There are few things that faux liberal sophisticates are more excited by than academicish journal articles that purport to draw subtle distinctions that the other side is just too dumb to get. Clinton has a rambling tract [warning: PDF]……

I’m specifically saying that war-fighting is NOT a perfect science. That mistakes get made. I listed a whole bunch of them made during WWII that cost thousands of American lives. And I made the point of noting that in this war, our losses have not been that great, despite these mistakes. The implication ought to be obvious to all but the oblivious: WE HAVEN’T MADE THAT MANY MISTAKES! And Rumsfeld deserves some of the credit, as well as some of the blame.

It took more than a year for an “uprated” Sherman tank to be deployed to Europe, in enough numbers, with a gun big enough to defeat the armor of the German tanks. And that was with (as you correctly note), the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL MIGHT OF AMERICA involved.

Such an effort simply is not economically feasable now. That’s why it didn’t happen. It takes too long to design, build and deploy new armaments. Nevermind the institutionalized competing program back-stabbing that has been endemic in the Pentagon since 1952.

Rumsfeld was right when he told the troops that modern wars are “come as you are.” He spoke it in language that the troops understood, despite the fact that the trooper involved was a media plant. It’s logistics and existing equipment that wins wars in the 21st Century.

He is not, nor should be, the scapegoat in this war. There is enough blame to go around. And if anybody must be singled out, I’d nominate Saddam Hussein, because if he wasn’t in power killing Kurds and Shiites and Iranians and Kuwaitis, and trying to make nukes (Osirak) and chemical weapons, WE WOULD NOT HAVE INVADED in the first place.

Trend? Nah. I guess it’s only a story for conservative outlets like CNS News. The MSM wants the war officially won before they’ll lower themselves to reporting on it at all. The casualty count from Iraq continues to decline for……

If I was Secretary of Defense, I would have put these new bomb resistant trucks in the spotlight FROM THE FIRST TIME A SOLDIER WAS KILLED in a roadside bomb. Again, the surge in troops (which seems to have been successful so far) could have only been done AFTER Rumsfeld was gone.

not enough troops, not enough armor. . . those are two things the secretary of defense should be shouting from the rooftops. Sure, blame everyone. Make sure not to blame the guy whose departure led directly to our success.

Rah Rah Rummy. . . doing a heckuva job. . . it’s too bad he didn’t stay around til the end of the term isn’t it?

ThackerAgency on October 15, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Um, you do know that CONGRESS decides Force SIZE, Structure, and armament?

Sec Def can ask… through the Administration… but he can’t appropriate money or change the size of the Armed Forces.

Key here was that I don’t think Bush thought he needed it enough to spend political capital on actualy increasing the size of the armed forces, until OTHERS outside the administration called for it.

Other part of the problem is that the Army is a combat entity… built for the feild of battle… not for occupation and Nation Building.

The other branches of the government have NOT stepped up to do their parts… The ARMY should not be training police… the ARMY should not be running power plants… the ARMY should IS not in charge of helping the Iraq government formulate (shoudl be state… but Condi seems to be too busy trying to surrender Palestine…)…

I think Rummy did the best he could with what he was given… just wasn’t enough.

There has NEVER been a General in history who did not want more troops at the point of attack… but in our system its the CONGRESS who decides how many we’ve got.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

I’d give him the benefit of the doubt if when he was over there and the soldiers asked him for Armored Vehicles he said, ‘we’ll get you what you need’. He didn’t. He condescendingly said ‘we go to war with the army we have, not the army we want’.

Durning WWI and WWII ALL PRODUCTION went into building ships, planes, tanks, trucks. We built planes trucks and tanks faster than the germans or Japanese could blow them up. We were a machine. No civilian cars were made because everything went to the war effort. WWI, and WWII was not focused on ‘going to war with the army you have’.

HE decided to send troops into harms way without the equipment that they needed. HE didn’t see any need or urgency to get the trucks they need (which the Pentagon has now ordered 20,000). HE decided that we didn’t need more troops. HE would not have gone out in those unprotected vehicles. If he did, I’d have had more respect for him.

AFTER he left, things started getting better. Can we say that? Can we infer anything from that? Or do you want to give credit to the Democratic congress for the new found success?

His negligence got lots of soldiers killed unnecessarily.

We must be careful to not turn him into a scapegoat, even though Bush offered him up as one (and he manfully accepted the role).

Wars evolve. What wins wars is analogous to making bread. It isn’t ready to bake until the yeast has risen. It isn’t ready to eat until it’s cooled down a bit after baking.

Wars are fought the same way.

We look back at WWII as the inevitable march towards victory, that was somehow preordained on December 8, 1941. But it wasn’t (1) easy, or (2) inevitable.

Japan and Germany made mistakes and so did we. Think how things would have gone if Yamamoto personally led the attack on Pearl Harbor (the subject of Gingrich/Forschen’s new book, Pearl Harbor) instead of remaining back in Japan.

If you look at the horrific KIA/WIA battle toll from WWII, you have to wonder how and why America tolerated it. Thousands of men died, were wounded, or were captured at Arnheim. It was a huge intelligence clusterf*ck of massive proportions. So was the Battle of the Bulge where the American dead were numbered in the tens of thousands. Nobody expected Iwo Jima to be so bloody, and Okinawa was hell on earth.

Yet, even generals and admirals learn on the job. Halsey learned the hard way at Leyte when he disobeyed orders to chase a phantom. Bradley the hard way learned when he left the Ardennes undermanned. Yet both Bradley and Halsey retained their jobs.

And that’s my point.

The war in Iraq was just like every other war: Filled with friction, clouded by a fog, and with the actors stumbling over their lines and stage props on their journey to Act 5.

We fought an EXCELLENT WAR, and Rumsfeld was a major architect of it. We advanced 3 times faster than Patton ever did. We conquered TWO SEPARATE NATIONS, each nearly 26 million in population, in a total of 6 weeks combat time. We accomplished all this at a casualty rate of about *ONE PERCENT* of that of WWII. That was absolutely incredible!

And even now, after 4 years of war in Iraq, 5 in Afghanistan, our total KIA count is less than the losses incured at Normandy, on only 1 day, D-Day.

When we took Baghdad, we faced 10 divisions with 3+. The “conventional wisdom” from the siege of Troy through Vietnam was that you always needed 3 or more times the defender’s strength to successfully attack a defended place. We did it with the odds REVERSED, 1 to 3.

Rumsfeld REVERSED the decline perpetrated by the Clintons. He initiated new doctrine, even new tactics. Don’t forget that Petraeus had already served in Iraq with Rumsfeld as SECDEF. So, the architect of the surge was, no doubt, immersed on HIS own learning curve with Rumsfeld at the helm.

Yes, there is reason to criticise Rumsfeld, Bremer, Bush, and Powell. And even Petraeus as well as Sanchez and all the rest of the generals. Nobody is perfect (especially when fighting a war), and everybody makes mistakes. And we made many, that’s for sure.

We could have lost WWII. But we didn’t. We could have lost Afghanistan and Iraq, but we won’t.

Whatever blame you apportion out to Rumsfeld, please remember to accord him the credit due him.

That’s all I have to say.

Texas Nick 77 on October 15, 2007 at 5:50 AM

Scary. I was thinking the same thing. Or possibly that they might be laying low until they have enough assets in place to launch a full-on “surge” of their own just before the election, to ensure a win for the Hildebeast.

I was never in the military (flunked the eyesight requirement on every service’s physical), but in law enforcement, I learned a lot about street gangs. And one of the very first things I learned was that when the local gangs get quiet and “go bush”, it’s because they’re getting ready to go on a tear.

And AQI operates a lot like a street gang.

cheers

eon

By the way sixty suicide bombings a month? Is that incredible to anyone else that they can find that many willing pawns to do this sort of thing?

If you want to know how things are really going in Iraq, read the multi national force website, especially the news release section. That’s an eye opener.

Rush said the war is over as a Dem. issue. They lost. And the MSM is now providing cover for Hillary to be “moderate” on Iraq. Don’t think the WaPo is beholden to the KosKids.

JiangxiDad on October 14, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Could be that AQI, Inc. are just laying off until after next year’s election. Reduce the violence and the MSM doesn’t report the news. The percieved lack of good news allows the dems to win. Then after “Madam President” takes office, a burst of violence will get her to pull the troops out. They get what they want, just by being patient and playing the MSM and dems like a finely tuned violin.

Should be interesting. I do not see how Shiite and Sunni willingly share. Good that the US is there to make them.

Yep I’m a 30%er too and have the bruises to prove it!

Texas Gal on October 14, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Bruises are nothing compared to what our heroes have to endure. This soldier (Channing Moss)had a live grenade(rpg)in him.
God Bless these heroes.