Is Rumsfeld Right ?

[ptsdkid]

Is Rumsfeld right to criticize those that do not fully understand the threat of terrorism?

Quoting Rumsfeld:

Critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups "seem not to have learned history's lessons", as he alluded to those in the 1930's who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany.

Comparing terrorist groups to a "new type of fascism" and the growing leathality and increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Rummy cited comments by human rights groups and in press reports as evidence of what he described as "moral or intellectual confusion about who or what is right or wrong."


Leaving my personal feeling that Rumsfeld should run for president...aside for the moment; it sure looks like Rummy is coming out with these comments at the anti war crowd, because it is obvious the anti war rhetoric is undermining and demoralizing our troop commitment in Iraq. To see the anti war liberals in Congress slam Rummy for his comments--just reinforces the fact that Republicans, Conservatives, and the rest of savvy America will have to win this war despite the underhanded weaknesses of the liberal faction.

 

[Iriemon]

Do you mean currently, or ever?

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

Rummy must have forgotten that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I think he also fails to realize that the US has a distinct pattern of only getting involved in nations who have resource or money that the US wants under the pretext of "democracy" or "fighting terror." Iraq has proven that they use these pretexts. Their are many examples of nations that were worse under Iraq and the reason why the US didn't get involved in these countries was because their was no money in it for the US. Rummy should be asking himself what he is going to do to change that perception. At the rate we are going, we will be the next Roman Empire, an Empire that decayed and collapsed due to the betrayal of their original founding ideals. Has America lost it's ideas? Does America have a message for people around the globe?

 

[Kandahar]

Leaving my personal feeling that Rumsfeld should run for president...aside for the moment; it sure looks like Rummy is coming out with these comments at the anti war crowd, because it is obvious the anti war rhetoric is undermining and demoralizing our troop commitment in Iraq.

You know what else undermines and demoralizes our troop commitment in Iraq? DAILY EXPLOSIONS AND CIVIL WAR.

To see the anti war liberals in Congress slam Rummy for his comments--just reinforces the fact that Republicans, Conservatives, and the rest of savvy America will have to win this war despite the underhanded weaknesses of the liberal faction.

Geopolitical diplomacy is a game of chess, and we can't fight everywhere. Stopping Iran from getting nukes should be a much higher priority than dealing with a ragtag band of shitheads in Iraq who pose no threat to the United States.


I don't expect any kind of intelligent reply from you, so don't waste your time trying.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

You know what else undermines and demoralizes our troop commitment in Iraq? DAILY EXPLOSIONS AND CIVIL WAR.



Geopolitical diplomacy is a game of chess, and we can't fight everywhere. Stopping Iran from getting nukes should be a much higher priority than dealing with a ragtag band of shitheads in Iraq who pose no threat to the United States.


I don't expect any kind of intelligent reply from you, so don't waste your time trying.

Yup, totally agree with you Kandahar. :boxer

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The same Rumsfeld who said our mission in Iraq would be done in six months at the latest?
The same Rumsfeld who thinks that folks who operate out of caves and safe houses have a better grasp of how to use modern media than the USA who pretty much invented modern media?

No one wants to appease "vicious extremists." That's merely a straw man.

What's at issue is attacking the "vicious extremists'" access to resources such as new recruits and cooperation of non-combatants. This is something that the US hasn't been doing as effectively as it might. This failure is in part the result of the WH's guidance and lack thereof.
Yeah, the military is great at killing "vicious extremists." They've done a remarkable job. However, until we get a handle on the "vicious extremists'"ability to resupply themselves with new recruits, cooperative non-cobatants, and even folks who just are plain neutral, we're fighting an uphill wack-a-mole battle. As Rumsfeld previously privately noted "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions." and "The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists."

There's no calling for the appeasement of "vicious extremists." People are asking that the conflicts be prosecuted following the accepted doctrine for counter insurgency. Counter insurgencies are primarily political battles that have violence as one of their mediums. The "vicious extremists" have as one of their goals to provoke the US to lash out inappropriately so as to help rally support for their cause. They've had multiple successes on this count.
The main criticisms faced by the Bush Admin are that they haven't devoted enough effort to ending the GWot as they have to fighting it.

Here's an illustrative excerpt from a GAO report:

U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a National Communication Strategy

April 2005: GAO-05-323
​

The Office of Global Communications Has Not Assumed a Strategic Coordination Role:
The OGC has not assumed its intended role in facilitating the strategic direction and coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts as provided in the President's executive order, which established the office in January 2003.[Footnote 11] The OGC's mission is to advise the President, offices within the Executive Office of the President, and the heads of executive departments and agencies on the most effective means for the U.S. government to promote the interests of the United States abroad, prevent misunderstanding, and build support for and among coalition partners of the United States. To carry out this mission, the President tasked the OGC with several responsibilities, including:
* facilitating the development of a communications strategy among appropriate agencies for disseminating messages about the United State;
* assessing the methods and strategies used by the U.S. government to deliver information to audiences abroad and coordinating with appropriate agencies messages that reflect the strategic communications framework and priorities of the United States;
* ensuring message consistency to promote the interests of the United States abroad, prevent misunderstanding, build support for and among coalition partners, and inform international audiences; and:
* coordinating the creation of temporary teams of communicators for short-term placement in areas of high global interest and media attention.

According to a recent report by the Defense Science Board and officials from the key agencies responsible for implementing U.S. public diplomacy efforts, the OGC has not facilitated the development of strategic guidance to direct and coordinate interagency activities. The Defense Science Board met with officials from the OGC and concluded in its September 2004 report that the office has "evolved into a second- tier organization devoted principally to tactical public affairs coordination." The board added that the OGC has been ineffectual in carrying out its intended responsibilities relating to strategic communication planning, coordination, and evaluation. We were also told by DOD officials that the board's 2001 and 2004 reports on strategic communications represented an attempt by the department to fill the planning void left by the lack of strategic direction from the White House.
​

For a more practical and detailed discussion of the application of these principles see:

Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom – What Went Wrong?

Major Joseph L. Cox
US Army
School of Advanced Military Studies
United States Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
AY 05-06​

So you can decide if The Defense Science Board and the folks at the US Army School of Advanced Military Studies are confused or if Rumsfeld is playing politician and propagandizing.

Do you choose the experts or the politician?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Crummy Rummy is tossing out strawmen left and right. The Iraq War has been severly mismanaged from the begining and he is merely trying to shift the focus from that mismanagement and justify bad behavior with bad behavior.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Here're excerpts from an interesting piece from the USMC's Small Wars Center of Excellence reading selections:

Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare (html)

by Robert Tomes
Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Spring 2004, pp. 16-28
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04spring/tomes.pdf
​

...three simple principles: separate the guerrilla from the population that supports him; occupy the zones that the guerrillas previously operated from, making them dangerous for him and turning the people against the guerrilla movement; and coordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that the guerrilla is denied access to the population centers that could support him.

One cannot understand the theory and practice of counterinsurgency warfare without understanding the socio-political-economic intricacies of the “cause” which insurgents use to mobilize support. Without a cause, the insurgency cannot persuade the population to join or assist in the campaign. Qualities of causes include: a large part of the population must be able to identify with the cause; the counterinsurgent cannot be able to use the same cause or espouse it; the essential social mobilization base remains the same while the cause changes over time as the insurgency adapts. With the right cause, the insurgent can mobilize recruits. Combined with an intermixing of attacks on those aiding the new regime, a successful cause increases insurgent power while blunting the counterinsurgency’s intelligence capabilities. Over time, as the new regime appears powerless to prevent terrorism and restore stability, the mobilization potential of the cause increases when propaganda arms of the insurgency identify the new regime as the root of instability.

Arguably, [by Spring 2004] the Iraqi counterinsurgency has entered this stage. Arab media may in fact be aiding the insurgency. Reports of staggering numbers of new Iraqi satellite television dishes suggest that foreign media broadcasts, many of them colored with anti-American bias, are competing with Coalition media services in the battle to shape Iraqi perceptions.

Causes are not static. They change as the insurgency adapts. The basic “strategic criteria” of a cause—and the necessary ingredient of any “best cause” at any moment in the struggle—is that it “can attract the largest number of supporters and repel the minimum of opponents.” Once a problem is selected, the insurgent attempts to exacerbate the problem in order to increase the chasm between the government and the people.
​

 

[26 X World Champs]

Leaving my personal feeling that Rumsfeld should run for president...aside for the moment; it sure looks like Rummy is coming out with these comments at the anti war crowd, because it is obvious the anti war rhetoric is undermining and demoralizing our troop commitment in Iraq. To see the anti war liberals in Congress slam Rummy for his comments--just reinforces the fact that Republicans, Conservatives, and the rest of savvy America will have to win this war despite the underhanded weaknesses of the liberal faction.

What a retarded concept, Rumsfeld for President! Talk about a disconnect from the real world. Of all the looney tunes things I've read on this site (and contributed myself :2razz: ) saying that you support Rumsfeld for President is the A #1 retarded comment of all time. Great job! Take a bow!

So Republicans like McCain (who has said as recently as last week on Meet The Press) that "I have no confidence in Rumsfeld" is wrong too?

I can't believe anyone would write they support Rumsfeld at all no less wnat him to run for any office....

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by pstdkid:
...demoralizing our troop commitment in Iraq.

I guarantee you, involuntary servitude after a "troop" has served his or her country, is more demoralizing than the dissent of a nation.

 

[TurtleDude]

I guarantee you, involuntary servitude after a "troop" has served his or her country, is more demoralizing than the dissent of a nation.

the only people supporting INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE are leftist barking moonbats like Rangel

that being said, Rumsfeld's been less than completely competent in his prosecution of this war

 

[26 X World Champs]

that being said, Rumsfeld's been less than completely competent in his prosecution of this war

Less than ZERO that is! There's very little less right he could have achieved....almost every major decision and forecast he's made has been outrageously wrong.

I wish Rumsfeld would get fired already but moron Bush has too much pride to admit he's been wrong.

There's a lot of American and Iraqi blood on Rumsfeld's hands and history will record him as one of the very worst if not the very worst Sec. of Defense of all-time.

 

[dragonslayer]

Is Rumsfeld right to criticize those that do not fully understand the threat of terrorism?

Quoting Rumsfeld:

Critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups "seem not to have learned history's lessons", as he alluded to those in the 1930's who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany.

Comparing terrorist groups to a "new type of fascism" and the growing leathality and increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Rummy cited comments by human rights groups and in press reports as evidence of what he described as "moral or intellectual confusion about who or what is right or wrong."


Leaving my personal feeling that Rumsfeld should run for president...aside for the moment; it sure looks like Rummy is coming out with these comments at the anti war crowd, because it is obvious the anti war rhetoric is undermining and demoralizing our troop commitment in Iraq. To see the anti war liberals in Congress slam Rummy for his comments--just reinforces the fact that Republicans, Conservatives, and the rest of savvy America will have to win this war despite the underhanded weaknesses of the liberal faction.

I would say it just the opposite as Rumfelt. Rummy only understands corporate profits. The attack on Iraq could easily be equated with the attack on Poland in 1939. Both were pointless and unprovoked. Soon we will see the end of Bsuh's War, because we will be busy fighting other unprovoked war.

The NeoCons, the New Radical Right wing, are not conservatives, no matter how they try to conceal themselves in stolen tradition. The NeoCons are Radicals out to change American values, and destroy our constitutional freedoms. Democrats are now the Conservatives who are trying to protect the American people against the Radicals, who are in the pay of the New Corporate Royalty.

 

[dragonslayer]

Is Rumsfeld right to criticize those that do not fully understand the threat of terrorism?

Quoting Rumsfeld:

Critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups "seem not to have learned history's lessons", as he alluded to those in the 1930's who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany.

Comparing terrorist groups to a "new type of fascism" and the growing leathality and increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Rummy cited comments by human rights groups and in press reports as evidence of what he described as "moral or intellectual confusion about who or what is right or wrong."


Leaving my personal feeling that Rumsfeld should run for president...aside for the moment; it sure looks like Rummy is coming out with these comments at the anti war crowd, because it is obvious the anti war rhetoric is undermining and demoralizing our troop commitment in Iraq. To see the anti war liberals in Congress slam Rummy for his comments--just reinforces the fact that Republicans, Conservatives, and the rest of savvy America will have to win this war despite the underhanded weaknesses of the liberal faction.

I would say it just the opposite as Rumfelt. Rummy only understands corporate profits. The attack on Iraq could easily be equated with the attack on Poland in 1939. Both were pointless and unprovoked. Soon we will see the end of Bush's War, because we will be busy fighting other unprovoked war.

The NeoCons, the New Radical Right wing, are not conservatives, no matter how they try to conceal themselves in stolen tradition. The NeoCons are Radicals out to change American values, and destroy our constitutional freedoms. Democrats are now the Conservatives who are trying to protect the American people against the Radicals, who are in the pay of the New Corporate Royalty.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by turtledude:
the only people supporting INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE are leftist barking moonbats like Rangel

that being said, Rumsfeld's been less than completely competent in his prosecution of this war

You always did like that word............... moonbat.................... is it still as good today as it was back then?

 

[aps]

Is Rumsfeld right? He appears to be "wrong about everything."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...deos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=08312006

Gawd, I love Tom Toles.

 

[Joby]

hahahaha

Well, on a side note, he said this to the American Legion, and he is the closest thing to a veteran the administration has. haha

 

[ptsdkid]

I would say it just the opposite as Rumfelt. Rummy only understands corporate profits. The attack on Iraq could easily be equated with the attack on Poland in 1939. Both were pointless and unprovoked. Soon we will see the end of Bush's War, because we will be busy fighting other unprovoked war.

***When are you libs going to understand that Corporate profits and going after oil are not why we're fighting over there. Even if it was for profit--how in the world is exercising our Capitalistic nature going to hurt America? You people are h ell bent on seeing America become a third world banana republic singing to the tunes of the Unted Nations rule.

***Iraq just happens to have had a dictator that needed to be ousted. The rest of capturing and killing terrorists in the entire raghead nation is falling into place--thank you very much.

***Ask yourself where was the center of Nazi concentration during WWII?
It was in Berlin, the last place we entered to end the war. We bombed places like Japan, Italy and various other venues in Europe and Africa before ending it in Berlin. So you see, the bombing and fighting in Iraq is just the prelude to wiping out Islamic Fascism. You, as a liberal are not suggesting we abandon Iraq to commence bombing in Iran...are you? Check with Murtha and Cindy Sheehan before planning a massive bombing raid. I say we dump the resolve minded Romney in lieu of Generals Sheehan and Murtha.

 

[26 X World Champs]

***Iraq just happens to have had a dictator that needed to be ousted. The rest of capturing and killing terrorists in the entire raghead nation is falling into place--thank you very much.

I find this portion of your latest post particularly offensive and in violation of Forum rules. You've posted a hate post and I think you should be banned...again...

18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership.

 

[DivineComedy]

Rummy must have forgotten that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Germany did not attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United Nations (of tyrants too) demanded we defeat Germany first, Peace for Greed (oil) let the leader of the Muslim SS slide at Nuremberg, and Democrats weren’t any smarter in 1941:

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, ‘If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe.’” (The Associated Press, Orlando Sentinel Thursday, August 31, 2006)

*****

Here, eat your Greens:

1997: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

*****

“JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war. See post, at 7–10 (dissenting opinion). But even the Government does not go so far; although the United States had for some time prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, been aggressively pursuing al Qaeda, neither in the charging document nor in submissions before this Court has the Government asserted that the President’s war powers were activated prior to September 11, 2001.” (Opinion of STEVENS, J.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

February 23, 1998: One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

 

[ptsdkid]

I find this portion of your latest post particularly offensive and in violation of Forum rules. You've posted a hate post and I think you should be banned...again...

18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership.

***I always figured you were devoid of assembling anything close to a debatable issue-oriented post. That garbage you posted just confirmed my suspicions. There was absolutely nothing in my post that could be considered off key to the issue at hand. Try lightening up 26X; perhaps a cool tropical drink from some dive on 42nd street might do the trick.

 

[26 X World Champs]

***I always figured you were devoid of assembling anything close to a debatable issue-oriented post. That garbage you posted just confirmed my suspicions. There was absolutely nothing in my post that could be considered off key to the issue at hand. Try lightening up 26X; perhaps a cool tropical drink from some dive on 42nd street might do the trick.

Calling an entire group of people "ragheads" is offensive to me the same way any other obvious racial slur would be.

Your posts are generally offensive, but so what! However when you cross the line and start posting HATE posts then I will call you out every time...and report it to the appropriate mods as this community has no need nor no use for hate posts against any group...you don't like it? Tough $hit!

 

[ptsdkid]

Calling an entire group of people "ragheads" is offensive to me the same way any other obvious racial slur would be.

Your posts are generally offensive, but so what! However when you cross the line and start posting HATE posts then I will call you out every time...and report it to the appropriate mods as this community has no need nor no use for hate posts against any group...you don't like it? Tough $hit!

***You really are an oversensitive bore. 'Ragheads' describes an entire group of Arab/Muslim people, just like 'honky' might describe white people. I could see you making a point about me degrading you or another liberal with namecalling--but I've been careful in not pinpointing your types specifically. Now if you consider the term 'liberal' to be offensive (as you should)--then that's a problem only you can cure.

 

[26 X World Champs]

***You really are an oversensitive bore. 'Ragheads' describes an entire group of Arab/Muslim people, just like 'honky' might describe white people. I could see you making a point about me degrading you or another liberal with namecalling--but I've been careful in not pinpointing your types specifically. Now if you consider the term 'liberal' to be offensive (as you should)--then that's a problem only you can cure.

I wouldn't expect you to get it in the least. Writing hate posts define you as far as I'm concerned. Let's go back and look at the CONTEXT of how you used that derogatory term:

Originally Posted by ptsdkid
***Iraq just happens to have had a dictator that needed to be ousted. The rest of capturing and killing terrorists in the entire raghead nation is falling into place--thank you very much.

You meant it as a slur, it reads as a slur, it was a slur. Nice how you're back pedalling now...quite amusing to watch. :rofl

Easy way to avoid getting called out is to stop writing hate posts...want me to post rule #18 for you again so it starts to sink in?

18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership.

Bingo dude, BINGO....

 

[MSgt]

:alert

in the entire raghead nation

Moderator's Warning:

No..no. This is in violation of Rule 18. May I suggest a substitution of "Islamic Middle East" instead of "raghead nation?"