Comments on: Rummy Gone; Transformation Next? (Updated)

By: Steve Daskal

Steve Daskal — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:05:34 +0000

** I feel bad for Rumsfeld — he was the right guy at the wrong time. I think his ideas on transforming the military were largely sound — but for a wealthy republic seeking to remain wealthy but avoiding confrontations unless there was a direct threat, and limiting action againts such threats to pre-emption and/or punitive strikes/raids. Rumsfeld was totally out of step with his neo-Wilsonian boss and peers who needed a large, mass army to do all of their “democratization” (“nation-building” by any other name is just as costly, lengthy, bloody, and risky) as well as a high-tech/capital-intensive/stand-off precision attack capability. I think Rumsfeld is wrongly blamed for a policy that he was directed to execute by a president woefully ignorant in the foreign policy arena and too stubborn to learn from his mistakes.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:04:10 +0000

It is easy to complain and to point a finger at someone, but it means nothing when only a few truly know all the information that was used to make the decisions these people made.
No one person in this is to blame, as no single person truly had complete control, the decision was made as a group of elected and appointed members who did the best they could with a very difficult task!
The question is, could those that complain here have done a better job of even have know where to start in finding a solution?
As it was once said, “If you do not have a solution, don’t complain about what you see as a problem.”

By: Ray Brown

Ray Brown — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:57:25 +0000

The Pentagon needed a guy like Mr. Rumsfeld to force a Transformation at least in the Army. He did cancel some costly programs that did not meet the intent of Transformation. The Crusader cancellation was forced on the artillery branch and the Comanche was given up by army aviation branch on their own. The idea of

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:52:59 +0000

Finally! Next step —- A trial for treason!

By: cdr p.w. prawl, usn ret

cdr p.w. prawl, usn ret — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:27:05 +0000

zinni for secdef!!!

By: Knightraptor

Knightraptor — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:26:05 +0000

I want Tony Zinni for SecDef.

By: DoK

DoK — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:52:17 +0000

Maneuver warfare, the objective of Rumsfeld’s force transformation, does not function properly in a defensive or reconstructive atmosphere. Much of the initiative necessary to successfully win a battle through maneuvering is lost when a force is relegated to static defenses.
Although the aged grinding method of warfare the Army was prepared for may have generated more casualties in the short term, a strategy of sweep and clear followed by minor reconstruction (think a grand scale version of Operation Sinbad) before advancement may have had a more beneficial and less costly effect over the longterm.
Rumsfeld may have had some positive effects on reorganization of the military for the 21st century, but to elevate his minor accomplishments without pointing out the major flaws in his designs is a disservice to history. Then again, there might be enough evidence of Rummy’s flaws that one tiny post on his accomplishments might be called for.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:12:38 +0000

Good Afternoon Folks,
Rummy’s out but I would hold off for a moment before you break out the champagne. A little history lession I believe is now called for. First Robert Gates was head of the CIA under Bush (41) who himself ran the CIA after William Colby left. Colby is widey assumed as Bush’smentor into the job as head of the CIA.
For those of you to young to remember William Colby ran the Phoenx program during the Vietnam War. Williams Colby’s own death (?) is just as strange as some of the assassnations he ordered in Vietnam. I won’t go into the history of the Phoeix Program, I’m sure mosy of you already know it, but it is mostly consider a stain on American Foreign Policy and it’s use of the 5th. SFG as an assassnation unit almost destroyed the Army’s Special Forces.
What must be kept in mind here is the fixation with and build up of Spec. Op’s. during the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon. Bush (41) it appears has taken over Iraq from Bush (43) first with his private emmassary to the area by Bush family concierge James Baker and now the appointment of his old CIA Director as Sec. of Defense.
The only question that the Gates appointment can rise is the Phoenix Program going to be the solution to the mess in Iraq?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Staryy Shpion

Staryy Shpion — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:43:14 +0000

Totally aside from Gate’s qualities as a manager (I worked for him a while at CIA and have mixed opinions about that), what faintest background does he have to qualify him to be SECDEF? Former spy friends that I’ve heard from about this are either baffled or aghast or both.
What is the professional military saying?

By: J.

J. — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:42:03 +0000

But let’s be clear, the reason Rummie overruled his generals wasn’t because the force was transformed, it was because he thought that he could minimize his up-front expenses and then pull out quick. The OFT guys were working the concepts and experiments which were to transform the force, and the doctrine being developed as “top-down driven” was/is still being developed in the J8. The force that won in Iraq and Afghanistan were developed and trained by the Clinton administration.
And as to whether transformation will leave OSD, it left about February 2006 when the new QDR came out justifying all the new toys that have doubled in life-cycle cost estimates over the last 2–3 years.