Rumsfeld has to go
 

Some of the leading service papers in the US have called for Rumsfeld to go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/welec105.xml

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2333360.php


As an aside I always think the secdef character in the Red October film looks like a young Rumsfeld

"You know Jack, I'm a politician and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy. You..."

"Are expendable"

Rumsfeld should have got the chop 2 years ago; it's a bit late now.

The flip side, including a link to this DoD response.

Personally, I'll sit on the fence on this one but my 2 feet are dangling on the side of the fence that says there should be someone better out there.

No ****?

And who will replace him ? :hmm:
Maybe in this case the cure could be more harmful than the disease.

How's this for a scenario. Dems take the Senate by one seat. Rumsfeld resigns. Bush appoints newly-reelected Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Defense. Republican governor Rell appoints Republican challenger Schlesinger to fill out remaining six-year term of Lieberman. And nothing changes. Republicans control Senate, Iraq war stays the same.

Donald Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of POTUS, not at the whim of his subordinates. Geo Washington wasn't much liked by his subordinates, yet today he is revered as a great leader. Perhaps those calling for Rumsfeld's relief were less than adequate at their jobs.

Saddam maybe? He really knew how to use the military to take control of a situation.

If not him then who and why should he be replaced?

And since when was Lifer Times a service paper? I always thought it was an independent news service in other words owned by a private (civilian) firm that caters to the armed services. I also thought an 'Editorial was the voice of one mans opinion not that of the entire staff of the paper or public? Who was this person that provided the editorial? What was his motivation behind it besides the same old story of Bush's policy failure, we need to blame someone for the policy failure so we can impeach Bush rant. Get over it.

And why is this always found out and responded to by euro's? Maybe as I suggested before you just follow the call of your own leaders who are diverting your attention away from more pressing problems at home. I suggest y'all open your eyes as to whats happening in your own backyard before it's too late. I assure you Rumsfield is the least of anyones worries especially those living in the E.U.

Don't you just love the opinions of EU states members have who an opinion as to how we in the US should act without any commentary as to how their own gov'ts act.

All im going to say about Rumesfield is, i never liked that c***sucker, or his stupid ideas. He's like an AF General named McPeak. Full of stupid ideas that don't mesh well with reality.

Whose reality? :rotfl:

Every second thread in this forum is full of Britons and Euros complaining about the state their countries are in.

I agree with that 100% :up:

Rumsfeld wanted a more balanced and mobile force that could react more quickly and accomplish a wider range of missions in order to meet the requirements of 21st century warfare. Especially needed were medium units to fill the gap between heavy and light forces and units that could operate successfully in low intensity urban warfare environments.

That vision was opposed by a Pentagon old boy network whose philosophy, tactics and organization were based on heavy conventional forces designed to slug it out with Soviet Tank armies around the Fulda gap. Rather than support their bosses efforts like they were supposed to, the old boy network generals drug their feet and threw monkey wrenches into the works until Rumsfeld fired them and replaced them with others that would do what he wanted, then from the safety of retirement they wrote revenge books criticizing his efforts that played right into the hands of the administrations enemies.

Because wether you like it or not, american foreign policy has worldwide consequences.
Paying attention to problems at home doesn't mean we don't look over the atlantic.
One doesn't exclude the other.
;)

Rather than asking what you know of American Foreign Policy what do you know of your countries foreign policy? What the bloody hell is the high and mightest of European royalty doing to steer global issues to a peacful course, please explain to the rest of the world the European Union's Foreign Policy?

As an American I can sum up what ours has been ever since we left that miserable continent of royalty and happy peasants we want you and the rest of the freekin so called free world to LEAVE US ALONE. Please get your policy makers to step right in and fix it clue us all in how it ought to be done

The idea that the people Rumsfeld fired were trying to impede the reshaping of the military, particularly the Army, is hogwash. Perhaps the highest profile firings of military leaders were Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who is the guy who started the reformation of the Army long before Rumsfeld was SECDEF(for the second time), as well as the entire concept of Transformation,(take a look at this Frontline interview, from before Bush was elected) and Secretary of the Army Thomas White, who was equally committed to the concept. These guys weren't fired because they opposed transformation, they were fired because they told the truth when asked how many troops would be needed to invade and occupy Iraq, which was more than Rumsfeld wanted. Rumsfeld is a micromanaging, abrasive leader with an enormous ego, his choices speak for themselves, he has got to go.
Just about everything you need to know about Rumsfeld is Here:
Frontline: Rumsfeld's War

First, don't be including Shineski in that group. He wasn't fired and he completed his scheduled term as ACoS.

Secondly my info comes from a field grade officer friend of mine that currently works at the Pentagon and would be in a position to know. I'll take personal contacts over NPR democrats anytime.

I also have a field grade officer friend in the Pentagon, who would strongly disagree with your field grade officer friend, although I think that personal observations are not always the best way to get a complete picture of any issue. Frontline is produced by PBS, not NPR, and they have no official political affiliation. In addition the episode Rumsfeld's War was reported in cooperation with the Washington Post.
I trust Frontline because they are always very careful to get the input of people from many perspectives and political affiliations into their reports, and back them up with well documented facts, which is a standard not many other news programs can meet.