Sunday, December 19, 2004

Source of Criticism of Rumsfeld Becoming Clear

When people complain that Rumsfeld isn't listening to "senior officers", replace "senior officers" with "senators". It's all about ego. From Bob Novak's latest column:
An embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cannot expect support from Sen. John Warner, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who normally supports the Bush administration on military matters.

"I've had it with him," Warner told a Senate colleague recently, referring to Rumsfeld. The 77-year-old Warner, a five-term senator and former secretary of the Navy who is a veteran of both the Navy and Marine Corps, complained about Rumsfeld's neglect of senators during a Senate Republican caucus two years ago. Nothing has changed since then, in Warner's opinion.

Republican senators who have publicly joined criticism of Rumsfeld include John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Trent Lott and Susan Collins. The defense secretary has little support in the Senate and is particularly unpopular with junior GOP senators.

But you have to admit that Rumsfeld has made some definite mistakes and if you were a soldier you'd be ticked off at some things that are or aren't taking place. Admit, dang it! To not is to ruin your blog's crediblity!

Ok, he's made some mistakes. But he is transforming the military, toppled Saddam and the Taliban. I think he's a great Secretary of Defense.

To be honest, it is beyond my competence to judge particular decisions in Iraq. I think the senators in question want to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, which is to make military decisions at the Capital and the White House instead of at the Pentagon.
And I'm sure the families of soldiers who have been killed feel much better this Christmas with their letters from Rumsfeld in hand with fake signatures on them. I would not call him "great" at all. A semi-literate hamster could have toppled the Taliban and Saddam with our military.
Semi-literate hamsters like the British and the Soviets? It's easy to say that in retrospect, now that the mission was actually successful. The Afghans have a long history of humbling major powers. Excuse me, had.
"now that the mission was actually successful"..I think that's the problem here. It's not over yet, so I wouldn't use the past tense. In fact I think it's far from being over. Maybe you're referring to the first phase of the war. I guess you could say that was successful. But the past 9 months have not been I don't think. Donald Rumsfled has not been a good Secretary of Defense. I think that's plain and simple. The planning of the post-offensive era has not been good at all. I think that's what makes people upset at Bush. He just continues to be blind to the situation. I understand your point of not empowering the enemy, but what about the morale of the troops when you say Rumsfeld has done a "great" job. He's very lucky nothing else major has flared up in the world while we'ev been over there.
As for the British and Soviets, I feel it's a different situation. they were fighting as occupiers and had resistance from the entire population. We're still seen as liberators I hope and therefore had some cred with the peeps.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?