Rumsfeld to step down

[HighDimension]

Just when it couldn't get anymore complex..

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

 

[pourts]

I don't know that we had "overwhelming" force in OIF. In the north, where I flew, it was only a couple of thousand special forces troops supported by two carrier air wings flying 24/7. That was all we had vs. 100,000+ Iraqi military. We may not have been overwhelming, but we were enough vs. a demoralized and pragmatic enemy. I think whomever said it was right, we were fighting this war on the cheap.

I think that's a direct effect of Turkey changing its mind at the last minute not to let the 4th Infantry Division in from the north.

 

[pourts]

I am no expert on Iraq, but I worked with several senior army officers during my last tour. They were all army Officers that were boots on the ground in the early phase of the war in Iraq (O-5, O-6 up through the 3 star level). All of them agreed that we rushed the first portion of the war, and many people got fired for telling the Sec D. that we need to slow down or for providing the advice Rummy did not want to hear. We did not have a reconstruction strategy early...ie..after that gap of time after combat operations and before the insurgency. if we had done something during this block of time a lot of this "insurgency" could have been prevented... Most of those same people argue that not having a plan during this period of time is one of the major reasons there was an insurgency.
Donny R. did not want to hear it and fired many generals in his wake...Shinseki is just one, but there were several other 2 and 3 star types...and not the ones you see on TV.

The non-political Generals did not like Rumsfield. That is truth, not speculation.

I feel you on that. From what I have heard Rumsfield was definately a "my way or the highway" guy. We probably should have waited for 4ID to be in position, and had more troops ready to keep the peace that first summer.

I do remember a lot of Army brass being pissed off at him even before 9/11 for canceling the Comanche stealth helicopter and the Crusader artillery system, both expensive and unnecessary Army pet projects.

 

[Brett327]

Just when it couldn't get anymore complex..

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

Give me a break. Have they heard of the word "jurisdiction?" This is precisely why the ICC is a horrible idea.

Brett

 

[Gunny1969]

Good Riddance, ...

Ahh... the memories, cordite in the air, still 1968?

Fragging of officers in the field became a midnight sport. Youngsters following the lead of their young officers, mouthing anti-establishment nonsense. Ens and LT(jg) avoiding the draft went to the Navy, carrying their anti-establishment rhetoric with them, while at the same time relying on the establishment for their authority. Young sailors followed their lead.

Led one young sailor to express first amendment rights by cutting hydraulic lines on Alert 5 aircraft, did not survive launch, neither AC nor pilot.

Be careful what you wish for, ya hear?

 

[pourts]

The best thing I ever heard about Iraq was from a book that one of those war bloggers wrote:
"I took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States not to setup democracies around the world"

1. was answered, but was not true.
2. not answered...sort of..was based on the falsities of number one
3. not done
4. YES that was true
5. Nope
6. Nope.
7. At the time it was
8. Sort of (the ones that did not support had their own interests with Iraq)

FYI, I am a college grad who hasn't been to OCS yet.

Regarding the oath, it is valid (though inconsequential) to argue whether we should have gone into Iraq. However, it is folly if one doesn't understand that a country as large and populous as the US doesn't have interests outside of its own borders. Setting up a democracy may have been a stretch, but surely the US has vital interests in that region.

1. Yes. For a good synopsis of the thread Saddam posed read "Disinformation" by Miniter.
2. Yes. Objective of a democracy is clear and attainable, just very expensive (lives and dollars). Seeing as how people interpret it, question should be changed to "Is the goal cheap, easy, and quick."

3. I don't think this could ever be answered yes for any situation. Plans and pre-war conceptualizing can only do so much, and the enemy "gets a vote" too. There will always be unintended consequences, and there's no way to tell exactly what they will be before hand. On these grounds I think it is impossible to fulfill the Powell doctrine, though it does provide a decent framework.
4. Yes.
5. Same as #3. Like Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan until they get hit.
6. Same as #3.
7. Yes.
8. No, and never again will there be broad agreements between the top nations. Nobody has any reason to want Iran to have nukes yet nobody will go along with us on tough sanctions.

 

[pourts]

In short, If Iraq isn't a threat to national security, then it should be the burden of the international community. As far as your comment on coalitions essentially being a drag... I would concede that our coalition in 1991 was one of the most successful in history. We operated from Saudi and Turkish bases, as well as from Qatar, Bahrain, UAE etc., and we ended up letting the Saudi military parade through the streets of Kuwait. If anything we proved the importance and significance of said coalition. Anyway, just a few thoughts from a groundpounder.
/rant

You're right, should have been more troops for peacekeeping.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for the "international community" to do anything regarding Iran, North Korea, Darfur, etc. Alliances, and "international pressure" only work when countries' interests are aligned and they are willing to sacrifice together for those shared interests. This rarely happens, and cannot be artificially created just by having everyone sit together in New York at the UN building.

I think the '91 coalition was unwieldy. Prevented us from getting Saddam. Left us without a stable peace that needed no-fly zones and constant monitoring and sanctions. Ten years later people had forgotten why we had no fly zones and sanctions for "poor old Saddam." Clinton sent in some cruise missiles in 1998 because Saddam was screwing around.

If you get enough people together, they won't agree on the color of an orange.

 

[Brett327]

I think the '91 coalition was unwieldy. Prevented us from getting Saddam. Left us without a stable peace that needed no-fly zones and constant monitoring and sanctions. Ten years later people had forgotten why we had no fly zones and sanctions for "poor old Saddam." Clinton sent in some cruise missiles in 1998 because Saddam was screwing around.

If you get enough people together, they won't agree on the color of an orange.

People forget, and it's already been brought up in this thread, that our intent was never regime change in '91. While it's true that the coalition would likely not have stuck together if we had gone to Baghdad, it was never seriously considered. I've read the memoirs of Bush 41, James Baker, and Powell and they all pretty much agree on this issue. The concern wasn't whether they could do it, but what the likely outcome would have been. Although the solution of containment and sanctions that followed was sub-optimal, it was infinitely better than a weakened and lawless Iraq where Iran could move to fill that vacuum. This was also Powell's basis for opposing OIF.

Brett

 

[Cate]

People always complain that we "didn't get" Saddam back in 1991. Right now, we can actually see what happens when you "get" Saddam without sufficient resources or prior planning. Planning extensively to "get" Saddam as part of the larger campaign in 1991 may or may not have worked. Taking him out 'cause we were there anyway and had the opportunity would have been a disaster.

 

[Brett327]

People always complain that we "didn't get" Saddam back in 1991. Right now, we can actually see what happens when you "get" Saddam without sufficient resources or prior planning. Planning extensively to "get" Saddam as part of the larger campaign in 1991 may or may not have worked. Taking him out 'cause we were there anyway and had the opportunity would have been a disaster.

Planets aligned - Brett concurs.

Brett

 

[pourts]

Planets aligned - Brett concurs.

Brett

If we had not just stopped at Kuwait but kept going in '91 there is no guarantee that things would have been exactly the same as they are now. Without getting into specifics, I believe it is foolish to see the world as so static.

Not trying to paint you two in a corner, but wanted to throw that out there.

We all need to remember that coalitions cannot be forced together, they only occur when interests coincide. For that reason, they are not the end goal, and they cannot always be created for every situation that develops. American foreign policy shouldn't be a slave to the public opinion of foreign countries.

 

[invertedflyer]

I think the '91 coalition was unwieldy. Prevented us from getting Saddam. Left us without a stable peace that needed no-fly zones and constant monitoring and sanctions. Ten years later people had forgotten why we had no fly zones and sanctions for "poor old Saddam." Clinton sent in some cruise missiles in 1998 because Saddam was screwing around.

I won't get too much into this 'cause Brett already covered it. Our war aims didn't include regime change.

Furthermore my friend... while the coalition supporting a move into Iraq WAS an issue... it was only a slice of the pie. Our Abrams tanks were out of fuel, Bush saw our objectives as complete, and there was a sway in public opinion due to the "Highway of Death" ... these were all factors in why we didn't go further. Our mission was acheived.

We all need to remember that coalitions cannot be forced together, they only occur when interests coincide.

Again, I'll refer to my statement that, if our national security is indeed threatened... then we should make the push alone if necessary. In your analysis of the Powell Doctrine you're going to argue that our nat. security was in danger? I'm sorry my friend, but, like I said, the connection to terror was weak and the weapons were either already outside of Iraq (Syria) or not being stored in a capacity to directly threaten our national security. They didn't have taepedong missiles like the North Koreans.

On that note.... it doesn't necessarily have to be in your country's best interest to support a military move. Take Korea for example. If you have the support of China and Russia... then thats enough right there to carry through... but the logical following of Russia/China's allies (ie France, Eastern European countries-- NATO countries etc.) would mean that you would have broad support for it. At this point most can realize that NK could cause problems...and its in the best interest for other countries to have that region of the world a stable area economically... If we fight them, it won't be alone.

American foreign policy shouldn't be a slave to the public opinion of foreign countries.

I don't think it is... if we're in danger we WILL act. If other countries or the world is in danger... it will act and we will act with it. again, just my opinion, but I just don't think we can be unilaterist in every situation.

I know by now nobody is probably reading this ... but Operation Allied Force is a good example of this. It was in Europe's best interest to see to it that the Kosovar Albanians weren't be slaughtered... the stability of that region was re-established due to a multinational air campaign and peacekeeping force.

 

[Brett327]

If we had not just stopped at Kuwait but kept going in '91 there is no guarantee that things would have been exactly the same as they are now. Without getting into specifics, I believe it is foolish to see the world as so static.

Not trying to paint you two in a corner, but wanted to throw that out there.

We all need to remember that coalitions cannot be forced together, they only occur when interests coincide. For that reason, they are not the end goal, and they cannot always be created for every situation that develops. American foreign policy shouldn't be a slave to the public opinion of foreign countries.

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. Are you suggesting that we should have pushed for regime change in '91? I agree that US foreign policy ought not be dictated by whether international consensus exists, but even our power is not unlimited and we need to be realistic about what we can and can not accomplish, especially with the political constraints on the executive branch here at home. Maybe strict adherence to the Powell doctrine isn't possible in every situation, but it's an ideal worth striving for that makes a lot more sense then the one under which we entered OIF. I'm a big fan of Jimmy Baker and he's written extensively on this topic - worth reading.

Brett

 

[invertedflyer]

I don't think international consensus is requisite either... just the support of surrounding countries if its not an issue directly threatening our national security. However, being someone that sees the powell doctrine as a viable doctrine, I agree that there are situations in which the United States should take the initiative on its own if necessary, was Iraq one of those situations? I have mixed feelings and, on the whole, believe we should have followed the Powell Doctrine much more closely.

 

[pourts]

Our war aims didn't include regime change.

Furthermore my friend... while the coalition supporting a move into Iraq WAS an issue... it was only a slice of the pie. Our Abrams tanks were out of fuel, Bush saw our objectives as complete, and there was a sway in public opinion due to the "Highway of Death" ... these were all factors in why we didn't go further. Our mission was acheived.

Looks to me like we left the job half done, but heck, I was only 7 at the time. If we wanted to go further, we couldn't have with the coalition. Cause or effect? You might be right.

I'm sorry my friend, but, like I said, the connection to terror was weak and the weapons were either already outside of Iraq (Syria) or not being stored in a capacity to directly threaten our national security. They didn't have taepedong missiles like the North Koreans.

No Taepo's, but scuds, and money from corrupt UN programs to buy new weapons. He didn't have to reach US soil to destabilize the region and hurt our interests.
Also, 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in one spot in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm). I could go on but this isn't a debate about if Iraq was a threat. Actually, I forgot what this was about.

On that note.... it doesn't necessarily have to be in your country's best interest to support a military move. Take Korea for example. If you have the support of China and Russia... then thats enough right there to carry through... but the logical following of Russia/China's allies (ie France, Eastern European countries-- NATO countries etc.) would mean that you would have broad support for it. At this point most can realize that NK could cause problems...and its in the best interest for other countries to have that region of the world a stable area economically... If we fight them, it won't be alone.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The fact of the matter is Russia and China, and to a lesser degree other countries, are preventing any substantive diplomatic action against Iran and N. Korea because they want the US to FAIL, and bring us down a peg. They see it as zero-sum, and while it hurts them, it hurts the US more to see a nuclear Iran and Korea, so they are all for it.

I know by now nobody is probably reading this ... but Operation Allied Force is a good example of this. It was in Europe's best interest to see to it that the Kosovar Albanians weren't be slaughtered... the stability of that region was re-established due to a multinational air campaign and peacekeeping force.

That is a good example of one of the few UN resolutions that was ever enforced. The "international community" let Saddam go on and on with 18 different resolutions against him, and it let Hezbollah dig bunkers and get ready for a war with Israel despite UN resolutions that it should disarm.