we needed more troops for post-combat, they lost their credibility in the combat phase of the war.
Yeah, they lost credibility so much that it cost the anti-war side control of Congress. Oh, wait ...

[patteeu]

He has been. That's why he's out.

Rumsfeld will be judged by history on the basis of results. I'm confident that history will be kind to him.

I don't speak for noa949, but the prognosticators I hang my hat on were right. Many people, from bloggers, to politicians, to military commanders, to journalists predicted that we didn't have enough troops to handle a post-Saddam aftermath, that we would be in for a long occupation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al guaranteed us would not happen, that deposing Saddam would open the floodgates for Al Qaeda to become active in Iraq, and that there would be a very real chance of civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. We were absolutely right on all counts. Those of you who naysaid all that were wrong. Deal with it.

Pretty pathetic, Nightwish. :shake:

If you weren't piggy backing on noa949's argument and his backup then you did a shitty job of making that clear. But whatever. Link me to the guys who you do hang your hat on or STFU Don't tell me about journalists and bloggers and politicians though because only an idiot would think that our SecDef should be taking his advice from those quarters.

[Nightwish]

Rumsfeld will be judged by history on the basis of results. I'm confident that history will be kind to him.
He's already been judged on the basis of results. That's why he's out. History will judge his successor on the results from here on out.

If you weren't piggy backing on noa949's argument and his backup then you did a shitty job of making that clear.
I have spoken all along about the aftermath and the occupation. I have never said a thing about the troop strength for the invasion. And I didn't cite any sources. I don't feel I need to, as the predictions and warnings I've been referring to all along are well-known, and I already know you know about them. The only link between my argument and noa's is the specific allegation that it was Franks who requested 500,000 troops. I was wrong in that specific regard, but that error isn't terribly important, as it wasn't particularly germaine to my arguement. You're following two different arguments, and confusing them. That's nobody's fault but your own. I don't blame you, I've done it myself several times. It gets hard to keep up with every sidebar on here.

Don't tell me about journalists and bloggers and politicians though because only an idiot would think that our SecDef should be taking his advice from those quarters.
Nobody said he had to listen to those people. I said that we have been saying those things all along, and we've been right. And you know it.

[patteeu]

He's already been judged on the basis of results. That's why he's out. History will judge his successor on the results from here on out.

Your snap judgement will be revised by history. Deal with it, sport.

I have spoken all along about the aftermath and the occupation. I have never said a thing about the troop strength for the invasion. And I didn't cite any sources. I don't feel I need to, as the predictions and warnings I've been referring to all along are well-known, and I already know you know about them. The only link between my argument and noa's is the specific allegation that it was Franks who requested 500,000 troops. I was wrong in that specific regard, but that error isn't terribly important, as it wasn't particularly germaine to my arguement. You're following two different arguments, and confusing them. That's nobody's fault but your own. I don't blame you, I've done it myself several times. It gets hard to keep up with every sidebar on here.

Posts 31, 49, and 69 are links between you and the argument that noa and I were having. If you didn't want to be lumped in with noa's argument you shouldn't have elected to jump into it. I accept the fact that you now try to distance yourself from that argument as an admission that I've proven my case.

Nobody said he had to listen to those people. I said that we have been saying those things all along, and we've been right. And you know it.

The discussion that you involved yourself in (see posts 31, 49, and 69) was specifically about whether or not Rumsfeld had ignored advice from his military specialists that he should have respected. That doesn't include advice from journalists, bloggers, politicians, or ChiefsPlanet posters.