1 Bush is an idiot who thought his good intentions and faith would see him through, and now I hear on the radio he's saying that we're sending over TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to Lebanon. I guess we're trying to win the hearts and minds of the hezzies. We don't need to impeach Bush; we need to impeach the whole damn government.

2 Rusty

Myself and many others in the mil (well, at least rank & file in my unit and with those I know), have been down on him since the start of the war. I would have liked to have seen him fired several years ago - but tempered my complaints due to the obvious - BDS. Didn't want to give others jack when they started calling for anybody's resignation just to give them some kind of "victory" in the War On Bush.

This may have been a mistake.

I'll be interested in what some here's complaints are about him - doubt highly many would pick up on or even correctly identify the military blunders he had a hand in.

3 It may help all to stay focused on what you perceive as mistakes - and ignore the on rush of BDS'ers and the like that will probably jump on this topic with glee just as an overall arc attack on the admin & conservatives in general.

I personally will not respond to and ignore any lib/left that jumps into this - try keeping the dialogue between ourselves. I know - for some its tough - since you seem to enjoy the fight/argument more than victory itself.

4 H,

I kept my mouth shut for far too long, as well.  Rumsfeld has some great ideas--especially about tranforming the military--and I also love his candidness.  At what point, though, did the Right adopt nation-building as a worthy goal? 

5 Incredibly, I find myself agreeing with Impy.

Wouldn't it be great to clean house of both Dems and Repubs? Imagine a 70% turn out in the next couple of elections, sweeping out the old and bringing in the new (people who actually have the American people's interest at heart).

I still believe we can restore this nation to greatness, but greatness isn't measured just by military might. It is measured by the degree that there is a consensus and justice. If Impy and I, who seem to come from opposite extremes, can agree on this, it means there is hope.

As to Lieberman, this is a tight rope act. He wants to placate the Libs while still remaining Hawkishishly pro-Israel. He is going to lose the election because people realize that he is Israel's proxy senator. I hope Hillary gets the same treatment.

6 See what I mean - this is a fringe field day topic.

7 It's all well and good to get say to rid of Rumsfeld, but a part of that viewpoint should be saying who should replace him. I haven't heard that (maybe it's out there and I just haven't come across it) mentioned. Is there anyone, political or military who can take over and really straighten out Iraq?

8 No, Graeme.
It's a lost cause, but we can still save America.

9 Graeme

Don't know - do know we should not discuss who to replace till we discuss the specifics of why to replace.

What his "errors" are couldn't be carried out without some kind of small group consenus within the admin, govt, and Pentagon.

just changing faces in not the solution. ID the problems.

10 I agree hondo, that changing faces is not the solution, but that seems to be what the emphasis is always on. I believe that the debate about getting rid of Rumsfeld (at least in political circles) is just a means of avoiding the real problem which is what can be done about Iraq or what will be the ultimate cost if the coalition were to withdraw soon. What the answers are, I don't know.

11 Graeme, good point.  Maybe Custer reincarnated?????

12 I've got things to do at my mom's house - DMV - n' see my VA lady (again) .... I'll be gone for hours.

I'm interested on where this topic will go - particularly reference "why".

I hate rummy - kept it to myself - but I'm ready to explode - but on specifics - if I don't here those specifics ID'd while I'm gone - then clearly one of the big problems is here among the loyal following.

13 Rusty, my choice would be a Curtis LeMay clone.

14 Graeme

No choices without ID'ing specific reasons and problems first - this isn't "American Idol".

15 Hondo - You are right. My frustration has also been that the complaints and criticisms of the left have been so far off the mark, yet so loud and deranged, that any public discussion criticizing the Iraq war seem to automatically veer off in their direction.

The vocal left is not capable of IDing the problems, or proposing a solution. Worse still, they have stifled public debate from those who might have something valuable to say.

Our public discussion has focused on our loss of civil rights, whether or not we are in Iraq for oil, the absurd BushHitler meme. Chickenhawks, etc.


Bush needs a marketing campaign to introduce new talking points. He could promote a contest, with a prize, soliciting ideas for reducing dependency on Saudi oil, to promote the idea that we should not be dependent on the Saudis. To promote the idea that it's not really about the the price of oil, but the price of being in bed with a country that spends billions of dollars to promote the Wahhabi brand of Jihad overseas.

This is the tip of the iceberg but at least it might jump start some public discussion regarding the enormity of the threat we face.

I have no specifics on Iraq, except that I think we need to win and we should do it now.

16 This is a hard question, mainly because one really doesn't know what would work given the situation on the ground in Iraq. Many on the Left like to point out Afghanistan as a standard of what went right, but we are seeing a general falling away of security in that area as well. Bottom line, and this is only my opinion, we brought too little, too late, without any real intention of doing maximum damage to the Iraqi resistance. In effect, we were a victim of our own success, and did not have ample time to kill and identify the opposition. Of course, this policy falls in line with the thinking that has given us such silly ideas as proportionality in a conflict rather than inflicting massive harm on our enemies. Personally, I don't think anyone could do any better given the constraints our military is operating under, vis a vie the EU and the UN. Both entities wish for our destruction.

17 Rusty,

You got it half right.

We did win the war with Iraq. Rumsfeld’s transformation of the military and his confidence in the training and advanced technology of our troops allowed us to defeat the 4th largest army in the world in three short weeks. This was done over the objections of old world generals who thought the only way to fight was with 500,000 men.

What you are missing is the goal Bush and Rumsfeld are trying to obtain in Iraq. The objective was not to replace a tyrannical dictator with a benevolent dictator (or puppet government) that would only be overthrown at some point in the future. Iraq has a large middle class of educated people, enormous potential wealth from oil and years of experience living in a secular (albeit forced) society.

Rumsfeld said it best when, during the initial looting following the fall of Baghdad, he opined “sometimes a little chaos is a good thing”. A true democracy can only come through the Iraqi people realizing that it’s up to them, that they must be the ones to take ownership of their society before security can be achieved. No imposed order will bring the type of social change that will make this war worthwhile.

The U.S. will be in Iraq for a minimum of 50 years at the insistence of the Iraqi government and people. Our presence will be demanded for strategic protection against Iraq’s neighbors. Bush will sign a treaty and base lease arrangement that will guarantee our presence prior to leaving office in ’08.

If the goal had been to conquer Iraq, dominate the population and steal its natural resources, the position of the liberals, press and now you would be right - more troops to impose order and a puppet government to do our bidding. But, if you buy into the need to change the dynamics in the Middle East, the only way to proceed is to let the process play out in Iraq. The Iraqi people will eventually grow tired of the violence and act to establish a true democracy.

18 JWest,

I understand that goal, but is it attainable? Three contradictory goals a) secular b) unified c) democratic.  You can have two of those, but not all three.

19 Agreed Hondo. I'm just a LeMay fan. JJ, you mention bringing too little, too late. I don't think that more boots on the ground would have made much difference. Probably the biggest problem in Iraq is the way the population thinks - the whole islamic sharia, tribal thing. More soldiers would have been able to break the resistance down until order was mostly restored, however I doubt that would last long once the coalition was gone. As long as there is foreign influence, radical clerics and tribal divisons, chaos would erupt again. It's a hell of a thing.

20 Yes, Graeme, Islam is a hell of an evil thing, long kept in its box, but now it has escaped its confines and has huge wealth to finance its metamorphosis. It is doubtful anything will placate these people, and as for Western style democracy, it is very likely unattainable. Islam has always fed and thrived on conquest and conflict, so it is not likely the World will be left alone by this new breed of Islamists, as recent events have demonstrated. I know this, however, weakness on the part of the US and the West will be exploited, and will force a much larger conflagration when things come to a head, as they inevitably will. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

21 My disillusionment with Bush has nothing to do with idiotic conspiracy theories about oil and JOOOOooozzz, (sorry greg), but rather with his complete lack of touch with reality, and his refusal to accept the fact that Liberty is not universally valued among people, and that some, like muslims and liberals, prefer stable tyranny to uncertain freedom. He refuses to name the enemy, or do anything about them, and only acts against the most inconsequential of their elements. He resists every effort to secure our borders, calls patriots vigilantes, and generally doesn't seem to really care about the fact that our country and society is going to hell in a handbasket.
We the People are soon going to be faced with the choice of fighting muslims and others in our own neighborhoods or fleeing to the hinterlands, and if we choose to fight, you can bet that Bush or his successor, whether Republican or Democrat, will send in the Gestapo to make sure we don't offend any muslims while we fight them for our survivial. We're under attack from every quarter by various enemies, but Bush and the Republicans don't care or are paralyzed by fear and ineptitude, and the Democrats seem to be betting against us, and making themselves a place with our enemies by opposing all efforts - weak and ineffectual as they are - that Bush actually does make. They in government who are not inept are traitors and cowards.
The War on Drugs puts hundreds of thousands of Americans in jail each year, yet the Mexican Army regularly sends armed incursions across our border in order to secure drug shipments, and the government does nothing. Thousands of foreign nationals, in what can only be termed an invasion, cross our borders every day, threatening the property and liberty of Americans, and the government does nothing. The War on Terror ensures that granny gets the third degree at the airport, but muslims can freely and openly preach war against us in our own country, and the government does nothing.
I don't want to see our neighborhoods turn into free-fire zones, but the idiots who run our government are ensuring that they will, by doing everything they can to ensure that our enemies' efforts are not impeded in the least way. Our enemies openly state their goals and plans, yet the government continues to try "diplomacy", which is simply appeasement. The sooner al Qaeda gets a nuke and sets it off in the middle of DC, the sooner We the People can finally be totally free from the incompetence, corruption, and tyranny of the Federal government.

22 The right adopted nation-building as a worthy goal when no other option except salting the fields presented itself.

I have yet to hear a workable and desirable outcome if we leave Iraq, other than civil war, which may not be such a bad thing. The problem with it is two-fold: the outcome of that war could be in doubt (how do you think the Sunnis ended up controlling Iraq in the first place?), not least because Turkey would intervene in the north and Iran would intervene in the east; and because it could just end up being a haven for terrorists (again).

I, too, wish we could just wash our hands of the whole mess. It's really starting to appear to me that the Muslim world is like a big Harris and Kleibold. It's got guns and access to the killing power of the grown-ups, but it's not even at the level of maturity of a 17-year-old. It believes retarded shit. It is gullible, has doubts about it's virility, is arrogant and lacks self-esteem at the same time, and is uncomfortable around women.

And it's sociopathic.

Nation building, it seems, is like trying to adopt an abused, angry teenager. In principle it knows you're trying to do good, but it will blame you for the past and the present without cause, and will cause you no end of misery.

Bush IS awful. No doubt about that. And I have every reason to agree with every complaint up here.

I do wish that things were going faster and better in Iraq. But let's keep our eyes on the goal. How long did it take for us to throw off the British and sign the papers at Appomattox? It can take a long time to work off the differences. Granted, they're fucking crazy out there, we've still got some waiting to do.

23 Rusty,

The goal is attainable, but only by maintaining the vision.

Democrats only want Rumsfeld’s resignation as a scalp to show weakness in the Bush administration. There is no alternative plan, no replacement offered, just the constant whining of liberal negativism that leads back to the failed appeasements of past.

Liberal’s worst nightmare would be success in Iraq, with the subsequent placement of Bush’s image on Mt. Rushmore (per Chris Mathews). They will sacrifice everything, including the safety and security of the U.S., to make sure that won’t happen.

It’s not hard for a small group of people to kill 100 civilians a day with bombs. Apparently, it’s not hard for our MSM to portray this killing as evidence that the entire country of Iraq is ready to sink into a full-fledged civil war. Different cultures do have different values placed on life and the ease of a totalitarian society does hold a certain appeal to people who are used to being ordered about. But if this experiment in nation building is not right for Iraq at this time, then where and when?

24 Liberal’s worst nightmare would be success in Iraq...

Well good news; there's no chance of that, especially what with over three years of undermining by liberals, our enemies abroad, and the Iraqis themselves. We cast our pearls before swine, and they turned to rend us. Muslims don't deserve freedom because they just use it to spread hatred and murder innocent people. The Iraqis deserved Saddam, and it was our mistake to remove him. Not only will Iraq never be friendly toward us, but now its riches will go almost exclusively toward the promotion of terrorism.

25 I have a suggestion, and it includes replacing Rumsfeld and what to do in Iraq, and it calls attention to why both should be done.
 
Our work in the cities is done. We need to pull out and reposition on the Syrian and Iranian borders. Let the Iraqis finish the infighting that is taking place. Eventually they will find the Baathist jackass who is driving the Sunni insurrection. Maybe they will even grow a pair and take down Muqtada al-Sadr. We belong on the borders and protecting the oil. Let the Iraqis save the Iraqis from Iraqis.

26 I fort the part where we should dump Rumsfeld. That is simple. There are better people than DR for the job. I suggest Newt Gingrich as a replacement. He can handle the libs with one hand, and finish the adjustments in Iraq with the other. But we need to get out of the line of fire between the Iraqis. Put us on the border, and we can end the re-supply tot he people doing the killing.

27 How can you kill the terrorists when they look just like everyone else?

Sun-Tzu knew, and so does a Grouse.

It brilliantly turns our greatest weakness (liberal media), into our greatest strength.

This method requires self-sacrifice, but that is the way of the light of the world.

28 Hey Doc! Iv'e been saying fire Rummy for 3 years. There were a # of Naval Flag Officers who said the Rummy plan would not work *before* the war! The most vociferous was an old exJarhead (with 4 (four) stars on his shoulders) named Zinni. His plan (drawn up in 00) called for a battleship and 4 cruisers supporting 2 (two) marine divisions!
Rummy did not want to commit to the manpower involved in what the Naval Officers said was the way to win the war (Rummy is a former Naval Reserve officer; who never saw real war). Rummy relied on The failed( many time in the last 70 years the most recent being th Balkans 1997-1999) Hermann Goring strategy of "Shock and Awe". If failed in the Battle of Britain and it failed in "The War on Terror".

Grunts win wars. Backed up by Naval fire Power. Always have and always will. Even "Stasrship Troopers" (war in the 25th century) has the grunts (I forget the name Heinlein called them "Mobil Infintry"?) winning the war.

Since Non of Bush's top advisors had ever stuck a bayonette in anyone I chalked it up to lack of knowledge on warefare. But by 05 It was obvious were were not winning. Had Bush really wanted to win the war he would have fired Rummy then. In retrospect it seems that Bush has callously used the war to win 2 sets of elections (02 + 04) I Think his "Read my lips......" approach is becoming all to obvious to too many Americans to produce the wins in 06 it did earlier. I hope it does not produce a massive defeat.

29 Victor Davis Hanson likes Rummy, and that's good enough for me. In retrospect, our SecDefs made horrendous errors in WWII, Korea, and everywhere we've gone.

Rummy inherited a Clinton-hobbled military and allowed State to become even more appeasement-hallucinating than ever before. If Clinton hadn't allowed Islam to become nuclear in Pakistan, the last 5 years would have been VERY different.

Our biggest problems are our diplomatic corps and our calling this a War on Terror and not a War to Kill all Who Dream of Dhimmification. And I'd fault Bush a couple of orders of magnitude more than Rummy for each time W's called Saudi "our friends" or "our eternal friends". Each time he does that it sets back progress by years.

We aren't making the rhetorical case for this war in the necessary Churchillian terms, and that's not Rummy's fault.

Yeah... the Saudi-pensioned State Department knows where the Bush family skeletons are hidden and they are NOT going to risk messing with their gravy train.

30 My cryptic statement abouve is all the defense I will offer, but Rumsfeld is a genius.  Stay the course.

31 I'm losing faith in many things these days, but I still trust my SocomII, so its off to the rifle range for me. I leave it for the rest of you to solve these problems in my absence.

32 Bullshit Rusty, bullshit. We won the first one because we kicked their ass and LEFT. This time we kicked their and STAYED.

Seemonks suggestion may hold water. Makes sense to me. I'm not bothered by how many Iraqis die in their quest for democracy.

33 Rummy & his crew should have been fired years ago - I know it (AND WHY) - can tell Rod Stanton knows it (AND WHY) - probably a handful of others as well. But the rest of you really don't have a clue as to what went wrong, why, and continues so.

Said it coming out the gate above - there is a great deal of ignorance on all parts - not exempting even the loyal following. Ignorance loses - ignorance gets people killed.

34 Who needs an alternate replacement before critizing? 2 or 3 empty chairs would be better than what we have now! And "  Rumsfeld has some great ideas--especially about tranforming the military-- " Heh! Well, if Rummy can transform the military he might start by doing a head count to find out how many generals are in it. Let's see 2, 3, 4, I don't know 5,000 generals? Last but not least my day has finally come. Only months ago I was slammed one side of this blog to the other for being a " Bush-whacker ". It is refreshing to see you people finally waking up and coming around! 66%  ( gloat, gloat )

35 Speaking of ingnorance ...

36 speelled it wrng - to give the lib/left a lil' sumthin' to taste.

37 I am not bashing on anyone. The fact I can see that when you get down to the nitty gritty, cutting bait is not necessarily the only way to go. You got two fighters, get out of their way. They are still going to go after each other. No need to take any unnecessary punishment. Especially when each fighter has men in the govt which we are propping up.
 
There is no civil war. al-Sadr and al-Tikriti are slugging in out in a power grab. Instraed of pretending we don't know what is happening, why don't we just pretend and get the hell out of the firing line.
 
Then when one side wins, we jump on the winner while weak, and crush them into the freaking dirt!

38 After we won Afghanistan in record time, Rumsfeld was hoping for the same in Iraq. Who didn't? But even I worried when we won so quickly. The regime didn't fight--they disappeared into the bush. Why wasn't Rumsfeld worried? He wanted to believe the magic was happening again, and he never recovered.

Since then he and Bush have been playing the political game just like LBJ, trying to win with low casualties and without offending Iraqi leaders--Sistani is playing him for a fool--and neither winning nor pleasing anyone. Fallujah devastated our image, and Muqtada should have been jailed years ago--now he is an Iranian-backed threat and will soon, IMO, stage a coup in the south.

Now we are back to paying tribute, this time to Hezbollah. We need someone with the guts to end it, like we did in the Barbary Wars. This is death by a thousand cuts.

39 Yes! Pat has dropped the gauntlet! Who has the balls to take the Mameluke sword from the hand of your enemy?

40 Bashing Rummy is the last refuge of the cowardly complicit and complacent, when the real deal is impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

41 Bashing Rummy is the last refuge of the cowardly complicit and complacent, when the real deal is impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

42 Rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub. One's incomptetence is only exceeded by the next.

43 Waste of a potentially good topic.