Rumsfeld Out Finally

[john5746]

As usual, Bush waited until the Hurricane came and went before doing anything. Democracy in action I guess.

[Pangloss]

I watched the press conference while eating lunch today (had to struggle to keep it down amidst all the hypocrisy). But aside from the Rumsfeld business, it seemed like there was something funky going on. I couldn't quite pin it down, but the whole explanation of the timing of the event seemed messed.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, I suspect we'll hear some more, interesting details later on.

 

Anyway, I, for one, am relieved. The whole mess in Iraq isn't just Rummy's fault, but he is as much to blame as anyone else. Maybe it's a symbolic gesture, but a meaningful one. Maybe the administration is finally willing to, you know, actually listen to people who don't already agree with them. (As opposed to, "if they disagree, they clearly just aren't smart enough to understand our grand neoconservative new world order") Have some humility, maybe. Maybe even, that horror of horrors, actually admit making mistakes. Maybe actually listen to the generals who actually have to deal with this stuff. Robert Gates seems like a good choice, too.

 

...or maybe it's all just hot air. But a Democratic congress seems like it would necessitate that kind of reform. Brushing off and antagonizing Democrats isn't going to get Bush anywhere, anymore. A new direction, bi-partisan direction seems inevitable. Things are looking up.

[ecoli]

maybe, with the dem takeover, they hope to have a scapegoat in order to counter Democratic opposition to the war. Anything that the songress pointed out went wrong the Bush admin. can just 'Oh yeah that was Rummy's fault that we blew all that money before, you should give us more money, and this time it will be better."

[GutZ]

Did anyone catch the speeches they gave?

 

They never looked at each other while talking about each other (Bush,Rumsfeld, Gates). That seemed odd. Politics is getting wierder.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I suspect we'll hear some more, interesting details later on.

 

Anyway, I, for one, am relieved. The whole mess in Iraq isn't just Rummy's fault, but he is as much to blame as anyone else. Maybe it's a symbolic gesture, but a meaningful one. Maybe the administration is finally willing to, you know, actually listen to people who don't already agree with them. (As opposed to, "if they disagree, they clearly just aren't smart enough to understand our grand neoconservative new world order") Have some humility, maybe. Maybe even, that horror of horrors, actually admit making mistakes. Maybe actually listen to the generals who actually have to deal with this stuff. Robert Gates seems like a good choice, too.

 

...or maybe it's all just hot air. But a Democratic congress seems like it would necessitate that kind of reform. Brushing off and antagonizing Democrats isn't going to get Bush anywhere, anymore. A new direction, bi-partisan direction seems inevitable. Things are looking up.

 

I don't know. I still feel like a jackass trying to judge war, particularly not being privy to the facts, analysis and goals kept from the public - for good reason. I have a hard time seeing this as a mess. I have an even harder time seeing this as a mess anyone can fix. This whole thing smacks of democrats and media saying something over and over enough times that people now believe it.

 

We've been at war for over almost 4 years now and we've lost a little over 2300 soldiers. That's 1/20th of what was killed in Vietnam. It's 1/14th of what was killed in the Korean War. That's 1/127th of the number of soldiers KIA in WWII. I'm not saying it's really great and we should all celebrate - but that's hardly a "mess" compared to other actual messes as well as solid wins.

 

And I also don't see how there's anything we can do to really "fix" it. You have insurgents that are bombing our soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Israel has been dealing with this for decades and they can't stop it. What makes anyone think we can? We are far less resolute and way more sensitive to global opinion.

 

Just a thought...

[GutZ]

We've been at war for over almost 4 years now and we've lost a little over 2300 soldiers. That's 1/20th of what was killed in Vietnam. It's 1/14th of what was killed in the Korean War. That's 1/127th of the number of soldiers KIA in WWII. I'm not saying it's really great and we should all celebrate - but that's hardly a "mess" compared to other actual messes as well as solid wins.

 

I am not sure exactly (So don't shoot me if I am wrong) but weren't those wars alittle more even handed. The US military is top notch with lots of military technologies/information. I am sure that helped out, but I guess on the other hand it's different warfare as well.

 

Maybe thats a(small)part of the reason people are disliking the war, I don't think people like the fact that we(axis of good) are losing, pure for the fact of losing.

[ParanoiA]

I am not sure exactly (So don't shoot me if I am wrong) but weren't those wars alittle more even handed. The US military is top notch with lots of military technologies/information. I am sure that helped out, but I guess on the other hand it's different warfare as well.

 

Maybe thats a(small)part of the reason people are disliking the war, I don't think people like the fact that we(axis of good) are losing, pure for the fact of losing.

 

Precisely. Our technology has helped. And we're better trained and cared for. Even handed wouldn't be an accurate description in Vietnam or Korea, although when you consider the number of enemy combatants versus our military equipment, you could probably make a case that the net result is even handed.

 

But technology only goes so far here. War and occupation are two different things. The "war" took a few weeks with a handful of losses - a phenominal feat by any military standard. It couldn't be won any better, any quicker, any more professionally - realistically. Our technology and training shined.

 

But occupation and order? How does a laser guided missle help you with that? How does an Abram's tank help you with that? How do any of our military toys help you with suicide bombers and insurgents that blend in perfectly with the population you're trying to protect and invoke order within?

 

There's no fancy computer thingy that helps with that. I don't see how we're at any more of an advantage in "occupation and order" mode than if we were using the same stuff in WWI.

 

And what makes you think we're losing? That was the whole point of my post really. Everyone is calling this a mess and that we're losing. There are 167,000 square miles of territory in Iraq. Bombs going off every few days in a handful of cities does not equate to a loss to me. And if that is a loss, then just expect to lose no matter who is in office, or who the occupational force is, because there will always be an insurgency.

 

Keep in mind, in most months there are more violent deaths in one major american city than in that whole country. Or maybe that's just american soldiers, I don't remember. But certainly there is more violent deaths in our country than Iraq - are we under seige? Are we still losing the civil war?

[GutZ]

Well by losing, I mean the belief that it's should be done by now, or be further from a progress point of view. It's too bad they can't show the techniques used, that would be interesting.

 

You have to admit though the general public is left out from alot, probably more then it should. The government is saying it's doing it for the people, yet they tell them nothing at all, so I mean they should expect some resentiment when things don't go as planned.

[ParanoiA]

Well by losing, I mean the belief that it's should be done by now, or be further from a progress point of view. It's too bad they can't show the techniques used, that would be interesting.

 

You have to admit though the general public is left out from alot, probably more then it should. The government is saying it's doing it for the people, yet they tell them nothing at all, so I mean they should expect some resentiment when things don't go as planned.

 

Yeah I agree, but only half-heartedly. I'm not sure the big plan should ever be known by any more than a handful of people at the top.

 

And Like I said earlier, Israel's been dealing with this for decades and it's not any better now than it was then. So, the american public believing it should be done by now is unrealistic - hell quite insane actually.

[JesuBungle]

I wouldn't doubt if he left because of the dem takeover. They hated him from the start, and now that they control the house and senate they would have just hassled him until he left anyway. Poor guy:-(

[ParanoiA]

I wouldn't doubt if he left because of the dem takeover. They hated him from the start, and now that they control the house and senate they would have just hassled him until he left anyway. Poor guy:-(

 

Yeah, I really hate to jump on the "bash Rumsfeld" bandwagon, but I think he may have just got dusty on the job. I don't know why Bush didn't see it years ago and make the change.

[bascule]

The Bush administration did everything they pledged not to do following the war: a long, drawn out occupation, "nation building", spending of excessive money.

 

Whatever semblance of a plan Rumsfeld had for post-Saddam Iraq clearly failed. It failed from day one when a lack of border security meant that whatever loot they would've found was smuggled out of the country, while insurgents made their way in.

 

I really liked this picture:

 

[ParanoiA]

And hopefully americans have learned now, that while we may be a technologically advanced force, we are not miracle workers. We cannot stop an insurgency by force within the population of the innocent - unless we're willing to sacrifice the innocent. Since that's abhorent and not acceptable, we the people need to quit insisting on "instant gratification" and practice patience.

 

Iraq is not a war, it's about law and order. Law and order in a region where suicide bombers probably outnumber the troops is a drastically different story than law and order here in America.

 

I heard Bill Orielly made an ass of himself - again - and said something to the effect that it shouldn't take 4 years to create an Iraqi police force and army. Well, maybe not in America, but in a war torn terror hot spot - I'm not sure how many years it's going to take.

[Sisyphus]

 

Keep in mind, in most months there are more violent deaths in one major american city than in that whole country. Or maybe that's just american soldiers, I don't remember.

 

Yes, it's most definitely American soldiers! I suppose Rush was vague about that part. ;-)

 

Anyway, the "mess" I was referring to is not measured in deaths of American soldiers. For one thing, it's not even the violence against U.S. troops which is the main problem, it's inter-ethnic violence between militias of Shiite and Sunni thugs which are most destabilizing, and that's actually increasing. Also, American troops are in very little danger compared with, say, those who cooperate with them. The only places actually safe from insurgents or ethnic mobs are American military bases. The Iraqi forces are largely incompetent and have frightening levels of corruption.

 

But how is that anyone's fault, you ask? Isn't this just being an armchair general to point out flaws? Well, yes, except the real generals were pointing out flaws from the beginning, and they weren't listened to, because it conflicted with the philosophy (faith?) of the neocons, who marginalized anyone who disagreed with their prior assumptions, which were, frankly, stupid.