Retired officers slam Rumsfeld handling of Iraq war

I agree! The invasion itself was a piece of cake, considering that the Iraqi army never really had much of a chance against the Coalition of the Willing's army.

My dispute is that the invasion itself should never have happened and Reconstruction has been an utter disaster.

of Kuwait you mean, right?

George I did the right thing in 1991. Junior could take lessons from him.

In leaving business unfinished?

I'm sure George II will also leave much undone (and also much to undo)

I don't disagree that 1991 was the time to take out Saddam. I was all for it. If we were going to take him out, that was probably the best time to do it. However, IIRC the Arab partners in the coalition wouldn't agree to it, and going it alone probably wouldn't have been the wisest thing for George I to do.

It certainly wasn't wise for George II.

George II had nothing to do with the decision not to finish it in 1991. He did in 2003. It wouldn't have been any easier in 2008 or 2012, nor was there reason to believe the world community would be more on board later rather than sooner.

I didn't say that he did.

I'm well aware of that. He inherited a war from two presidents earlier and ignored breaches of the ceasefire from one president earlier.

It's a fair question.

Because something is the result of media bias doesn't change anything - if it's the truth.

BOTH sides manipulate the media, but at the same time during a campaign I don't think it's out of line to point out the current Administration fucked up hugely, irresponsibly causing thousands of deaths FOR. NO. GOOD. REASON.

That's one big fucking campaign issue to me and one that needs to be brought up repeatedly. Questioning the administration is ALWAYS in order.

So Dan's question is relevant as well. Did you support the war and do you believe the aftermath was handled correctly? That's IS an issue in this campaign, and if you disagree with what the generals are saying, then by implication you DO believe that the war and aftermath were hunky dory, which in turns throws doubt on the credibility of your counter-arguments.

umm no, Just "because it's the truth" doesn't make bias OK. Because bias makes them only report one part of the truth, the bad. They always bury the good part of the truth on page f-76 of the paper, and I don't think they air it on TV at all unless it's the elections...which they can't cover up.

A lie of omission is still a lie...even if it supports your agenda.

I have to say the whole 'latest and greatest' comment is a crock - without a doubt the US military is the best funded and best equiped military in the history of the world. There might be logistic problems with particular issues, but it always comes down to how much do we want to pay compared to how much equipment we want to give. I mean hell, during the Civil War there were arguments against repeating rifles because it was assumed that a solider firing multiple rounds was a waste, and that his life was less important than the cost of the rifle and the ammunition. Now we send a multiple million dollar missile to take out a camel train in the desert.

But when I hear people complaining about the US military equipment I have to put it on a sliding scale - maybe they don't have everything they want, but they ARE equiped better than anyone else period.

That being said, it's hard not to come to the conlcusion that Rumsfield fucked up big time - there was a ton of information on post-war scenarios in the military planning channels for after the invasion from the various war colleges. If Rummy stopped them from being implemented, yes, he should be removed. That's just inane.

What's the "good" part of the truth in that we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and in invading we had no clue how to hold the place down when we got it? And that the very reason we invaded changes from day to day?

The whole thing, from beginning to end, appears to be a massive fuckup. And that needs to be questioned, repeatedly.

If you insert the word "given" between "reason" and "we", that may be true. But the reasons given never mattered to me.

That's not even true - there were multiple reasons stated from the outset.

But the ones that actually had to do with OUR national security - links to Al-Qaeda, and WMD's - proved to be non-existent.

And I, for one, do not believe the purpose of the US Armed Forces is to liberate the world.

Anymore?

9-11 isn't the be all end all of U.S. foreign policy POTN.

It makes a great talking point in arguments but there were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with 9-11.

In regards to these retired officers:

1) The U.S. military upper tier of officers opposes EVERY U.S. military action. There probably hasn't been one in 60 years that most American generals and admirals have supported.

2) If Rumsfelds conduct was so incompetent or criminal, then these officers had an obligation to speak publicly beforehand.

Not wait until they are safely into retirement before speaking their minds.

Not speaking out for whats right until your pension is safe isn't being honest or brave.

Its cowardice pure and simple.

3) Even assuming the officers in question are right. You are forgetting one thing.

Military officers of the United States do NOT make foreign or military policy.

Our elected representatives do. Everyone knew that an invasion of Iraq was imminent during the off year elections of 2002.

What happened? The Republicans won their biggest victories in NINETY YEARS.

So if you believe the invasion of Iraq was wrong, then blame in part at least the American public for not delivering a rebuke to President Bush in 2002.

Instead of a rebuke, the voters delivered the U.S. Senate to him.

As I read thre article, I could visualize your response, Listkeeper -- these guys are shit... these guys fucked up on the battle field... these guys are bitter that they aren't great in bed like Rumsfeld and Bush.

Clinton didn't ignore the ceasefire breaches. Dessert Fox ring a bell? And that was really just a more aggressive period in an air war that took place through the entire Clinton pressidency. Bush1 observed the legal and diplomatic constraints as did Clinton. Too bad Bush2 couldn't do the same. Who's to say there was any job to finnish?

Only if the South had won, MD. Only if the South had won...

Oh, and for the record,

FACT: There is no retired Marine Colonel Paul X. Hammes. There IS a retired Marind Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, who lives in St. Paul. So that's one strike against the AP for being too sloppy to check facts. (Col Hammes has a new book out, interestingly enough.)

But that ain't all that damning of the AP. It just shows that they are lazy and sloppy--not even as bad as Reuters, who ran photos from a jihadist that were so badly photoshopped that a 7th grader using MS Paint could've done a better job in 15 minutes. Or CBS "News", who ran a story--trying to rig a Presidential election no less--on the strength of a document written using software that was developed some 30 years after it was supposed to be written (and a couple decades after the alleged author was dead).

No, far more damning is that the AP employed a photographer who was, it appears, a terrorist. The guy videotaped terrorist attacks in Iraq WITH the terrorists. He taped the execution of a hostage. He was caught by US forces in a terrorist holdout--while they were making bombs and, apparently, with traces of explosives on his hands. This guy was held for something like five months by US forces in Iraq before the AP even admited he was in custody!

Strangely enough the AP has been silent on this "news".

Never did. I'm totally libertarian in that regard. US first!

To be fair, I find what you're saying to be the same kind of "coincidence" we're seeing in gas prices suddenly taking a nosedive over the past month to almost pre-Katrina levels.

That certainly has been the Bush party line on anyone who has criticized Rumsfeld, hasn't it?

The subject of this thread has crossed over.

Um he's retired, he needs to shut the fuck up. Nobody wants to read his upcoming book. Fuck them assholes. if he had the balls to say something while in uniform like a MacArthur then we might listen, but fuck them. They stay in the rear with the gear and send the real military out to get killed.

Archangel got banned? What happened?

Aw, I miss him.

Not a lot, but still.

Uh, so who is he now then?

I have been asked not to tell. Besides, it's a non-posting dual. He only lurks.