TCS Daily

"Like Rumsfeld, Only Smaller"

By Josh Manchester - November 9, 2006 12:00 AM

After returning from Iraq in 2003, I found myself preparing to leave active-duty in 2004. For some reason, I encountered several interesting articles about Donald Rumsfeld and came to be pretty impressed with the guy. I don't mean his leadership style, or his decisions or anything like that. I mean personality-wise. He's got a great bio: elected to the House of Representatives at age 29, worked his way through Washington for nearly two decades before departing for the private sector. There he turned around two companies that were failing, and by all accounts, he did so with panache.

My boss became interested in Rummy too. We started to trade bits and pieces of information we encountered here and there. I told him I had read somewhere that Rumsfeld kept a an old tape deck in his office and when working late, would throw in a cassette of patriotic marches and pick up some dumbbells and do a few sets, just to get the blood flowing. My boss saw an interview on TV conducted at Rumsfeld's ranch in New Mexico. A lifelong friend, who was a successful businessman himself, said that Rummy has the energy of "five successful men." Another article I read noted that Rumsfeld doesn't sit at a desk, choosing instead to stand all day between two tall tables. Another noted his habit of frequently walking long distances to appointments in the capital, instead of hopping in his security vehicle - to the chagrin of his security detail. The man, while in his early 70s, would work 16 hour days, then routinely beat his subordinates at a squash game, then go home and spend his free time . . . writing a book for his wife about what a great person she is. I'm not making any of this up.

When I finally left active duty, at a small gathering of officers, my boss presented me with a nice plaque which read, "1st Lt Joshua Manchester: Like Rumsfeld, only smaller." I thought this was hilarious (I am only 5' 7") and a great compliment. He meant it in the manner of the hard-working, energetic, successful individual we had come to follow a little.

Since then, as the plaque has sat on my bookshelves here at home, I've often wondered how people would interpret it now that Rumsfeld's stock has fallen. If people ever ask me about it, wondering why I'd like to be identified with such a devil, as Rumsfeld has now been demonized, I'll have the privilege of telling some of those stories above.

Last week, a reader of Glenn Reynolds' blog Instapundit wrote him this email:

"The Military cannot change itself, no organization can do that. Imagine your company or organization suddenly saying that it needs to change to meet business challenges because that's what the CEO read in a magazine over the weekend. How's that work? You spend months on 'Mission statements' and going on useless employee retreats and in the end, the same lame-o fatass managers run the same asininely redundant departments only with different titles and cost centers. How do you get a company to change? You don't change because you want to, you change because the competition forces you to change. You get creamed in a quarterly result, or you get merged with the competition. So what happens to us if our Military gets creamed in combat or 'Merged'? In that respect, Rumsfelds transformation doest seem so bad now does it?

"The Military cannot change itself. Air Force screams at the Navy, Navy screams at the Army, and everyone screams at the Marines, and the Coast Guard continues to go on unfunded. Congress just sits squirms in its seat every time someone wants to do something simple like close an air force base, Private Industry? Oh sure that will work out fine, no self interest there, right?

"So what do you do? You get a man just exactly like Rumsfeld, who's been around forever, knows exactly what works and what doesn't work, knows where all the bodies are buried at every level of the chain of command and you let him loose by putting him at the top.

"Rumsfeld is uniquely and highly qualified to do exactly what he is doing. He is an institutional nightmare to the lifetime bureaucrat. Think of Rumsfeld as one of those CEO's that gets hired to turn around a company in bankruptcy court, or like Tom Peters without the PR team. This is not to say that the Military is 'bankrupt', but it has lost its way in some places. Do we really need a dozen more Seawolf submarines or should we have 50 more C-17s and C-5s? F-22's or MV-22's?, Airborne Laser Missile Defense or another 10 brigades of Marines and Special Forces? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I know better than to ask Admiral Chuck 'Seawolf' Hardmore if we need more Seawolf submarines.

"That's why we are lucky to have him, and that's why everyone hates him, because in the end Rumsfeld will be remembered as the greatest change agent of all time."

There seems to be a lot of truth in that. And there seems to be a lot of truth in the idea that an individual such as this would make everyone upset. Six years is a long time to be Secretary of Defense. It will take a while to see the true impact of Rumsfeld's changes and to judge them.

For the moment though, perhaps it's best just to be glad we had someone who was willing to shake things up so much, in a government that is all too often too moribund to escape its own inertia.

"Like Rumsfeld, only smaller." Before the war is over, we might find ourselves wishing we had another Secretary of Defense more like him than less.

Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer and a veteran of the march to Baghdad. His blog is The Adventures of Chester (



Rumsfeld and Transformation
As as stated in the post. Transformation cannot be done from the inside. It takes a unique individual to pursue change when the services, beaurocracy, politicians and retired generals and their poltical and lobbying friends are all against you.

Rumsfeld, with his unique background pursued change.

Whatever Gates qualification to be Secretary of Defence I just do not see him in the League of Rumsfeld.

Transformation is dead.

A good man...
His policy of transformation is another reason many a retired military officer based Rumsfeld. The upper strata of the military is extremely politically minded and brooks no upsetting of the status quo. Rumsfeld didn't give a rat's ass about that status quo and those military officers who could soundly condemned him for it.

Rumsfeld is a great, visionary American no matter how you cut it. Although I am sure he is relieved that he no longer has to look across a table at Hilary's lying mug I am equally sure that he has concerns for the effort left unfinished.

even good men do wrong
what's this love fest for rummy all about? great, he's a strong man, a good character, but that doesnt say one thing about what he actually *did* - which is to botch the reconstruction of iraq, no matter how people would like to put it.

Recommend CPAN event
"Cato Institute Panel Discussion on Iraq & Afghanistan
The Cato Institute hosts a forum on the "U.S. Military and Counterinsurgency: What We Have Learned in Iraq and Afghanistan."
11/2/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 28 min.

What I thought interesting was the reference to the Brass Ceiling. The US Army has been practicing intensive lessons learned for years. However it stops at the O6 level.

If true, it explains one reason the brass don't like Rumsfeld. He won't back their pet projects.

What good men did wrong?
Bureaucrat's are expert at maintaining the status quo.

Too bad it is only wrong you recognize.
Please give some facts about his horrible handling of the war in Iraq. I would like to see how you judge a "botch".

What has Rumsfeld done? The facts on the ground are: 50 million liberated from tyrants. The creation of democratic governments in two Middle East states. Elections, much poo-pooed by Democrats, have been repeatedly held. Not to mention one of the most brilliant and rapid invasions of a country in history. All of this done during a massive effort to transform military structure and basings while also dealing with non-stop caterwauling from the Democrats for his head.

Considering the obstacles the man has done an amazing job.

here's a list of his blunders
What has Rumsfeld done wrong??

Here's a list, compiled by Slate magazine, under the headline "A Catalog of Failure."

Before you kneejerk squawk "gosh darn lying liberal media, please read through it. If you think it has something wrong, please detail your objections and supply facts to back up what you say?

"It remains unclear whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down because he mismanaged the war on terrorism, failed in his efforts to transform the Pentagon, or became the scapegoat for the Republicans' loss of the House. However, understanding Rumsfeld's failures is the key to moving forward, so it's useful to examine a few of his biggest ones...."

continued at:

That was certainly an unbiased source.

Who said it was unabiased?? The question is, what did the author get wrong?
Or are you going to say that the war in Iraq, which has now gone on longer than the than the war against Nazi Germany, is going really well?

Since Bob Gates is our next Secretary of Defense, he is faced with the challenge of winning in Iraq. He must face the realities of the war. As Robert Kagan at The American Enterprise Institute has been saying for a long time, we needs a much larger American Force in Iraq to win.
It is necessary for the U.S. Congress to pass a manadatory draft law. Conservatively, the number of troops on active duty should be raised by at least 1,000,000, 2,000,000 would be even better.

Hell hath no fury...
The professional bureaucrats tried to undermine Rummy with subterfuge, intrigue and ferocity. His reorganizing endangered their "turf" and their comfort level.

As Dr. Milton Friedman once said, "Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned."

Post the list lazy boy. Why must we do your work for you?

>"Or are you going to say that the war in Iraq, which has now gone on longer than the than the war against Nazi Germany, is going really well?"

The actual war for Iraq is over. What we are doing now is building a self-sustained government. If this is how you measure a war then WWII is still going on since we have troops in Germany to this day. This is one of the biggest liberal lies.

Besides, our presense in Iraq may be longer but we have lost alot less people. Is time a measure of success or is it results you wish to see?

So it's not an "actual war" even though that's what the President calls it?
All this talk about the war in Iraq is just wrong, I guess.

>The actual war for Iraq is over.

Better tell Congress and the President that this isn't an "actual" war. They seem to have a different idea. Or is this just a liberal ie?

What we are doing now is building a self-sustained government.

And that's going really, really well, isn't it? These equivocations are silly.

>Besides, our presense in Iraq may be longer but we have lost alot less people. Is time a measure of success or is it results you wish to see?

Sorry, apples and oranges. We lost essentially no soldiers after VE day: no continuing resistence. We've lost more soldiers since the surrender here than before. We're spending $10 billion a month with no end in sight.

Oh, but I forgot, it's not an actual war. So, gee, I guess Rummy should stayed on to continue his good work, since it's going so well.

Too lazy to read, I see
The list is in the Slate story posted. Do you have a reading disability?

So I guess we'd be all set in Iraq if it weren't for those bureaucrats
They were the ones who messed it up, were they?

Rangle has been pushing for a draft
Now he and the democrats will have the chance to re-instate the draft.

I ignore biased sources.

You mean, you ignore sources that don't share your biases
But I can understand why you wouldn't want to read something you don't agree with - you obviously are afraid it might lead you to question your beliefs.

At least...
Roy and Rhampton have the common courtesy to post his main point from the source. Even that is above you isn't it.

Therefore I disregard your slanted source. I am sure that Slate does not provide anything outside of the usual Democrat talking points. They hate Rumsfeld and really don't need any solid facts to do so.

Besides, I don't believe you have ever read a single source I have ever posted. At least you argue that way. By the way, read any good titles lately?

Doesn't matter what the President calls it...
It is just the usual problem I have with Bush accepting the premise behind liberal lies. We now occupy Iraq. The war is over. We are no where near the cost, in today's terms, of WWII. A vast portion of our GDP went into that war.

>"Oh, but I forgot, it's not an actual war. So, gee, I guess Rummy should stayed on to continue his good work, since it's going so well."

Let's see: random attacks by insurgents, no coordination or controlling power over them, building infrastructure, building governmental institutions, and training that governments military. I would say that we are in rebuilding stage wouldn't you. Of course you wouldn't.

But I am happy that you agree that Rumsfeld is doing a great job and that he did do good work.

You ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas
This is simply head in the sand. You think the source is biased and just talking points? Fine. But what does it get wrong?

> They hate Rumsfeld and really don't need any solid facts to do so.

They may not need facts, but the facts are they. You're ignoring them.

Here's another biased source, with another list: What does Anthony Lewis get wrong here? Let's start with the first paragraph:

"The speed with which Iraq unraveled was stunning, beginning immediately after the military victory. Mobs looted Iraqi institutions — and for two months, incredibly, U.S. forces did nothing effective to stop it. "

"Every Iraqi government department except the oil ministry was looted. The great national museum and the national library were ransacked. Looters took beds from hospitals, computers from universities."


"It was a disaster for the occupation that followed. Electricity and water supplies were hurt. But the psychological damage was worse. Iraqis saw the occupying forces as being grotesquely unprepared to provide elementary security. The U.S. has never recovered from that loss of confidence. Asked about the looting at the time, Rumsfeld dismissed it as "untidiness."


Rumsfeld's man in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, started out by disbanding the entire Iraqi army. The result was to leave hundreds of thousands of men on the street without income or dignity — a recipe for resentment. Lately, under the pressure of growing nationalist resistance, Bremer has started trying to undo his folly and rehire some former soldiers. He dealt with the confrontation in Fallouja by turning security in that city over to Saddam Hussein's former officers.


It was Rumsfeld who thought it was wise to violate the third Geneva Convention, to which this country is a signatory, and unilaterally label all the prisoners held at Guantanamo as "unlawful combatants" — without the right to the hearings required by the convention.

GOOD DECISION?? And so on.

The policy brought condemnation around the world; a top British justice, Lord Steyn, said Guantanamo was a "legal black hole." Rumsfeld dismissed complaints about the treatment of prisoners as "isolated pockets of international hyperventilation."

Brushing aside the law at Guantanamo was a prelude to the lawlessness at Abu Ghraib.

The Economist magazine, one of the most pro-American voices in the world, said the Guantanamo policy was "both wrong and dangerous for America's reputation. It was wrong because it violated the very values and rule of law for which America was supposedly fighting." The Economist added that it was "a symbol of a 'we'll decide' arrogance."

The political performance of the occupation authority in Iraq, again under Rumsfeld's agent, Bremer, has been halting. Bremer resisted Iraqi calls for early elections — an unpersuasive position for a power supposedly bringing democracy to Iraq. He imposed on Iraq a transitional constitution written by Americans — and sure to be disowned by the Shiite majority in any truly sovereign Iraqi government.

And now, Abu Ghraib, according to Seymour Hersh in the last issue of the New Yorker, can be traced directly back to Rumsfeld.

The results of this parade of incompetence are terrible for the United States. Countries long friendly to us are seething with anti-American feelings. And it is hard to see any way out of the mess Rumsfeld has created in Iraq. We are now reduced to pleading for help from a United Nations we so recently scorned.

The honorable course for a public official responsible for such disasters is to resign. Lord Carrington, the British foreign secretary, showed how when he resigned after Argentina occupied Britain's Falkland Islands in 1982 — even though he was only remotely responsible. But then, Rumsfeld's boss has shown that responsibility for disaster does not matter. "You are a strong secretary of Defense," President Bush told him this month, "and the nation owes you a debt of gratitude."

Anthony Lewis is a former columnist for the New York Times and the author of "Gideon's Trumpet" (1964, Random House).

it is your hopes of GWB's failure that has fueled much of the resistance. You don't think the Islamofacists read the papers, hear the news, and gain encouragement by our very own media and political figures activity calling for our defeat? They say we have not the will to win and you and your cowardly ilk have proved them right.

Doesn't matter what you call it. Bottom line is the same.
It's a war. But if you want to call it a garden party, go ahead. It doesn' change the bottom line.

>. We are no where near the cost, in today's terms, of WWII. A vast portion of our GDP went into that war.

That's not the comparison. We are way, way over the cost of containing Saddam without invading, with air power. He was totally contained. He did not have WMDs in 2003. He was not involved in 9/11, nor did he have a collaborative relation with Al Qaeda.

>Let's see: random attacks by insurgents, no coordination or controlling power over them, building infrastructure, building governmental institutions, and training that governments military. I would say that we are in rebuilding stage wouldn't you. Of course you wouldn't.

The problem is, the unbuiding is going faster than the rebuilding. Power, oil production, clean water are all down. Deaths are up. Sound good to you?

>But I am happy that you agree that Rumsfeld is doing a great job and that he did do good work.

If you really think so, I have a good investiment i found through some email from Upper Volta. I'll forward it to you.

I might read it
but as for using it as reference of objective fact, no.

Obviously no souce could possibly be as accurate as unbiased as TCS Daily
But nobody's asking you to accept it as objective fact. But it does make claims and talks about events. If you see it's gotten something wrong, say what.

How do their preconceived notions...
reflect reality?


Yes. I am sure "stunning" is an objective term. Looting happens in war. Much of the reported looting was proven false. Need I remind you of the "looting" of the musuems? That was a complete fabrication.


All of this is made up. You just rely on this Lewis character. I would recommend that you look at the date on this material since it has been thoroughly debunked. Most of it was "revealed" right before the 2004 election and then quickly buried afterward since it was completely false. Nice to know you like to keep that crap alive.


All the time. His words were constantly butchered and taken out of context. Notice how you don't show the full quote but just one word. Is that factual reporting to you?

I am sure that your Lewis has little knowledge of the psychology of the Iraqi people after the war. Perhaps you can cite his degree in psychology and the objective manner in which he came to that idiotic conclusion?


Do you recall the Democrats uproar over offering former insurgents amnesty as a bargaining chip to end some of the resistence? Look it up stupid.

Then look at how, on one hand, you criticize disbanding the army and then, on the other, criticize the use of former military officers to combat resistence in Falluja. You should really decide what stance you wish to take before you place your foot so solidly in your mouth.

Just another example of how you don't really think for yourself. If you think at all that is...

>"GOOD DECISION?? And so on."

Since the insurgents were not abiding by the GC they are not subject to the GC. Nor were they part of any national army or wearing an army uniform. This Lewis guy seems to be a bigger nimrod than you. No torture occurred and not one case has been proven to have happened.

Rumsfeld's dismissal of arguments such as yours was right on the money and only makes him greater in my eyes.

>"Bremer resisted Iraqi calls for early elections"

Democrats wanted to postpone the elections. Now you say they should have happened earlier? You better consult the DNC website for marching orders before you post next.

>"And now, Abu Ghraib, according to Seymour Hersh in the last issue of the New Yorker, can be traced directly back to Rumsfeld."

Gee, never heard that talking point before. Now THAT is good reporting!

>"You are a strong secretary of Defense," President Bush told him this month, "and the nation owes you a debt of gratitude."

The only quote here I can agree with.

Notice how you flip and flop all over the place. There is absolutely nothing that Rumsfeld can do or say that would have won your approval or admiration. He was an object of scorn before 9/11 even though he was talking about the dangers of Islamic terrorism in the early 80s. You are hardly in the position to clean his toilet much less criticize his policies.

You have been crying "civil war!" for months now and it still fails to appear. You have called disaster for months and it has yet to occur. Iraq is slowly and painfully coming together and it is absolutely criminal that the Democrats will now hasten its descent into chaos out of mere hatred for Bush and Rumsfeld.

Just look at the lies you invoke to smear Rumsfeld and tell me that you are looking at his policies with objective eyes.

Rumsfeld fails: no problem. People saying he's failed, Danger to America
I'm not the issue here. My hopes or not hopes for Bush didn't make Rumsfeld make the decisions he made.

Nobody has "called for our defeat." What's happened is that we are blowing it because of Rumsfeld and this administration's gross imcompetence. You can try blaming this on liberals and the press and whatever - the Republican party tried as hard as it could in the last election.

It didn't work there, and it doesn't work here. Live with it. As far as cowardly - running away from the consequences of decisions and blaming other people is the essence of chicknsht. Wake up brush the feathers off and wash your shirt.

Such is the nature of your illusions...
Anti-war zealots such as yourself are never big on logic or reality.

Have a nice day in Sheehanland.

People say it. Must be true!
It must be great to just let the MSM tell you all that you need to know.

You and your views are the issue. Well, now your policy, actually the lack of one, will be on parade for the next two years. Let's see how you do.

Please back up what you say
this is utter denial. You can call it stunning or whatever you like.

>Looting happens in war.
Not usually with U.S. troops looking on.

>Much of the reported looting was proven false. Need I remind you of the "looting" of the musuems? That was a complete fabrication.

No. sorry. The looting was completely documented. It went on for weeks. The looting of the museums was not as bad as originally feared, but hundreds of things went missing; some came back. Looting of weapons and of nuclear materials is abundantly documented. Nobody denies this.

The rest of your objections are the same thing: general denial of facts abundantly documented and widely known. If you have specifics that contradict what Lewis says, post them. "Do it wasn't" is not a specific.

Illusions??? You say 'no war going on in Iraq' and I'm the one with illusions??
But since things are going so well there, why not fly to Baghdad and take a restful vacation in the city?

Then you tell us why it's false
I mean, you're only argument is, "it appeared in the MSM."

That may not guarantee it's true, but it's just lunatic to say it means it's false.

You say, Rummy did good? Show how. You can't show how? Then stop telling people who can that they're traitors.

Yes. You are.
No problem. Why don't you fly to Ramallah and vacation there? There is no war going on there either.

Now you're going beyond illusion to delusion.
Put Ramallah on your ticket too. I wouldn't go there; Lots of people in Ramallah say a war is going on and it's a very dangerous place. Did you have a point?

You posted it dummy. YOU back it up.
>"No. sorry. The looting was completely documented. It went on for weeks. The looting of the museums was not as bad as originally feared, but hundreds of things went missing; some came back. Looting of weapons and of nuclear materials is abundantly documented. Nobody denies this."

All of these stories are false and those who have the facts DO deny them. The fact that you dug up dated and false stories is not my problem. You look it up and see for yourself. All of these stories disappeared after the elections and the musuem piece was quickly dropped after almost all of the artifacts were found in the basement. Nice try.

The troops have to protect people and valuable resources. Risking a life, even one you don't value (like a US soldier's life) is not worth a piece of art.

No looting??? Thank you for acknowledging that you have nothing to back up your statements
I mean, this:

>"All of these stories are false and those who have the facts DO deny them."

So, no looting in Baghdad after the collapse of Saddam Hussein. Nothing missing from museums, no widespread damage to infrastructure and wholesale theft of records, equipment, weapons and nuclear material. All a big fiction??

here's a story that contradicts what you say about the museum looting, specifically. It's a book that details exactly what went missing, put together after the smoke had cleared and people had a chance to carefully see what had happened.

You say this is all fiction. Where's your backup.

note: Looting v. museum looting
Note. Yes, the early reports of looting of the archaeological museum were wildly exaggerated. But stuff did go missing. And the report of looting in other areas - weapons, for example, and nuclear material - are completely confirmed.

Nothing in the list really qualifies as "wrong" or "botched"
It is a list of contains
1. Generalizations
2. Complaints about policy approaches.
3. Complaints that imply everyone is responsible for the actions of their others (which is only true if you unjustly provoke someone)

then put it into a corporate framework
and explain why the record was a big plus for shareholders.

Re: here's a list of his blunders
Sorry, I don't read anything from slate! They have almost the as much credibility as Dan Rather. Rumsfeld was partly thrown under the bus and partly just getting fedup with the B.S. put out by the dinosaur media, They continued trying to get someone from the Bush administration fired, resigned or put in jail just about every week. They kept saying Republicans didn't have a plan, liars, and other falsehoods. Next time quote someone
with credibility!

You guys don't understand...
Look. We have already finished the mission in Iraq. We went there to change Saddam Hussein's regime and to put into place a legitimate government. After a polite period of time they are definitely on their own.

Everyone has always known for hundreds of years (if not for the entire 5000 year, uninterrupted history of that region) that all these groups have a sacred tradition of civil war and mutual acts of genocide on a massive scale. This includes the Persians, the Arabs (Shiites and Sunnis), the Turks, the Armenians, and the Kurds. Further east and you really don't want to get into anything with the Pashtuns or any of the other rough and tumble tribes in this side of the Khyber Pass.

There could never have been any plan to stay in this region and hope to bring peaceful coexistance into their world. We are certainly not going to embrace the tar baby we already have one hand on. We are not going to escalate and we are not going to put in more troops. This deployment was never about having enough firepower on the ground to make the boys play nice. They don't know how.

Therefore, and in order not to look foolish, it is time for Donald Rumsfeld to be replaced. As long as he stayed on as Secretary of Defense a dramatic policy change (resulting in the end of our occupation) might not be possible without America looking like we had been beaten by al Qaeda.

Thank God for the Democratic Party victories Tuesday because this timely (not overdue) transition now looks like a simple political accommodation. The President can talk just as tough as ever regarding the War on Terror. But he can also have lunch with Nancy Pelosi. And Robert Gates can quietly disengage our forces.

Keep those fingers tightly jammed in the ears
and keep repeating to yourself, "Rummy's great! Rummy's great!; the Iraq war is a huge success." Maybe that will help the troops.

Finish the job in Iraq.
Yesterday the Iraqi government announced the estimste of Iraqi casualties for the war. The estimate was approximately 150,000, or about 6 in 1000 Iraqis.

The political objectives for Iraq have not been accomplished. Clearly, both the Suni insurgency; and Shiite militias are controlled by small minority groups attempting to impose their will on the general population.
The truth is: the vast majority of Iraqis want Iraq to become a good country. If the U.S. withdraws, the Iranian backed Shiite militias will eventually defeat the Suni insurgents. If that were to happen, Iraq would become a Shiite Dictatorship or Oligarchy. An Iranian backed Iraqi government would vehemently oppose the United States and Israel. Iraq would become a country with bases for missles made in Iran- an Iran on the path of becoming a nuclear power. Iran has already begun diplomatic efforts with North Korea.

The U.S. must win in Iraq, and can win in Iraq. However, a much larger occupation army is required. A draft of American civilians is necessary because it is the only way of getting enough troops to win the war!

Transformation is dead, and Iraq killed it
I didn't know all those things about Rumsfeld. Hearing about them restores a sliver of respect for him.

I still see him as a hard-ass, lying jerk. Say all the glowing things about his personality or whatever that you want, he should have been fired a long time ago. And his removal was still purely because of huge pressure from all directions, and finally the fact Democrats took Congress. It was only 1 week ago that Bush literally said Rumsfeld was doing a fantastic job. If Dems didn't win a branch, Rumsfeld would still not be held accountable.

Donny may have been on the right path, and I commend him for this, to restructuring the military, as was his protocol in the beginning. But the invasion of Iraq ended that. We don't need a smaller, more mobile force in Iraq. We need about 2 million cops with heavy guns. Rumsfeld failed to adapt to reality, he didn't listen to people telling him other perspectives, and he continued to lie to the American people about the circumstances in Iraq.

How can everyone not be dancing a jig that Rumsfeld is gone????? I did, I yelled my glee to our neighborhood, I called friends on the phone. Someone was held accountable in the Bush Administration!! I was just slightly happy Wed morning when we knew Dems took the House. I was utterly ecstatic Wed evening when I learned Rumsfeld was gone. It was stunning. Between Rumsfeld going and Bush's demeanor and words in that Wed speech, the arrogance and hubris seem to be lifting. Now thats fantastic! For the first time in 6 years there is a ray of light shining through the dark clouds.

Some info about Rumsfeld and lighter, more mobile forces...
From "Goodbye Rummy" by Charley Reese. This in no way implies that I believe that ALL the problems in Iraq were solely Rumsfeld's responsibility.

"He was, according to some military people, obsessed with the idea of transforming the defense forces into a lighter, more mobile outfit. He forced this on the Iraqi war planners, and what happened proved what his critics had been saying all along. The lighter, mobile force, carefully coordinated with air power, could whip the conventional army, especially one as broken-down and demoralized as Saddam Hussein's forces, but then it had no staying power.

It was way too short-handed to stop the looting, which all observers agree was the beginning of the downhill slide in Iraq. I'm sure what his generals had been trying to tell him was that you haven't won the war until you have men standing on the ground with a rifle and saying, "This is my turf." To do what we did in Iraq was to invite exactly the kind of insurrection we have. We went in, as Rumsfeld wanted, with too few men to occupy a country of that size.

Rumsfeld's lighter, more mobile force will only work if you can zip in, fight a quick war and leave. I don't know any place on Earth where we can reasonably expect to do that. If you intend to stay, you'd better not be too light or too mobile, because occupation requires a lot of manpower. Look at our present situation. We are fighting guerrilla wars in two Third World countries, and our forces are stretched thin and the equipment is wearing out. Heaven help us if we had to fight North Korea with its million-man army, much less China or Russia."

Rumsfeld, etc., etc., etc. v George Washington
No matter all the talk one way or the other, America has only one choice and that is: Once again respect and obey the "rules" under which and for what purpose this nation was created under God's inspiration. Yes, this nation was called for the purpose to be showcase that wolrd problems be solved by peaceful means.

I hereby a quote from George Washington: "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". These immortal word as part of his farewell address. Dwight D. Eisenhower repeated the same concerns in his farewell address.

It is ever so sad that not very long after this nation was born the imperialistic mindset caused the most horrendous civil war ever anywhere. From there on, this USA of hours became more and more a bellicose nation to the point now, where America meets all the criteria of an Empire. Just one criteria to make a point: America now has military stationed the world over! Never before has an Empire had such militaristic ambitions.

I know that I will have all kinds of reaction to my comments; some may even be ugly and demeaning. However, I will add this to my comments: America, with its horrendous war machinery, it is dousing the world with gasoline as it were, for a small spark to light the inferno of the ages. There is so much atomic, etc., stuff outhere and much originating from America's deep secrets. I have no way of verifying this, yet what are the terrorists basically using against America?

Question: Is the world in general, getting more peaceful or otherwise? Yes, and specifically speaking about Saddam, this guy once a buddy of America, shaking hands with Rumsfeld in Baghdad, is that fact now a part of the Iraq puzzle, where now no mentioned is made? God will never forget such evil friendship with a criminal by the nation under God. Unless the God of America is a different God than the one I know and many other Americans also!

TCS Daily Archives