Rumsfeld has to go

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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.

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.

[Rockstar]

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

[Bort]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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

[August]

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

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.

[Bort]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

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.

I'm sorry I meant PBS.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case Rumsfeld will go when Bush goes and barring the unforseen not before.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by mog

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

No. Just STEED. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Your omitting one little detail, he wants a lighter (meaning smaller) more flexible force. Lighter just doesnt work. How many places are we commited at now? The green line can only be stetched so thin. Enlisitments or tour's being extended indefinatly, and tapping into the IRR are signs that reality isnt' matching his stupid ideas.
Now if we had only a small incident here or there that cropped up, yah, fine, he's crap works, but when were commited over the damn place, No it doesn't. He needs to flush the **** out of his head and get back into reality.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Your omitting one little detail, he wants a lighter (meaning smaller) more flexible force. Lighter just doesnt work. How many places are we commited at now? The green line can only be stetched so thin. Enlisitments or tour's being extended indefinatly, and tapping into the IRR are signs that reality isnt' matching his stupid ideas.
Now if we had only a small incident here or there that cropped up, yah, fine, he's crap works, but when were commited over the damn place, No it doesn't. He needs to flush the **** out of his head and get back into reality.

No lighter doesn't mean smaller, it means less reliant on heavy armored forces. You should be familiar with the capability gap that exists between light forces like the 82nd and heavy like the 1st AD. That's what the Striker brigades were supposed to be about.

[Ducimus]

Then why did i hear crap about Rumelesfiled wanting to downsize our forces to match his ****ing vision in the past? I seriously hate that guy with a passion. From acounts ive read he's a total arrogant ******* to work with. it's his way or the highway in all things, and doesnt listen to his people very much.


edit:
some half assed reading:

It's the Manpower, Stupid
The president's recent speech about "military transformation" makes no sense.
http://www.slate.com/id/2119867/

Is Rumsfeld Bored or Tired?
His latest, sad plan to transform the military.
http://www.slate.com/id/2134207/

t has already been noted that Rumsfeld plans to cut 34,000 troops from the Army's ranks—despite the widespread recognition that there aren't enough troops to fulfill the military's missions—in order to protect weapons systems that contribute to his concept of transformation. Yet even here Rumsfeld is oddly inconsistent. Of all the weapons systems that could help achieve his beloved transformation, he proposes to kill one of the most useful: the C-17 cargo-transport aircraft.

Rumsfeld Surrenders
The QDR dashes his dreams of military transformation.
http://www.slate.com/id/2135343/

Defending Rumsfeld From the Generals
But just a teeny little bit.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140318/

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Your omitting one little detail, he wants a lighter (meaning smaller) more flexible force. Lighter just doesnt work. How many places are we commited at now?

He should have pulled 38,000 out of South Korea and put them on the Iranian border. The combined forces in Spain, Germany, Italy, Britain, and Japan (something near 20,000 total) on the Syrian border. You go to war with the army you've got. And you tell all those "host" countries that they can either back us, or deal with their own foreign policies.

The guy should have pushed for re-deployment, just as Bush should have done.

[The Noob]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

No. Just STEED. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

It's the STEED syndrome.

[kiwi_2005]

STEED would make a fantastic "Workers Union" Boss

New Zealand needs lots of STEEDS!

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Then why did i hear crap about Rumelesfiled wanting to downsize our forces to match his ****ing vision in the past? I seriously hate that guy with a passion. From acounts ive read he's a total arrogant ******* to work with. it's his way or the highway in all things, and doesnt listen to his people very much.

If you keep reading biased accounts you cite its small wonder you have the opinion you do.

[DAB]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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?

I'm sure that if the European Union was a country then it would have a foreign policy. As it isn't... it would be a little odd don't you think.

we want you and the rest of the freekin so called free world to LEAVE US ALONE.

Stop calling yourselves the leaders of the free world, and the rest of the world might oblige.


Seriously though.

European Countries (note the Plural Rockstar) have foreign policies, but I wouldn't expect Rockstar or any non Andorian on this board to understand the intricasies of Andorian Political Affairs, just as many of us here would have difficulties in understanding the Republican policy regarding the bannana trade with African East Coast countries. But we know that such policies exist even if we have not personally seen them.

And now for the general (eg, not Rockstar orientated) rant

To be blunt, the critisism on this board comes down to one single level. Do people have the right to debate issues concerning other countries. Given most of us here take an interest in military affairs, the answer should be simple.

I can't help but feel that the majority of people who say that "Euros" should not debate Donald Rumsfield do so because they feel their debating position is vunerable and baseless, and are worried that this is exposed. It is one of the oldest political tactics in the book. Claim your opponent is unpaitriotic, an outsider, a rebel and appeal to the base Hobbesian fears of your audience. Those people who have the self confidence to believe they can debate the issues clearly and more importantly believe that they are right never seem resort to such tactics.

I would suggest that those whose patriotism, disposition or indeed egos are so fragile don't risk offense by debating on these forums. Its hosted on a server in Texas, a constituent state in a country which believes in open debate and the open flow of ideas - not in censorship based on nationality.