How does the Army feel about Rumsfeld? Here is the truth

[danarhea]

Well, I don't really think that any conclusions can be drawn from this yet, considering the complete retrofitting of the US Army is likely to take longer than a few years. Taking shots (be they partisan or not) at civilians in charge of various aspects of the change doesn't really do much.

Except this civilian had no business telling the military how to do their job.

EDIT: And let me add that Rumsfeld has had more than 6 years to do it. Pearl Harbor was in 1941, yet WWII was over less than 4 years later.

 

[Kandahar]

OK, so you have chosen to keep wearing your tinfoil hat. Next thing you know, you will be following Hillary. I have more than made my point, so I am now done with this thread. But you can make yourself look better here by doing just one thing. Show a credible link showing what you are claiming is true. Good luck.

Checkmate.

 

[RightinNYC]

Except this civilian had no business telling the military how to do their job.

Uh, you do realize that that's how the US government works? You know, civilian control over the military?

EDIT: And let me add that Rumsfeld has had more than 6 years to do it. Pearl Harbor was in 1941, yet WWII was over less than 4 years later.

You're smart enough to understand that those two examples have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[danarhea]

Uh, you do realize that that's how the US government works? You know, civilian control over the military?



You're smart enough to understand that those two examples have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

1) Sure. Civilians do control the military, but before Rumsfeld, civilians did not attempt to micromanage military matters. That is what the Joint Chiefs did, and for the most part it worked. They made their recommendations, and the SoD picked from among those recommendations, but the decisions were made, based on what needs the military saw. There is one exception, and that was when Truman replaced McArthur.

2) They might not be that closely related, but that was not my purpose. My purpose was to show that Rumsfeld has had more than 6 years to do the job, and he has failed badly. If we could win a world war in less than 4, that reflects upon the ability of the leadership to prosecute that war. Likewise, the 6 years Rumsfeld has had to show failure reflects upon his incompetence.

Note: Was planning to leave the thread, but you and Gunny have made it worth staying. Thanx

 

[MSgt]

Finally, an honest response, and not an attempt to bait me into a flame war. An intelligent response too, and that is appreciated, so I will respectfully respond in kind.

I was respectful?.........dammit. What the hell is happening to me. It's the Mod job. It's corrupting me.

 

[RightinNYC]

1) Sure. Civilians do control the military, but before Rumsfeld, civilians did not attempt to micromanage military matters. That is what the Joint Chiefs did, and for the most part it worked. They made their recommendations, and the SoD picked from among those recommendations, but the decisions were made, based on what needs the military saw. There is one exception, and that was when Truman replaced McArthur.

Yes, but the question really comes down to this- Is there any evidence, empirical or otherwise, that would show that Rumsfeld has tried to "micromanage" the military any more than have previous Secretaries of Defense?

2) They might not be that closely related, but that was not my purpose. My purpose was to show that Rumsfeld has had more than 6 years to do the job, and he has failed badly. If we could win a world war in less than 4, that reflects upon the ability of the leadership to prosecute that war. Likewise, the 6 years Rumsfeld has had to show failure reflects upon his incompetence.

To "do" which job exactly? Are you referring to revamping the Army? Planning the Iraq War? There really is no comparison between this and World War II.

Note: Was planning to leave the thread, but you and Gunny have made it worth staying. Thanx

any time:2wave:

 

[danarhea]

Yes, but the question really comes down to this- Is there any evidence, empirical or otherwise, that would show that Rumsfeld has tried to "micromanage" the military any more than have previous Secretaries of Defense?



To "do" which job exactly? Are you referring to revamping the Army? Planning the Iraq War? There really is no comparison between this and World War II.



any time:2wave:

You dont think that winning a war in Iraq can be compared to winning WWII? I strongly disagree. Iraq was nothing compared to WWII. Yes, I am one of those who disagreed going to Iraq in the first place, but we are in. What do we do now? Stay in with too few troops and continually put out fires while new ones erupt? Colin Powell said a couple of days ago that he felt there were too few troops to do the job, and stated his opposition to the number which Rumsfeld proposed.

With more boots on the ground in the beginning, I sincerely believe that we would not be having this argument right now. Yes, I opposed going in, but the Bush backers could have had an opportunity to tell me "I told you so" instead of the other way around. In the beginning I predicted we would take 4 weeks to capture Baghdad. I was wrong. We did it in 2. I also predicted the clusterfluck we are now engaged in over there, and that was not hard to do. Rumsfeld, and Bush too, grossly underestimated the job. Remember being told about how our troops would be greeted with flowers? Remember the famous "mission accomplished" photo op? Remember the "last throes" speech? It was all :spin: from beginning to end, to cover up the gross mismanagement of the war. We are still there, and we are still bleeding and dying. Someone's head should roll, and since Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense, and was one of the main planners of this failure, it should be his head which does.

 

[cnredd]

I just checked the link again and see there's a new question for this week...

A newly released Army War College study says that while deployed troops have better connections than ever to their families back home through the use of e-mail, instant messaging and cheaper long-distance phone service, too much family news can be a distraction that may lessen troops’ focus on their combat mission. Has easier communication with your spouse or family members while on deployment affected your ability to carry out your duties?

Has never affected my ability
Has occasionally affected my ability
Has heavily affected my ability
No opinion / don't know

I voted that it HAS "heavily affected my ability"...

Even though I've never been "deployed"...

Or in the military for that matter...

Came close once, but that doesn't count...

Unless you're talking about this poll...

Then it counts...

Someone on another political forum right now is starting a thread telling everyone how THIS poll is the truth...

You know...It's says "ArmyTimes" right on the front and all...:shrug:

 

[oldreliable67]

civilians did not attempt to micromanage military matters.

Totally untrue. For an example of totally egregious micromanaging by civilians, just take a look at Vietnam. Johnson and McNamara were notorious for micromanaging.

Rumsfeld's mandate has been to transform the military into one which is more capable of fighting the kind of wars that are anticipated in the future. In doing so, he has met, not unexpectedly, considerable resistance from those whose vested interested, i.e., careers, were/are inextricably linked to the previous doctrine.

 

[Stinger]

I just checked the link again and see there's a new question for this week...

I voted that it HAS "heavily affected my ability"...

I voted never, since my oldest son was there last year and he enjoyed being able to get pictures and same day communications. Phone calls were very few but email was great. I think it made it go by better for him.

I'd ask Danarhea how he voted but he's ignoring me since I asked him how he got the link to the ArmyTimes poll and that just wasn't nice of me to do that.

 

[Stinger]

Totally untrue. For an example of totally egregious micromanaging by civilians, just take a look at Vietnam. Johnson and McNamara were notorious for micromanaging.

Carter and the hostage rescue, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.

 

[danarhea]

Totally untrue. For an example of totally egregious micromanaging by civilians, just take a look at Vietnam. Johnson and McNamara were notorious for micromanaging.

Rumsfeld's mandate has been to transform the military into one which is more capable of fighting the kind of wars that are anticipated in the future. In doing so, he has met, not unexpectedly, considerable resistance from those whose vested interested, i.e., careers, were/are inextricably linked to the previous doctrine.

Unlike Rumsfeld, Robert McNamara had military experience.

He entered the Army Air Forces as a captain in early 1943 and left active duty three years later with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

 

[RightinNYC]

Unlike Rumsfeld, Robert McNamara had military experience.

What are you talking about???

Rumsfeld served in the Navy for 3 years, was an instructor in the Ready Reserves for another 18 years, and then spent 14 more years in the Retired Reserve, retiring as a Navy Captain. Thats 35 years total.

 

[oldreliable67]

What are you talking about???

Rumsfeld served in the Navy for 3 years, was an instructor in the Ready Reserves for another 18 years, and then spent 14 more years in the Retired Reserve, retiring as a Navy Captain. Thats 35 years total.

Shoot, you beat me to it! Danged work sure gets in the way of playing at DP!

 

[Zyphlin]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
For the record, both Daily Kos and DU posted links to the polls thousands of votes ago.

Over at DU, they use the phrase "Let's DU this poll" frequently.

Besides the fact that the Army itself doesn't particularly like Rumsfeld as it is because he wants to modernize them.

Bingo. And we have all seen the results of Rumsfeld's modernizing, havent we? You think that could be a good reason that Rumsfeld looks so bad there?

Wow. Just Wow. I can't believe I read through this entire pointless thread which is basically just pumping up a poll that isn't in any way scientifically or even technically related to how the "military" thinks...and then you're presented with the most obvious possible way in how this can be skewed (not a conspiracy, its actually there) with a major liberal site pulling a Fark and basically saying "everyone go and vote here" with it likely happening on another as well...and through ALL of that, you highlight the one point that is opinion of the poster instead of something that actually did occur and used that as your basis for how you are still right in your statements.

Just...Wow

 

[danarhea]

What are you talking about???

Rumsfeld served in the Navy for 3 years, was an instructor in the Ready Reserves for another 18 years, and then spent 14 more years in the Retired Reserve, retiring as a Navy Captain. Thats 35 years total.

Sorry, gone for a couple of days, so I could not respond immediately.

As for your link, you got me. I stand corrected. As a matter of fact, you have absolutely outmaneuvered me in this argument. Congratulations. However, my main fault is allowing the discussion to go in that direction, but I thought I was right and you were wrong. You just showed me the pitfalls of arrogance. Like I say to my Republican friends, pride goeth before a fall. This now applies to me. LOL.

So now, am retreating back to the original argument - That Rumsfeld screwed up the war in a big way. Once again, I bring up WWII. This was a war for our very survival, and pitted us against 2 of the world's superpowers of that time. We won this in less than 4 years. On the other hand, it has been more than 3 years since we invaded Iraq, and we are still getting our asses handed to us on the battlefield by a third world resistance whose weapons are nothing compared to what we have. It has also been more than 5 years since 911, and going on 6 years since Bush was elected and selected Rumsfeld. Yet, not only are we not able to meet our objectives against third worlders with inferior weapons, but our military is stretched to the breaking point. Rumsfeld needs to go.

 

[RightinNYC]

So now, am retreating back to the original argument - That Rumsfeld screwed up the war in a big way. Once again, I bring up WWII. This was a war for our very survival, and pitted us against 2 of the world's superpowers of that time. We won this in less than 4 years. On the other hand, it has been more than 3 years since we invaded Iraq, and we are still getting our asses handed to us on the battlefield by a third world resistance whose weapons are nothing compared to what we have. It has also been more than 5 years since 911, and going on 6 years since Bush was elected and selected Rumsfeld. Yet, not only are we not able to meet our objectives against third worlders with inferior weapons, but our military is stretched to the breaking point. Rumsfeld needs to go.

And I'm going to display another example of my wily maneuverings by choosing not to debate you on this point....:lol:

This is a much more contentious topic, one that reasonable people from all sides can disagree on without coming to much of a conclusion. I have my own opinions about how the war has gone, where it will go, and what we could have done differently, but in the end, they're just opinions.:2wave:

 

[danarhea]

And I'm going to display another example of my wily maneuverings by choosing not to debate you on this point....:lol:

This is a much more contentious topic, one that reasonable people from all sides can disagree on without coming to much of a conclusion. I have my own opinions about how the war has gone, where it will go, and what we could have done differently, but in the end, they're just opinions.:2wave:

So in the end, we must agree to disagree, and you are right. We would go in circles forever over this point. I wont change your mind, and you wont change my mind, so the thread now dies. But at least you made it an interesting discussion, and if nothing else, I did at least learn something from it. Thanx.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to appropriate forum

 

[ProudAmerican]

Come on. You first say that my point about left wingers not being likely to take the Army times poll is immaterial, then you turn around and say that there is no indication that the folks who took the poll represented the Army. Again, we are talking about the Army Times. Who reads Army Times, and who peruses their web site? Of course, maybe a bunch of left wingers invaded the FOX News website and skewed their poll too, which rated President Bush at 33%...... Not.

With all due respect, your claim is illogical.

obviously there are those that know about this poll other than just the people in the Army....after all, you found out about it.

asking those on the right to accept the results is just as ridiculous as us asking you to accept the results in a couple of weeks.

is it that much a stretch to think a forum full of liberals found out about it and voted on it.

after all, we found out about it here, and I bet the results in a few days would be much different.