If you've been watching the news lately, you've noted that some of our retired generals have drawn out their long knives on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld due to their disagreement over the war in Iraq, re-organization of the military, or their complete dislike of the man. For me, I've been a big supporter of our Defense chief for a long time and feel that we would see a complete dissolution of the civilian control over our military if any soldier, retired our active, was able to take down a member of the President's cabinet in this manner. Now if the Secretary of Defense truly violates the US Code of Military Justice, Geneva Convention, or the Constitution, then I'd expect these individuals to go through the proper channels. For me the arguments that Rumsfeld didn't listen tenure or was just rough on them during their tenure (Most of the gang of 8 complaining were either well below the one on one level with the Defense Chief or were retired before he arrived) falls well below a level that requires such an outcry.
In fact while all of these retired Generals are flocking in front of the cameras calling for the head of a man who works long hours everyday defending this nation and preparing our military for the twenty-first century and Islamic terrorism. This tireless work seems to be shining through in the field of transforming the military to be faster, more mobile and deadlier in the new world of warfare(As Professor Larry Elowitz ( my former National Security professor/guru) of GC&SU used to say "The wars of tomorrow will not be fought on the plains of Germany via the Folda Gap.") especially if you read Mark Sappenfield's most recent article in the Christian Science Monitor. Here's a good sampling of why Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is a great asset and monumental figure in the Pentagon and will continue to do so at the pleasure of President Bush:
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld speaks of creating a faster and more flexible Army, this is where it begins. The idea is to emphasize smaller units like the 1-28, pushing materiel and manpower - like these cooks and mechanics - further down the Army's organizational chain.So keep up the good work Secretary Rumsfeld, the people are with you. Here's hoping that these Generals, who are calling for the ouster of the Defense Chief, will find a way of curbing their anger and egos long enough to offer useful alternatives to fighting the war in Iraq or Rumsfeld's management style but then again we're talking about Generals. Anyone remember Gen. George McClellan or Gen. Douglas MacArthur?
By giving these smaller units more resources, the Army is making them more self-sufficient - and that gives Pentagon leaders more options. In the past, the smallest unit the Army could send to any global hot spot was a division of nearly 20,000 troops. By pushing its resources downward, now the Army can mobilize individual brigade combat teams as small as 3,500 troops.
It is a fundamental change brought about by a new security environment. During the cold war, the threat was a massive war against the Soviets, so it made sense to organize the Army into a few massive pieces. Today, however, America is faced more and more with smaller conflicts, and the Pentagon is convinced that this requires smaller pieces that can be moved around the globe more easily.
Yet the changes are already echoing beyond the arcane matter of military organization into soldiers' everyday lives.
Not only will infantrymen train more frequently with soldiers they would rarely have seen in the old system - as was on display in the predawn workout. But as members of the Army's newly created brigade combat teams, they all will also spend three years at one post - training together, living together, and eventually going to war together.
2 comments:
One of the main arguments I have of Rumsfeld is the way we handled the war from the beginning - not enough troops. We sorta went in 'half-cocked' in my opinion. First we didn't have enough troops to stop an obviousl problem - looting. Next, we assumed the Iraqi people would take control of the situation sooner and be more proactive...as you can see, it was a wrong assumption as they are just asserting themselves.
I'm not one of the people who says everything Rumsfeld does/did was wrong, but from what I've read from US Generals, they wanted more troops. Also, I didn't expect the war to be all 'sunshine'. Any rational person should know this was going to take time.......BUT.....
If you're going to conduct a war, don't do it half-assed.
As far a the taking down the regime of Saddam, the amount of troops we sent in were enough. (Three weeks to take down the regime is pretty darn quick.) Don't forget that for every soldier(The Teeth) you send in, you have a lot of support personel(The Tail) bringing up the rear thus there were a lot of vulnerable people up and down the highways of Iraq. Could you imagime what it would have been like with 350,000 to 4000,000 US soldiers there. Rumsfeld wanted the heavy lifting done fast and hard not slow and softer.
As for preventing looting, our soldiers were on the hunt for folks trying to kill them and had to secure things that an future Iraq government would needed to get off the ground thus they didn't have time to stop looters in Iraq. As for the Iraqis taking command of the situation sooner, it's rather hard to do so when much of the former leaders and people who run the government were Saddam stooges or were hacks who had taken the country to hell in the first place.
I'd also say that no matter how much Generals jump up and down yelling that Rumsfeld went in unprepared, the war plans are only as good for the things you expect and not the unexpectable like looting or slow actions on behalf of the people you helped. There's plenty of instances in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Bosnia and Kosovo where things don't go as you originally planned but works out in the long run.
Post a Comment