PDA

View Full Version : In honour of Alan, and in memoriam of Karen...



George.
01-25-2006, 02:13 PM
:D

Army's 'thin green line' could snap, study says (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/index.html)


Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon. Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. "You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview.

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

LeeG
01-25-2006, 03:07 PM
This is the reality Jean Schmidt could ignore,,just as she was ignorant of Murthas military history "cowards cut and run, marines don't". While GW/Rove spins stories of greater Iraqi competance allowing for drawdowns Murtha is slimed swiftboat style for advocating a position that's quantitatively different but qualitative leads in the same direction. The US ground forces weren't structured for long term occupation. Rumsfeld will constrain increasing ground force sizes to control long range costs but still allow for fancy dancy weapon systems that employ industry.

Jagermeister
01-25-2006, 07:06 PM
Andy Krepinevich, head of Washington's Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, has long been an advocate for "revolution in military affairs" - now known under the name of "transformation". As such his opinion is respected on issues of Army organization. However, his opinion that the Army is "broke", and it is only that - an opinion - and has been refuted by Rumsfeld and others Rumsfeld Says Military Not Overextended (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/25/national/w114844S18.DTL) .

Although Krepinevich's report is not public, yet, from what I have heard he bases his conclusion on (a) the problems the Army has had in meeting its recruitment goals, and in the lower levels of retention for single-term soldiers, and (b) the degradation of equipment caused by operational tempos in Iraq.

First some background. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. active duty force never dropped below 2 million (peaking at over 3.5 million during the Korean and Vietnam Wars). However from 1989 to 1999, active duty was downsized from 2.1 million to its current 1.4 million, of which the active duty Army downsized from 780,000 to 499,000. Force structure changes exacerbated the problem with the number of active Army divisions decreasing from 18 to 10 as the army "tail" increased its proportion of military staffing in relationship to the "spear".

During Rumsfeld tenure the military has been "transforming" to achieve a higher degree of readiness within the existing staffing levels by "outsourcing" support roles to civilian contractors and making a larger percentage of military personnel part of the war making component (known as "rebalancing"). The Army's goal is to have 43 available brigades instead of the current 33. Concurrent with that effort, Army staffing levels have been increased by 30,000 people.

Despite the need to grow, rather than just sustain the Army, the Army has met or exceeded its recruitment goals in the last seven months, and overall retention is above the norm. The Army has raised its enlistment bonus and pay from its previous abysmal (and insulting) levels. Because of Congressional parsimony, the Army leadership is concerned over any further increases, lest money needed for research and equipment be diverted into personnel costs.

Troop levels in Iraq have dropped from a high of 220,000 to a current level of about 130,000, of which I believe about 40% are currently reserve or Guard units. So, about 20% of the Army is deployed in Iraq. It is difficult to agree that it is enough to "break" the Army.

The military is also engaged in upgrading equipment in both the active military and Guard & reserve,, and increasing spare parts stocking necessary to achieve its availability targets. The vast majority of that effort is necessitated by the mistakes of the 1990's, when procurement and replacement were virtually ignored during the "peace dividend" period. Delaying those vital purchases only increased the cost and time necessary to remedy them at this time. Suppliers are working overtime, some of them running 24 hour shifts, to remedy the mistakes of the Clinton years. That effort is required irrespective of the activities in Iraq, and shows every sign of succeeding. The Army will indeed be "broke" if the effort is not continued, but material will not continue to "wear out" at the current rate (Iraq War tempo), since the "current rate" resulted from the disastrous procurement policies of the previous administration, which are being remedied.

In short, IMO, Krepinevich is wrong.

- Kevin

Donn
01-25-2006, 07:14 PM
Maybe this would be a good time for Brazil to organize the other leftist governments of South America, and invade the US, eh dot? tongue.gif

Meerkat
01-25-2006, 07:15 PM
Rumsfeld is hardly an authority on anything but BS.

Donn
01-25-2006, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
Rumsfeld is hardly an authority on anything but BS.You'd know.

LeeG
01-25-2006, 08:49 PM
Brown nosing authority doesn't provide a good supporting argument for Rumsfeld,,that's supposedly how the bad intel occured.
Rumsfeld is refuting his opinion,,with more opinon and misleading facts.
In short, we have a basis for an argument.
I listened to Rumsfeld at a Pentagon q&a. At first he says he hasn't read the QDR,,then he says he met with the president, generals and congressman where Schoonmaker refuted an argument in the QDR that he hasn't read.
Regarding recruitment goals my understanding is that the quality of the recruits for the needed specialities,,language, defusing IEDs and other higher level skills needed IN IRAQ are rapidly being depleted.
On one hand Rumsfeld says "You can't just look at the numbers...",,then he trots out the numbers.
Jager,,General Rumsfeld can't admit error, but the press isn't charmed anymore,,he spins and whines more and more. .

[ 01-25-2006, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Meerkat
01-25-2006, 08:54 PM
Lee; You're not allowed to say bad things about Rummy - the resident donnkey dungologist said so!

LeeG
01-25-2006, 09:36 PM
"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin and close to a snapping point from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting "the force is not broken.""

There you go again, misrepresenting the paper. No one says it's broken. A reporter corrected Rumsfeld on that. Saying that the forces necessary for ground warfare will be approaching a "breaking point" isn't the same as saying "the military is broken". It sounds like an argument but it's not. No, the force is not "broken",,but a sustained occupation of 130,000 troops beyond a couple years until there's an Iraqi military to take over will take the military into a period of recovery where what is worn has to be rebuilt..in this case troops that aren't on their fourth and fifth deployment. Rumsfeld avoided that point by misrepresenting it.
Zalmay Khalilizad so far has acknowledged US limits to the Iraqi gov't that it has to get it's act together otherwise they're going to do it alone.
Rumsfeld vacillates between doe eye innocence "I didn't know that" to bold declarations "that's just not true".
Rumsfeld has proven in some very important areas what he knows to be true to be very untrue.

Jagermeister
01-25-2006, 09:45 PM
LeeG says:
At first he says he hasn't read the QDR,,then he says he met with the president, generals and congressman where Schoonmaker refuted an argument in the QDR that he hasn't read.
Lee:

Rummy said he hadn't read either of the two critiques - the one by Krepinevich or the one prepared by William Perry and Madeleine Albright. As I recall, he didn't say he hadn't read the QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review Report) - he said that the reporters were working off a draft and why didn't they wait until the final report was out before asking a bunch of questions about things that may not even be in the final report. After all, I think Rumsfeld is responsible for the content of the QDR, so it's hard to see how he couldn't have read it.


LeeG says:
quality of the recruits for the needed specialities, language, defusing IEDs and other higher level skills needed IN IRAQ are rapidly being depleted.I'd be interested in seeing that information. I don't recall such a statement during the briefing that I watched today. I did hear from a reporter that single-term reenlistment was low, and who admitted that reenlistment among the more experienced people was quite high. Someone (either Rumsfeld or a questioning reporter) said that reenlistment among soldiers returning from Iraq was above the norm. The implication from the reporter was that if single-term reenlistment is down that could result in a problem long term for the NCO corps, if there isn't depth for them to draw upon. IIRC, Rumsfeld response was that those trends were already changing and that to assume that single-term reenlistment would remain low was a pessimistic assumption.

At least, those are my recollections of the briefing.

P.S. IIRC, deployments are currently for one year. Being on their fourth or fifth deployment would result either from being there continuously for five years, or with minimal rotation, being there for ten years. Neither scenario is likely, IMO.

P.P.S. IIRC, Rumsfeld essentially called Krepinevich a liar for suggesting that troop exhaustion was the cause for the Iraq draw-down, as opposed to theater requirements. He said Krepinevich wasn't in a position to know, and that he was flat out wrong for suggesting it.

- Kevin

[ 01-25-2006, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:02 PM
Jager, thanks for the correction. Yes he hadn't read their papers but is able to dismiss it by mischaracterizing it's premise. Rumsfeld says they're saying "it's broken",,they're not, they're saying "it's going to break at this rate".

So Rumsfeld avoids addressing the issue. But he's been here before. Remember Team B, Proofs of Uknowable Uknowns, and the ever popular "trust me, I'm the professional".
The reporter says "Army is stretched ..." ,,Rumsfeld says "it's not a broken Army..the US Armed Forces are not broken".
Hey,,with forked tongue I find you bright shiny beads of WMD, cost many pelts.

Q Mr. Secretary, may I continue on along much the same line? There's another report on the table, one ostensibly ordered by the Defense Department and prepared by a retired military officer, which refers to a thin green line and says the Army is stretched so thin it's close to breaking. But the bottom line of this report, as I read it, is that the OPTEMPO (Operations Tempo) is so severe and so demanding on particularly the Army now in Iraq and Afghanistan that if we continue at this current OPTEMPO, we cannot outlast the insurgents. Can I get your specific reaction to that, please?



SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, it's just not consistent with the facts. I just came from the White House, where the president was meeting with eight or 10, 15 senators. And Pete Schoomaker was with me, and someone asked that question. And Pete Schoomaker's answer was that it's just not correct; that he's seen a broken Army, he knows what a broken Army looks like, in the post-Vietnam period. There's no question but that during the period of the '90s, a number of aspects of the U.S. armed forces were underfunded and there were hollow pieces to it. Today that's just simply not the case. Close to breaking is -- only someone -- I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they're close to breaking. That's just not the case.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

If you're willing I could pull out two year old articles addressing the issue of troop depletion,,,but we might have to agree to disagree,,like the other thread where you said things are looking hopeful in Iraq. Hey,,maybe things are looking hopeful when hope is what you got.

[ 01-25-2006, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:06 PM
PPS,,,It's fine that Rumsfeld calls an expert a liar. Look what he did with Shinsekis expertise.

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:10 PM
Q Mr. Secretary, you said that the people outside the people don't really have the insight of all the moving pieces. And you said that perhaps you should read into these reports. You've always been a steward of the taxpayers' dollars.



Why does the Pentagon pay people like Krepinevich to give you a report if you're standing up there saying they don't have the insight of all the things going on inside the Pentagon?



SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, because the way you get the best knowledge and the best perspective is to listen to people with different views, let people think about things, walk at them from different perspectives and see if they come up with insights that are helpful. And that's the reason we do our lessons learned is after the fact -- is to say, "Gee, what actually happened? We know what we thought. What actually happened?" And I think it's a useful thing to invite people to make comments and critiques and -- to a point on this and to a point on that, and then people who are really in the gearbox making this thing work have to take all of that and make judgments about it, and that's what we do, and it seems to work pretty well.



Thank you, folks.

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:15 PM
oh memory lane....Rumsfeld is confident..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1083847,00.html

Julian Borger in Washington and Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Thursday November 13, 2003

The White House yesterday drew up emergency plans to accelerate the transfer of power in Iraq after being shown a devastating CIA report warning that the guerrilla war was in danger of escalating out of US control.
The report, an "appraisal of situation" commissioned by the CIA director, George Tenet, and written by the CIA station chief in Baghdad, said that the insurgency was gaining ground among the population, and already numbers in the tens of thousands.

One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe.

,,
In public at least, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has insisted that the attacks are the work of a few remnants of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party and a handful of Islamic jihadists from other Arab countries.

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:28 PM
The thing about Rumsfeld is that he makes declarations,,if you accept them there's no problem,,if you disagree it's irrelevant.
what else does Rumsfeld say?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/203200_armor10.html

WASHINGTON -- The manufacturer of Humvees for the U.S. military and the company that adds armor to the utility vehicles are not running near production capacity and are making all that the Pentagon has requested, spokesmen for both companies said.

"If they call and say, 'You know, we really want more,' we'll get it done," said Lee Woodward, a spokesman for AM General, the Indiana company that makes Humvees and the civilian Hummer versions.

Blaming the shortage on a lack of production capacity, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did Wednesday, is "just not true," said Bayh. He said he had told the Pentagon as early as April that more armored Humvees could be built.

"It's essentially a matter of physics," Rumsfeld told the soldiers in his reply on Wednesday. "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it."

But Bayh, in a telephone conference call with reporters, said the problem was another indication of the administration's underestimation of the risks and demands in Iraq.

"It borders on the naïve," Bayh added

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Jagermeister:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
LeeG says:
quality of the recruits for the needed specialities, language, defusing IEDs and other higher level skills needed IN IRAQ are rapidly being depleted.I'd be interested in seeing that information. I don't recall such a statement during the briefing that I watched today. - Kevin</font>no you didn't,,the press corp isn't there to argue with the SecDef,,he's there to dispense the truth.

Jagermeister
01-25-2006, 10:35 PM
LeeG:

In all honesty I agree with you that Rumsfeld shorted his answers. For example, he didn't directly address the question about single term reenlistment. Obviously, I don't take it to the same degree that you do, but his propensity to dodge is not encouraging.

Regarding Krepinevich's report - I think he went astray in purporting to know the reasoning and motives behind troop movements in Iraq, and it was on that issue that Rumsfeld could say with impunity that he (Krepinevich) didn't know what he was talking about. As far as OPTEMPO goes, the weakest response (IMO) was in relation to equipment wear. Much of what I know about replenishment I have had to glean from other sources. Rummy either forgot to answer it or dodged it, IIRC.

Krepinevich probably has some very valid points. He has a reputation as a savvy guy. Portraying the Army as either "broke" or "unsustainable" hurt his assessment. I don't know if it was media hyperbole or his own words, but a less strident presentation would have gotten him a lot more mileage, IMO.

- Kevin

LeeG
01-25-2006, 10:47 PM
Kevin, Krepinevich is saying the Army is APPROACHING unsustainability,,,you are doing the same thing Rumsfeld did. Misrepresenting the position of someone you disagree with. If operations continue as they are then unsustainability will be reached asymptotically. You can argue "we're not there yet" and Rumsfeld can say "we're not there at all" and in the mean time troop drawdowns are occuring. There's isn't a "point" where things are broken. But like a shift point for an engine,,if you don't shift,,you'll be driving at 5,000rpm for no good reason.
Murtha just caught Rumsfelds pants as they're falling but Rumsfeld is saying "they're not falling,,see?" But if he let go,,they'd fall off. So Rumsfeld is walking around with one hand on his pants,,"they're not falling,,see?".

Jagermeister
01-25-2006, 10:51 PM
LeeG:

LOL :D You have a great way with a phrase. I don't agree, but the pants analogy is sure graphic enough to get your point across.

- Kevin

LeeG
01-25-2006, 11:00 PM
from the blown up thread..logical disconnects abound in this adminstration. The Future Combat System sounds like the infantrys version of the F-22. I bet bilingual troops are more effective.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-
na-military24jan24,0,706286.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Iraq "is clearly a one-off," said a Pentagon official who is working on the top-to-bottom study, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. "There is certainly no intention to do it again."

For more than two years, Army officials have been fending off questions about whether they have enough troops to complete their mission in Iraq and racing to get armor plates bolted onto Humvees and supply trucks to defend against homemade bombs.

But in the Pentagon blueprint, officials are once again talking about a futuristic force of robots, networked computers and drone aircraft. And they are planning no significant shift in resources to bulk up ground forces strained by the lengthy occupation of Iraq.

Regarding the Iraq war as an anomaly is in some ways convenient for Pentagon civilians and uniformed officers. An armored assault across miles of desert is hardly the vision that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's civilian team laid out when it took over the Pentagon five years ago. At the same time, the human and financial costs of the war have made many senior generals eager to turn the page on Iraq.

There is a logical disconnect between the lessons learned from Iraq and the conclusions that we can live with a smaller ground force," said Michele Flournoy, a defense policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former top Pentagon official
....
Last March, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers gave a classified assessment to Congress warning that the strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made it more difficult for the military to counter a future act of aggression, launch a preemptive strike or intervene to prevent conflict in another part of the world.

While Myers' report stated that the military would be able to win any war the president asked the Pentagon to fight, it said that military was at "significant risk" of being unable to prevail against enemies abroad in the way that Pentagon war plans mandate.

As Pentagon officials put it at the time, there would be more civilian casualties and collateral damage. The military would have to "win uglier," they said.

Some critics argue the Iraq experience has turned into the antithesis of Rumsfeld's vision: Instead of moving toward a smaller, lighter force, the military has for the past two years become bigger and heavier.

"The Iraq war has been a nonstop embarrassment for the people who believe in military transformation," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based defense think tank.

"Some of the senior policy makers don't want to believe what they're watching on their television sets."

Leon m
01-25-2006, 11:03 PM
Have you hugged a Penguin today ?

http://www.freakyanimals.com/pictures/1122.jpg

High C
01-25-2006, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Leon m:
Have you hugged a Penguin today ?

No, but I plugged a nutria!

LeeG
01-25-2006, 11:23 PM
Isn't it time to farm kudzu?

High C
01-25-2006, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Isn't it time to farm kudzu?Nutria are the animal version of kudzu.

Meerkat
01-26-2006, 12:01 AM
If you read the transcript that Lee posted carefully, it's noticable that Rumsfeld didn't answer the question the reporter asked: in essence, what is the situation with the Army in Iraq. Rumsfeld answered for the Army as a whole, which may be technically true, but it did not address the question asked.

[ 01-26-2006, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Jagermeister
01-26-2006, 12:28 AM
Meerkat:

My understanding is that the criticism directed against Rumsfeld are that operations in Iraq are damaging to the Army as a whole. In that respect, I think Rumsfeld addressed the question properly. As Lee and I have discussed, there are aspects of that issue that Rumsfeld did not address.

LeeG:

In respect to the QDR report, I'm not sure the people quoted in the Times article are drawing the right conclusions, or at least, I'm not sure that those conclusions are being reported properly.


Some critics argue the Iraq experience has turned into the antithesis of Rumsfeld's vision: Instead of moving toward a smaller, lighter force, the military has for the past two years become bigger and heavier.

"The Iraq war has been a nonstop embarrassment for the people who believe in military transformation," In certain respects Rumsfeld has been very successful in "transforming" the military. Readiness figures are up in such things such as ship and airplane availability. I think Rumsfeld talked about it today in terms of the effect of having spare parts, of bringing troops to the ships for rotation instead of bring ships home, and things like that.

From the reading in Thunder Run, for example (I think you recommended it, Lee), I think some aspects of force transformation have been successful in making the military more effective. Units "boxing above their weight", so to speak.

The areas where I've seen pointed criticism is that people who really pushed the C3ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) concept as a force multiplier have not been able to deliver anywhere near benefits promised. From what I've read the major shortcoming has been in the "I" - actionable intelligence. It doesn't do any good to have a well coordinated rapidly mobile and adaptive force with short operational cycles, if you have no intelligence to act upon.

This goes back to many of the complaints we've discussed regarding CIA screw-ups, soldiers inability to tell friend from foe, and so on and so on.

IMO, the American military (and intelligence community) have always suffered from too great a faith in technology. IMO, there are still too many times when people are the only method for obtaining intelligence.

Taken in that light, the U.S. military needs not more boots on the ground, but the right kind of boots. Multilingual soldiers. Soldiers who can communicate with the local populace. Soldiers who can win "hearts and minds" by their knowledge of local politics, human nature, and maybe some old fashion engineering (building infrastructure). Its not enough for a military to only know how to "kill people and break things" to win wars, anymore. Especially if you're supposed to leave the right people alive and not destroy their cities.

- Kevin

P.S. I wonder if the differences between the Soviet Union's Afghan experience and the coalition's can be analyzed in view of how effective each force was at the "hearts and minds" suggestion mentioned previous. I also wonder if our success in Iraq (or lack thereof) can be measured in the same way. It seems obvious to me that there should be a correlation, but i don't know that its ever been explicitly measured.

Meerkat
01-26-2006, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Jagermeister:
Meerkat:

My understanding is that the criticism directed against Rumsfeld are that operations in Iraq are damaging to the Army as a whole. In that respect, I think Rumsfeld addressed the question properly. As Lee and I have discussed, there are aspects of that issue that Rumsfeld did not address.
Reporter:
But the bottom line of this report, as I read it, is that the OPTEMPO (Operations Tempo) is so severe and so demanding on particularly the Army now in Iraq and Afghanistan that if we continue at this current OPTEMPO, we cannot outlast the insurgents. Can I get your specific reaction to that, please?Rumsfeld:
I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they're close to breaking. That's just not the case. IMO, he generalized and avoided the specific question.

I suspect he's being disingenuous WRT to readiness of (in particular) European garrisons too. They must be drawing replacement equipment from somewhere!

George.
01-26-2006, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Maybe this would be a good time for Brazil to organize the other leftist governments of South America, and invade the US, eh dot? tongue.gif
Originally posted by Donn:
... you have a perfect right to be bellicose in your debating and questioning style ... I don't feel any compulsion to adopt your standards.

Donn
01-26-2006, 06:55 AM
It's fun to watch you cruising the bilge, casting for conflict. Need your morning fix?

George.
01-26-2006, 07:10 AM
Here is some conflict for you, Donn:

web page (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=005475)

LeeG
01-26-2006, 07:11 AM
yr momma wore army boots

Chris Coose
01-26-2006, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Jagermeister:
My understanding is that the criticism directed against Rumsfeld are that operations in Iraq are damaging to the Army as a whole. Could you consider that Rumdum is doing far more to damage moral than his own Pentagon reports?
No. I'll bet you cannot go there.

Would you recommend your own son or daughter to work/die under this fool's super vision?

LeeG
01-26-2006, 07:49 AM
Jager, my beef with Donald is that he's like a corporate turnover artist,,he'll hack and hew personell to meet p&l goals but make sure the front offices have new carpets.
Besides as de facto co-president with Cheney he's responsible for promulgating fear based disinformation justifying the war.

Billy Bones
01-26-2006, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:

Besides as de facto co-president with Cheney he's responsible for promulgating fear based disinformation justifying the war.*yawn*

The sooner you guys get of the paranoia platform and come up with something solid and progressive, the sooner you'll carry the day.

Keep this self-marginalizing nonsense up and you ensure yourselves, and more importantly your issues, a defeat yet again.

LeeG
01-26-2006, 08:21 AM
Billy, GW's handlers took the executive in a direction without GW at the wheel. But what the hey,,maybe there's WMD hiding in that lecturn after all.

Alan D. Hyde
01-26-2006, 10:52 AM
Good work, Kevin & Billy. Well done. Thank you.

Lee, George, & others, it's easy to be critical.

What--- in your own view--- should we be doing instead??? If you were in Rumsfeld's shoes, what would YOU do???

Alan

[ 01-26-2006, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

High C
01-26-2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by George.:
Here is some...
OK, George, I have to know, where can I get one of these?
http://pic2.picturetrail.com/VOL1014/4016373/8339206/127099771.jpg

I like! smile.gif

George.
01-26-2006, 11:24 AM
Alan, I have often posted it. Back when there was still time to do it right, draft. Now that it's too late, resign.

LeeG
01-26-2006, 11:25 AM
Not really Alan,it's not easy, I don't hold onto strings of abstractions very well so it's taken a lot of reading to be this critical and have the facts to back it up.

What should Rumsfeld do?,,,just be himself. He is making sure the profit margins are healthy for the business of war(those fancy machines), he is putting highly skilled military folks in Africa before it gets messy, he is out front and being visible for GW with details to dazzle the press (absence of proof isn't proof of absence).

Our job is to do something other than be cheerleaders as it's obvious he will talk pure bs to steer descriptions of descriptions as replacements for descriptions of reality, a good example his enthusiastic numbers game in fall of '03 regarding Iraqi military when they fled in operations a half year later.

George.
01-26-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by High C:
... where can I get one of these?
http://arkfamily.org/Maps/Brazil.jpg

See where São Luis is? That is the capital of the state of Maranhão. All those boats can be found along the coast for a couple of hundred miles to either side of it.

If any of you are crazy enough to come down and get one, I'll help you find one, and even sail it back to the States... all downwind tradewind costal sailing, until you hit Florida. :cool:

High C
01-26-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by George.:
...If any of you are crazy enough to come down and get one, I'll help you find one, and even sail it back to the States... all downwind tradewind costal sailing, until you hit Florida. :cool: Oh you temptress! :cool:

But I ain't sailing in the North Atlantic. Too cold! :D

George.
01-26-2006, 11:37 AM
Ain't no cold water between São Luis and Slidell, child! :D

High C
01-26-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by George.:
Ain't no cold water between São Luis and Slidell, child! :D I know that! I thought it was funny that the map calls the ocean there the "North Atlantic". MMD and Popeye might get confused by that! ;)

LeeG
01-26-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Jagermeister:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />LeeG says:
quality of the recruits for the needed specialities, language, defusing IEDs and other higher level skills needed IN IRAQ are rapidly being depleted.I'd be interested in seeing that information.

P.P.S. IIRC, Rumsfeld essentially called Krepinevich a liar for suggesting that troop exhaustion was the cause for the Iraq draw-down, as opposed to theater requirements. He said Krepinevich wasn't in a position to know, and that he was flat out wrong for suggesting it.

- Kevin</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't it a bit odd for Rumsfeld to question Krepinevichs integrity given Rumsfelds history of substituting theory for observation. But ever typical to reject information that isn't ideologically correct.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13711296.htm

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected both reports, saying that "it's clear that those comments do not reflect the current situation. They are either out of date or just misdirected."

In response, the Army has begun to accept more high school dropouts and Category IV recruits - those who make the lowest acceptable scores on the military's entrance exam. The Army has raised the age limit for new recruits from 35 to 42, offered bigger bonuses, increased its advertising budget and put more recruiters on the street.
So far, the Army is making its recruiting goals for fiscal year 2006. The Army's re-enlistment rate is its highest in five years.

LeeG
01-26-2006, 12:03 PM
Alan, there will be fewer of these kinds of stories because US/western journalists are leaving Bagdad just like the professional Iraqis are taking a break. The reason for reading this stuff is because the press reports from Rumsfeld will continue without counterpoint. We can read what this analyst said, what Rumsfled left out of that statement,,but news,,news as it happens will be more from the official organs of power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502344_pf.html