May 07, 2006

Rumsfield Why he Fights.

Watching a Fox Special aobut RUmsfield right now, why he fights. Some outtakes.

Rumsfield was talking about the uniformity of thought of the pentagon bureacracy, not a problem with the men of women serving, but all too often the bureacratic excesses inflicted upon them, that is the problem. September 10.

Then September 11 morning, a dinner, Rumsfield was talking about Pearl Harbor and 'Surprise'. Before the planes was on CNN.


Next was the contrast between the media's adoration of Rumsfield (People magazine sexiest man of the year) compared to what happened during Iraq. Rumsfield had 5% of the troops used in Afghanistan that the Old Guard Army wanted. And Rumsfield had enormous success and enormous public support. Then when Rumsfield wanted 40,000 for Iraq, and compromised on 150,000, we have diaster.


I think the real lessons of Iraq isn't the tired mantra of the Democrats the "more troops" mantra. I think the real lessons of Iraq are based upon the counter-insurgency operations done successfully in places like El Salvador. The Senate limited the number of American military in El Salvador, so they used about 50 SF advisors and used them to train up a force that can hold off the rebels.

This is what one person said about the fight, who was lead it. "I saw it was a benefit, to force me to fight smarter with less".

Isn't that really what happened. There were few fighters in Afghanistan, so we fought longer and smarter. More troops in Iraq, fought shorter, and more stupid by using brute force. 150,000 occupation forces, who thought that this force was enough to secure Iraq? Did not the very size of the force and the quickness it sliced through Iraq, urge the belief that it was enough? Of course it did.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home