Zenister 0 #26 December 22, 2004 how about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? how about the Sec of the Army?? i guess those opinions dont matter when it interfered with the war you were trying to sell... if you havent already.. go back and read the entire first link i posted... then go find Shinseki's original testemony and look to see what Rumsfield said at the time..... Shinseki has since been prove 100% correct.... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/international/middleeast/25CND-MILI.html?ex=1103864400&en=f879a280598c307e&ei=5070&oref=login login dropzone pw dropzone QuoteArmy Chief Raises Estimate of G.I.'s Needed in Postwar Iraq By ERIC SCHMITT ASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — The Army's chief of staff said today that several hundred thousand American troops could be required to provide security and public services in Iraq after a war to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm his military. The magnitude of the postwar troop commitment described by the Army's top officer, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, is much larger than what other American officials have outlined. Pentagon officials have said that about 100,000 American troops may be needed in the post-Saddam phase, along with tens of thousands of additional allied forces. "Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required," General Shinseki told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee today. "We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems." General Shinseki continued, "It takes a significant ground force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is disturbed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this." General Shinseki made clear that he was providing only his personal assessment of postwar needs, and that the final decision would be made by the commander of American forces in the region, Gen. Tommy R. Franks. The Bush administration has been wary of estimating how long American troops may have to stay in Iraq and how large a force may be needed. At a town hall meeting in suburban Detroit last Sunday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said American troops would "stay as long as necessary, and leave as soon as possible." Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #27 December 22, 2004 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm the witch should have been thrown out long ago... our soldiers are paying in blood for his arrogance and ignorance... here is someone with a great deal more direct knowledge than the op-ed you posted who questions Rumsfield as well (check the dates) Strangely enough he cites Lewis Carrol as well.... http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/6769302.htm?1c____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #28 December 22, 2004 Quotehow about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? how about the Sec of the Army?? i guess those opinions dont matter when it interfered with the war you were trying to sell... I wasn't selling a war, but I am very much sold on it, even today. The fact is this had a lot of public support, the notion that a few individuals "sold" us all the war while false does get back to your central beef here and betrays your real motivation here, you just couldn't help letting it slip out. This is not about armor upgrades or any other specious nonsense, it's about the fact that Rumsfeld was running the Pentagon when America went to war, a war that you oppose. Many of the same people you want to laud were issuing dire warnings about troop strengths in the Afghanistan campaign and warning of a quagmire and they were dead wrong. You're not baying for their blood or commending Rumsfeld because he was right. Nor did your visionaries warn of a lack of force protection gear pre Iraq. It's still not even clear than greater troop strengths wouldn't just present more targets of opportunity to an elusive enemy as we work to win this war so the underlying case has not been made convincingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 December 22, 2004 Quote Learn something about how DoD operates and get back to us. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the Army was no longer part of DoD. Thanks for pointing that out Anvil. I'll know who to quote when I tell other people that.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #30 December 22, 2004 actually many of us did... we were and are told to 'shut up and color' its about the fact that a man with NO MILITARY experience did not listen to the MILITARY EXPERTS, and in fact derided and scorned them because they didnt "shut up and color"____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 December 22, 2004 Nut calling Clinton on a blow job was a matter of national security? There is nothing quite like hypocrisy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #32 December 22, 2004 Quote actually many of us did... we were and are told to 'shut up and color' its about the fact that a man with NO MILITARY experience did not listen to the MILITARY EXPERTS, and in fact derided and scorned them because they didnt "shut up and color" Don't you think you might be underestimating the extensive experience W. got while he was in the Texas- Imean, the Alabama National Guard? Sorry, I couldn't find my crayons. There they are...Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #33 December 22, 2004 QuoteQuotehow about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? how about the Sec of the Army?? i guess those opinions dont matter when it interfered with the war you were trying to sell... I wasn't selling a war, but I am very much sold on it, even today. The fact is this had a lot of public support, the notion that a few individuals "sold" us all the war while false does get back to your central beef here and betrays your real motivation here, you just couldn't help letting it slip out. This is not about armor upgrades or any other specious nonsense, it's about the fact that Rumsfeld was running the Pentagon when America went to war, a war that you oppose. Many of the same people you want to laud were issuing dire warnings about troop strengths in the Afghanistan campaign and warning of a quagmire and they were dead wrong. You're not baying for their blood or commending Rumsfeld because he was right. Nor did your visionaries warn of a lack of force protection gear pre Iraq. It's still not even clear than greater troop strengths wouldn't just present more targets of opportunity to an elusive enemy as we work to win this war so the underlying case has not been made convincingly. Rumsfeild 'sold' the war... pretending it was part of the "war on terror' and that it would be the cake walk they claimed... the MILITARY was right.. the CIVILIANS didnt listen...and continued to ignored them until the PRESS made it an issue for the PUBLIC.... now they (the civilians) are trying to back track and pretend they have paid attention all along...that they have done everything they could have when in fact that is clearly not the case to anyone that has been involved and paying attention since the start.... I have... it is part of my job.... you apparently have not... nonsense?? nonsense?!? how about you put your ass on the line before you call basic force protection means and measures that should have been taken BEFORE invasion 'nonsense'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #34 December 22, 2004 Quoteactually many of us did... we were and are told to 'shut up and color' its about the fact that a man with NO MILITARY experience did not listen to the MILITARY EXPERTS, and in fact derided and scorned them because they didnt "shut up and color" If you're implying that everyone within the DoD disagreed with Rummy, that isn't the case. I don't doubt there was a diversity of opinion on many issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #35 December 22, 2004 the senior leadership did... senior leadership that was quickly replaced.... hmmmm____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #36 December 22, 2004 Quotethe senior leadership did... senior leadership that was quickly replaced.... hmmmm The dates as they relate to multiple conflicts would seem to be an important factor here. Revisionism and ascribing a single convenient meaning post facto to an event isn't always accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 December 22, 2004 QuoteThe dates as they relate to multiple conflicts would seem to be an important factor here. Revisionism and ascribing a single convenient meaning post facto to an event isn't always accurate. I'm sorry. I thought we were in Afghanistan first. Maybe Shrub and Rummy forgot that when they were crunching the numbers. Wait, that would be incompetence, as well, wouldn't it?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #38 December 22, 2004 the CJC was well aware of our continuing commitment to ALL theaters... in fact that directly related to the numbers he reported to Congress.. go read up...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #39 December 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe dates as they relate to multiple conflicts would seem to be an important factor here. Revisionism and ascribing a single convenient meaning post facto to an event isn't always accurate. I'm sorry. I thought we were in Afghanistan first. Maybe Shrub and Rummy forgot that when they were crunching the numbers. Wait, that would be incompetence, as well, wouldn't it? Your response is clear as mud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ninjaswooper 0 #40 December 22, 2004 Quote I wasn't selling a war, but I am very much sold on it, even today. The fact is this had a lot of public support, Yep, America also loves Hum-vees, McDonald's, and silicone breast implants. Not to mention the Yankees and "Survivor". Hmm, Americans love it, it must be good, go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #41 December 22, 2004 Ok....I can live without all the other crap...but don't be dissin on fake boobies!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ninjaswooper 0 #42 December 22, 2004 QuoteOk....I can live without all the other crap...but don't be dissin on fake boobies!!! Sorry Kev, wasn't referring to the "feeling" of them, merely the health consequences? and messing with mother nature type shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #43 December 22, 2004 Quotethe CJC was well aware of our continuing commitment to ALL theaters... in fact that directly related to the numbers he reported to Congress.. go read up... I've read some of this and the only thing I see is that there was some dissenting opinion. This is latched onto by people who opposed the war from the outset as a political case against one of it's planners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #44 December 22, 2004 QuoteThis is latched onto by people who opposed the war from the outset as a political case against one of it's planners. Well, one would have a hard time calling me "against the war", but I am certainly in the "its time for Rumsfeld to go" camp. And its not because of Humvees, and not because of the automated signatures... Its because of the lack of appropriate planning for this conflict and its aftermath... Its about ingnoring parts of the plan that was on the self that didn't fit how he thought it would go... Its about not acknowledging that things needed adjusting. Its because he didn't see this (the current situation in Iraq) coming, and with his experience he should have... J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #45 December 23, 2004 wow. if you cant see that Rumsfeld blatantly ignored the military experts (senior Generals and Sec. of the Army among them....) publicly denounced their analysis (an analysis that has since proven dead on target) and went ahead with his own agenda without regard to the real situation??? are you being... intentionally, politically obtuse just for the sake of argument?? the military has no choice but to 'shut up and color'. the civilian officials could at least take off the blinders created by their preplanned goals for American domination, listen to them, and prepare properly BEFORE the invasion... not stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they were never told about the risk assessment, manpower shortage and equipment necessary until a Corporal publicly asks why his unit is STILL improperly equipped....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #46 December 23, 2004 Quotewow. if you cant see that Rumsfeld blatantly ignored the military experts (senior Generals and Sec. of the Army among them....) publicly denounced their analysis (an analysis that has since proven dead on target) and went ahead with his own agenda without regard to the real situation??? are you being... intentionally, politically obtuse just for the sake of argument?? the military has no choice but to 'shut up and color'. the civilian officials could at least take off the blinders created by their preplanned goals for American domination, listen to them, and prepare properly BEFORE the invasion... not stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they were never told about the risk assessment, manpower shortage and equipment necessary until a Corporal publicly asks why his unit is STILL improperly equipped.... There you go confusing the two issues again. The issue over force protection is entirely separate and is merely the catalyst for the political witch hunt. If you look at the numbers on that issue alone I don't think there's much to indict Rumsfeld with. This actually centers on McCain and his political opportunism, positioning himself to replace Bush by backstabbing Rumsfeld. I don't think it well go unnoticed. As for blatantly ignoring advisors, the alternate view is he listened to many advisors weighed their conflicting advice in the ballance and with the recent Afghan experience in mind arrived at a concensus listening to very experienced leadership within the Pentagon and inevitably alienating others. Now with hindsight the Monday morning quarterbacks are trying to second guess that but once again even now it is clear that more troops won't resolve the conflict. The argument used to revolve around the post conflict looting, now it has morphed into the resolution of terrorism within Iraq, but those too are actually separate issues that Rumsfeld's detractors would like to blur the boundaries on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #47 December 23, 2004 It is very difficult to connect the threat that Iraq posed on the U.S. making the case for war. However, if you replace "U.S." with "Israel" in all these newspaper articles it makes perfect sense. Iran is now on a fast track toward weapons grade fissile material, and Israel's neighbors appear to be willing to destroy themselves if it will take Israel with them. My personal estimate is that Israel today faces its greatest danger to its future than ever before, and the pro Israeli neo-conservatives have now exhausted their benefactor's taste for middle east nation building and regime change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #48 December 23, 2004 you obviously havent read much of the data publicly available on this... nearly every senior leader (without a political cause to support) in the military establishment recognized that the 'cake walk' would not, could not occur as the 'adminsphere' claimed. This was based on information from those on the ground in Iraq prior and knowledge from the recognized experts in these kinds of conflict.. comparing Afghanistan to Iraq in this regard completely ignores the differences in culture, environment and enemy force. The administration likes to pretend there is a ‘single coherent group’ fighting against the US and that we will be able to 'cut its head off' to defeat 'terrorism', but anyone with any knowledge of the real situation will tell you this is not the case, they are simply united by a common enemy… US. the force protection issues were also raised BEFORE the invasion... in fact many soldiers and their families were personally purchasing body armor to address the obvious oversight on the part of the civilian leadership... there are reports from both 3rd and 4th IDs that stated they needed additional up armored hmmv’s for the kind of security role they were undertaking both BEFORE the actual invasion, and as the assumed their areas of responsibility.. without this very public 'town hall' session bringing this issue to the eyes to the general public, do you think any of this would be happening? Of course not……. once again the military has no choice but to file their reports, request additional equipment and then ‘shut up and color’ with what they have.....and there is even (political) pressure not to ask for things they cant easily get as well... Yes its being used as a political issue, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rumsfeld and staff ignored the data and went on with his own agenda, an agenda that is also clearly documented BEFORE Bush’s first election……. Admitting how difficult and how ill prepared we were for this type of conflict would have undermined much of the initial public support for invasion that existed… something they were not willing to do…after all its cheaper to lose a few extra soldiers than lose public support for your war and possibly lose an election later on... this administration has a well documented history of only looking at the data and advisors that agree, and then taking the actions that they have ALREADY decided on. It is a piss poor way to run a war and a country… “don’t let reality interfere with your template” after all.. it isnt your blood that gets shed when your wrong.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #49 December 23, 2004 Like I said. Learn something about how DoD operates and get back to us. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 December 23, 2004 You're right. I only know how the military operates. Oh, wait, that is the DoD. Hmmm. Your mistake.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
