The cost of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

[Underseer]

In the run up to this war, we violated all of the Weinberger Doctrine (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_057800_weinbergerdo.htm). We also violated the more well-known Powell Doctrine (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_057800_weinbergerdo.htm), which is based on the Weinberger Doctrine.

But by golly we stuck to the Rumsfeld Doctrine! So what did that get us?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_17/b3880048.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/

I'll copy and paste the above articles in another post...

[Underseer]

Copy and paste of the Businessweek article:


It's Time To Shelve The Rumsfeld Doctrine
Too few soldiers and no exit plan have led to upheaval in Iraq

Denial is rampant in Washington. There is denial that intelligence mistakes were made in the months and years before September 11. There is denial that foreign policy mistakes were made in the runup to the war in Iraq. There is denial that the Shiite revolts mark a turning point in the postwar occupation. And most importantly, there is denial that the military strategy going into Iraq, the Rumsfeld Doctrine, is a failure.


The best hope left of establishing a stable Iraqi democracy is to replace that doctrine, which emphasizes small, light, and fast military operations, with its rival, the Powell Doctrine, devised by then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Powell Doctrine calls for overwhelming force shaped by very clear political goals and a specific exit strategy, two things lacking today in Iraq.

The failure of the Rumsfeld Doctrine in Iraq is all too clear -- too few boots on the ground, too little legitimacy for America and its handpicked Governing Council, too many shifting goals, and no clear exit strategy. The result in recent weeks has been a cycle of kidnappings, ambushes, counterstrikes, death, and destruction that increasingly echoes the disaster in Vietnam. The silent majority of Iraqis who in polls just weeks ago said that life was better today than under Saddam Hussein is being radicalized. Moderate Shiite leaders who tolerated the U.S. occupation are turning increasingly impatient and anti-American. The goodwill among the majority of Iraqis that America gained in overthrowing Saddam is being squandered. There is still an opportunity for the Bush Administration to set Iraq onto a political path leading to representative democracy. But it needs to acknowledge mistakes and move on.

Here's why: The Rumsfeld Doctrine promised that a high-tech military could easily win battles anywhere around the world with relatively small numbers of soldiers on the ground. It argued that the power and accuracy of the latest weapons more than compensated for fewer troops, releasing the U.S. from the constraints of needing allies to help supply large numbers of soldiers. It allowed the U.S. to bypass the U.N. and NATO in projecting power overseas. In effect, the Rumsfeld Doctrine provided the military rationale for the Administration's foreign policy of unilateral preemption that was anti-European (Old Europe -- France and Germany) and anti-U.N. Prior to the Persian Gulf War, George H.W. Bush spent months negotiating with dozens of countries to assemble a huge coalition of European and Middle Eastern armies to overwhelm Saddam. Bush I played by the rules of the Powell Doctrine. Bush II took the U.S. in basically alone, with real help only from the British.

The deficiencies appeared in the first days of the Iraq war. American troops were dazzling in their dash across the deserts of Iraq to take Baghdad, and the country, in mere weeks. Yet the relative paucity of troops, one-third of the total used in the Gulf War, meant that many cities were simply bypassed in the invasion, especially in the Sunni heartland, Saddam's source of power. The Sunnis, the 20% minority who have dominated Iraq for centuries, were never conquered. Months passed before U.S. troops entered Fallujah and other towns.

The failure to establish security in Iraq immediately after the downfall of Saddam also led to a loss of legitimacy that is felt today. Not only were Saddam's armed henchmen left to roam free but looters and criminals soon dominated Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. The U.S. military wasn't able -- or willing -- to stop the crime wave. Armed militias coalesced in this vacuum to offer protection to Iraqis, including one overseen by radical fundamentalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who led the recent rebellion. By disbanding the 400,000-strong Iraqi army, the U.S. made the power vacuum worse. Efforts to build a new army and police force didn't work, either. In the recent fighting, the army mutinied and many police joined the rebels.

In the end, former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was right when he said that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to conquer, occupy, and provide security to the people of Iraq. But that would have required support from Europe and the U.N. Belatedly, the military is asking for roughly 10,000 more ground soldiers, but far more may be needed to provide security to Iraqis.

A SHOT AT STABILITY
The bypassing of the U.N. contributed to Washington's failure to build a credible interim government. In Bosnia and Afghanistan, the U.S. asked the U.N. to play a leading role in setting up democratic political systems. But not in Iraq. Instead, the Bush Administration installed exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi, who had virtually no support inside Iraq. Those Iraqis with real power demanded that the U.N. play a central role in shaping the new political process. The man with perhaps the most authority in Iraq, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, said from the start of the occupation that he would not negotiate directly with the U.S. but would deal with the U.N. Sistani is a natural ally of the U.S. He is a moderate, calling for Iraqi clerics to stay out of government and to avoid fighting with the Americans. His son is negotiating directly with al-Sadr to end the rebellion. He is also talking with U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi on setting up a new transitional government. Yet L. Paul Bremer III, the chief U.S. administrator in Baghdad, has consistently ignored Sistani.

What is to be done now? A return to the Powell Doctrine would accomplish a number of key goals. Significantly higher troop levels would crush, finally, Baathist resistance and provide more security to Iraqis. The U.S. may have to bring back the divisions it sent home. Accepting a key U.N. role in shaping the political process would bring in moderate Iraqi clerics and promote the best chance of creating a stable government. It is the only way to get support from European and Asian allies.

The realpolitik of the Powell Doctrine would also force Washington to limit its goals and make its exit strategy clear. Is the goal of the U.S. to set up a stable Iraqi government that balances Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite interests? That might take three or four years of military and financial help. But if the goal is to build a genuine Iraqi democracy that protects women's rights, that could take decades. What is truly feasible?

Facts on the ground in Iraq are already pushing the Administration to change course. The military is asking for a lot more troops. Washington is giving the U.N. carte blanche to negotiate directly with Sistani and other Iraqi moderates on the composition of the next transitional Iraqi government, key details of the new Iraqi constitution, and the rules of the national election that will occur in 2005. In his Apr. 13 speech on Iraq, President Bush expressly welcomed the growing role of the U.N. in Iraq and suggested a role for NATO there as well. Washington is finally acknowledging that it can't do it alone.

There is a certain Kafkaesque quality to Washington these days. Congressional hearings are held and speeches are made about September 11 and the Iraq war in which people deny obvious past realities. The bloody events of recent weeks in Iraq are forcing the U.S. to acknowledge a new set of present realities. The Bush Administration needs the help of the U.N., NATO, and its allies. It's crunch time in Iraq. Let's be honest about it.


By Bruce Nussbaum

[Underseer]

Copy and paste of the MSNBC article


The Human Cost
They were sent to fight for their country. But some GIs didn't have all they needed to protect themselves

By Melinda Liu, John Barry and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

May 3 issue - The inaugural mission of the 1st Cavalry's 2d Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment was, in its humble way, a bid for hearts and minds. It was to safely dispose of Iraqi sewage. Having arrived in Iraq in late March, a 19-man patrol from the battalion, traveling in four Humvees, had just finished escorting three Iraqi "honey wagons" on their rounds in the grim slum of Sadr City, where vendors stash eggs and chickens in bamboo crates next to puddles of viscous black mud. ("You're lucky if it's mud," joked one U.S. officer.) Suddenly the street became "a 300-meter-long kill zone," recalls platoon leader Sgt. Shane Aguero, courtesy of gunmen from the Mahdi militia of Shiite rebel Moqtada al-Sadr. The Humvees swerved and ran onto sidewalks, rolling on the rims of flat tires, as gunmen kept up the barrage of bullets. Sgt. Yihjyh (Eddie) Chen, gunner in the lead vehicle, was shot dead. Another soldier was hit and began bleeding from the mouth.

And their trouble was just beginning. Two of the Humvees became disabled. Aguero yelled at one driver to gun the engine to get his Humvee moving. The engine fell out. As they'd been drilled to do, the soldiers set out to strip the disabled vehicles of sensitive items and to "zee off the radio"—to see that codes and equipment don't fall into enemy hands. When another group got ambushed nearby, an enemy round came through the Humvee's right rear door—through retrofitted panels that the soldiers had been told would repel AK-47 rounds. Miraculously, none of the three people inside were hit. Then a third Humvee sputtered to a halt: debris had pierced the fuel tank. "It just wouldn't start; we coasted the last 50 yards out of the kill zone," said its driver, Spc. Dee Foster. At last an armored Bradley fighting vehicle arrived, and its steel ramp opened to scoop him and his buddies to safety.

For the Bush administration it has been a mantra, one the president intones repeatedly: America's troops will get whatever they need to do the job. But as Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low-intensity combat—and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels—many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer. Especially tanks, Bradleys and other heavy vehicles, even in some cases body armor. That has been the tragic lesson of April, a month in which a record 115 U.S. soldiers have died so far and 879 others have been wounded, 560 of them fairly seriously. Those numbers greatly exceed the tallies in the combat-heavy weeks of the invasion last spring. And the impact of those deaths was felt more fully last week when blogger Russ Kick, after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, won the release of photos showing coffins returning to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Soldiers in Iraq complain that Washington has been too slow to acknowledge that the Iraqi insurgency consists of more than "dead-enders." And even at the Pentagon many officers say Rumsfeld and his brass have been too reluctant to modify their long-term plans for a lighter military. On the battlefield, that has translated into a lack of armor. Perhaps the most telling example: a year ago the Pentagon had more than 400 main battle tanks in Iraq; as of recently, a senior Defense official told NEWSWEEK, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks.)

In continuing adherence to the Army's "light is better" doctrine, even units recently rotated to Iraq have left most of their armor behind. These include the I Marine Expeditionary Force, which has paid dearly for that decision with an astonishing 30 percent-plus casualties (45 killed, more than 300 wounded) in Fallujah and Ar Ramadi. The Army's 1st Cavalry Division—which includes the unit in Sadr City—left five of every six of its tanks at home, and five of every six Bradleys.

A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.

The military is 1,800 armored Humvees short of its own stated requirement for Iraq. Despite desperate attempts to supply bolt-on armor, many soldiers still ride around in light-skinned Humvees. This is a latter-day jeep that, as Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division, conceded in an interview, "was never designed to do this ... It was never anticipated that we would have things like roadside bombs in the vast number that we've had here." One newly arrived officer, Lt. Col. Timothy Meredith, says his battalion had just undergone months of training to rid itself of "tank habits" and get used to the Humvees. "We arrived here expecting to do a lot of civil works," says Meredith.

According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK, the Humvee situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen. Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley. According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the Arabs would light them up," he said.

Other quick fixes are being rushed in. In Ohio, O'Gara-Hess and Eisenhardt Armoring Co. says it is flush with new orders to crank out 300 "up-armored" Humvees per month. And Rumsfeld has just approved a quiet plan to fly 28 M1A1 tanks from Germany into Iraq by April 27, NEWSWEEK has learned. The move comes as the military is planning for a final assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. Meanwhile, soldiers are rushing to jury-rig their Humvees with anything hard they can find: bolt-on armor, sandbags, even plywood panels, creating what one senior officer calls "Mad Max-mobiles." But Pentagon sources say many of the retrofitted Humvees cannot take the extra weight, and their suspension or transmission systems fail. Another method is to spray shock-absorbing polyurethane foam—one popular brand name is called Rhino—to the inside or outside of unarmored vehicles.

The biggest problem, perhaps, is that the insurgents—whoever they are—continue to be quick to spot vulnerabilities. It is probably no coincidence that attacks have picked up significantly in April as the Marines, the 1st Cav and other fresh—and untried—troops have rotated in. U.S. bomb-disposal personnel generally succeed in discovering and disarming about half of the homemade bombs that are planted. In March, an estimated 600 to 700 attacks involving homemade devices were either discovered or foiled. In April, one administration source said, as many as 1,000 homemade bomb attacks have been attempted.

The need for more armor—and possibly troops—erupted as an issue on Capitol Hill last week in combative hearings of the Senate and House Armed Services committees. "We are not structured for the security environment we're in," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers told senators and congressmen, including some angry Republicans. As part of his 2005 budget request, Rumsfeld had originally cut the Army budget by 6 percent. But the Army has identified nearly $6 billion in unfunded requests—and more are on the way. "The costs are going to be staggering," says Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who has pestered the Pentagon for months for better estimates. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the House committee that military operations in Iraq are now costing about $4.7 billion a month—a sum that approaches the $5 billion a month (on average) that the Vietnam War cost, adjusted for inflation.

Sen. John McCain says the Pentagon needs an additional division beyond the 20,000 men it is leaving in Iraq for 90-day extensions. Another senator and Vietnam vet, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, even suggested the nation might have to take a long-term look at reviving the draft. Few others went that far, but one knowledgeable Army officer points out that Rumsfeld's standing "stop-loss" order—basically a freeze on retirements—is a "silent draft." It is not expected to be lifted "for the foreseeable future," the officer said. On Capitol Hill, Myers spoke of transforming old field-artillery and air-defense battalions into new units. But the Pentagon has yet to come to grips with its armor crisis—or its human cost.

With Babak Dehghanpisheh in Baghdad, Mark Hosenball and Tamara Lipper in Washington and T. Trent Gegax in New York
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

Keep in mind that when these guys get injured, the Bush administration has made massive cuts to the VA, so they'll have a tougher time getting decent medical treatment later on.

[llad12]

Per your first article:


There is still an opportunity for the Bush Administration to set Iraq onto a political path leading to representative democracy. But it needs to acknowledge mistakes and move on. However our President had this to say about mistakes made in office since 9/11:


"I'm sure something will pop into my head here," he said. "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have." But "maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-12-bush-address_x.htm

Unfortunately, It is clear that no significant changes will be made in foreign policy as long as Bush is in office.

It's time for a change in leadership of our country. It is time to get rid of these warhawks and imperialist neo-conservatives that have arrogantly led our nation into a fruitless war that is costing us billions upon billions of dollars; hundreds of American lives; thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, and has alienated our country from the rest of the world.

The real power of the presidency lies in foreign policy. This president has demonstrated that he is both inept and out of touch with reality.

Your vote is important. Make it count this November.

[Underseer]

Not "warhawk," it's "chickenhawk."

Except for Powell, not one of these jerks has served.

[Module88]

Per your first article:

However our President had this to say about mistakes made in office since 9/11:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-12-bush-address_x.htm

Unfortunately, It is clear that no significant changes will be made in foreign policy as long as Bush is in office.

It's time for a change in leadership of our country. It is time to get rid of these warhawks and imperialist neo-conservatives that have arrogantly led our nation into a fruitless war that is costing us billions upon billions of dollars; hundreds of American lives; thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, and has alienated our country from the rest of the world.

The real power of the presidency lies in foreign policy. This president has demonstrated that he is both inept and out of touch with reality.

Your vote is important. Make it count this November.

Damage is done. American support and popularity has diminished greatly. There's not much we can really do about it. Pulling out isn't an option, and staying gives us more trouble. So, now that we are in this mess (thank you Bush!) we are stuck.

[jimmyboy]

Damage is done. American support and popularity has diminished greatly. There's not much we can really do about it. Pulling out isn't an option, and staying gives us more trouble. So, now that we are in this mess (thank you Bush!) we are stuck.


The only possible way out is to hand the entire operation to the U.N., including giving up all potential lucrative deals. I wonder if the entire Rumsfeld or Bush clan had ever lost a family member in war, or are they just armchair generals.

I just saw a documentary on the latest battles on the Discovery channel last night. Incredible bravery by our troops, but I couldn't believe how poorly planned and underman we were. Some of those battles could have easily gone the other way. They were real gambles.

Unfortunately, Rumsfeld is not going anywhere soon. He's been in high government since Nixon, and has his tennacles everywhere. Even Powel's State Department couldn't withstand his assaults.

[Painman]

Among the many other failures of this administration's handling of the aftermath, another that escapes my logic is why we handed off the reconstruction almost entirely to megacorps like Halliburton and Bechtel. Holy spoils of war, Batman. I thought that (according to the latest "justification" from the Bush administration) the real victors are supposed to be the Iraqi people. Tell me why, then, we didn't seek out Iraqi companies to do the job? It would have 1) been much cheaper and 2) helped alleviate the staggering unemployment over there. Able-bodied Iraqis with nothing better to do are ripe for the picking by opposition groups giving us trouble now.

Maybe it was because the corporate moguls of Saddam's Iraq were Baathists, and we couldn't go around legitimizing them? I don't know if they were, to be honest, but if that was the case, we've certainly flip-flopped on our support of them now. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.baathist/index.html)

[Vchaz]

Let's just go back to the Monroe Doctrine, and extend it to cover the Middle East.

[jmervyn]

Not "warhawk," it's "chickenhawk."

Except for Powell, not one of these jerks has served.

Uh-huh. Glad to know you're an expert on military doctrine as well, Underseer. If you want to have a Bush-hater circle jerk, please label it as such the next time.

If you seriously are questioning the so-called Rumsfeld Doctrine, you're more than a little off-base. I won't go into the Principles of War with someone of your obviously informed background, but the entire problem has been rooted in a failure of the administration to shift from full-fledged combat, to mop-up operations, to nation building, to low-intensity conflict.

In the application of the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" to the conflict, it was astoundingly successful and accomplished the goals set. The problem is that the goals set were not accurate or comprehensive, and they have been subjected to continuous Monday-morning quarterbacking by uninformed gobshytes and people with an agenda (like General "Beret" Shinseki).

[maccool]

In the application of the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" to the conflict, it was astoundingly successful and accomplished the goals set. The problem is that the goals set were not accurate or comprehensive

So what you're saying is that we accomplished our goals militarily/politically/whatever, but they were the wrong goals? I guess that's one way to claim victory or, "Mission Accomplished!"

:scratch:

[Underseer]

So what you're saying is that we accomplished our goals militarily/politically/whatever, but they were the wrong goals? I guess that's one way to claim victory or, "Mission Accomplished!"

:scratch:
:worship: :worship: :worship:

PS: Jmerv, did you actually read the articles?

[jimmyboy]

If you guys have a chance, take a look at an article in this month's Soldier of Fortune. Funny how it rips apart the current military on how they're handling Iraq. Funny is because the magazine is as the title suggest ... a little extreme right at times especially in political opinions. But when it comes to military affairs, it's dead on almost all the time.

[jmervyn]

So what you're saying is that we accomplished our goals militarily/politically/whatever, but they were the wrong goals? I guess that's one way to claim victory or, "Mission Accomplished!"

:scratch:

Bingo. And that's why Shrub was like a kid with a new toy - the initial military ops were successful beyond the administrations' wildest dreams. Keep in mind that the 4th ID never even participated, yet the operation made the Blitz or the USSR's war plans for Europe look like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride...

The problems lay in not having sufficient 'endgame' and COIN (Counterinsurgency) operations and rebuilding planning. These don't have to do with the supposed 'doctrine' any more than do difficulties in refitting light trucks as armored cars. The reason the articles are unworthy is they mix the issues to satisfy a political agenda, rather than studying the issues themselves.

I personally consider the 'gear shifting' capability a continuing problem, from even prior to BJ's presidency. For all the lip service paid to LIC (low-intensity conflict), we still have a military apparatus built like a dinosaur (with procedures & policies reaching back to WW2), and frequently still have a rotten "tooth to tail" ratio. The people working it can make it dance & sing, but that doesn't mean it is right for us to allow it to be unscrutinized; that is a disservice to both them and us (their death, our taxes). The favorite military saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - but that saying is used to preclude the sort of improvements like what Just-in-Time and Quality Management have done in manufacturing. In fact, I've found that saying is generally used to protect laziness and ignorance.

If anything, Rumsfeld has my admiration - he wants to eliminate the hidebound, blinders-on military like Shinseki and White that practice what is called 'fighting the last war'. I know Americans (and liberals in particular) suffer from ADD, but doesn't anyone remember how much crap Rummy took for ditching the Crusader self-propelled artillery program? And that was crap from both political sides - he practically had a revolution on his hands.

[jmervyn]

If you guys have a chance, take a look at an article in this month's Soldier of Fortune. Funny how it rips apart the current military on how they're handling Iraq. Funny is because the magazine is as the title suggest ... a little extreme right at times especially in political opinions. But when it comes to military affairs, it's dead on almost all the time.

Thanks, I'll have to look at it the next time I'm at the supermarket. I expect it would burn Underseer's hands... nassty, tricksy conservativess... we hates them, we hates them forever!

[maccool]

Ok, that makes a lot more sense now, jmerv. I reckon if Kerry gets elected, it'll be more of the same, only with less squintiness and fake cowboy sayings.

I still prefer Texas Souffle to BJ, as a moniker for Shrub, but I really like it!

[Underseer]

the initial military ops were successful beyond the administrations' wildest dreams.
How can you possibly view this as proof of anything about the Rumsfeld doctrine one way or another?

Saddam's strategy was obviously to avoid direct convnentional conflict with our troops. It was fast and easy because they let us barge in. Great, so we were able to drive straight to Bagdhad with minimal opposition, and so what? Anyone can drive straight to Bagdhad if the enemy army spends most of its time putting on civilian clothes and running away.

Saddam's strategy was to wage a guerilla war. His strategy began after Bush donned his flightsuit and declared victory on that carrier, and that is the point from which Rumsfeld's doctrine fails utterly.

More importantly, Rumsfeld's Doctrine has utterly failed in Afghanistan. Karzai only controls Kabul. Warlords, the Taliban and Taliban supporters still control the rest of the country.

If we had followed the Weinberger Doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not be in the pickle we're in right now.

If Rumsfeld's Doctrine was correct back when generals were asking for more troops, and is correct now, why is the administration now flipflopping on troop strength in Iraq?

[jmervyn]

How can you possibly view this as proof of anything about the Rumsfeld doctrine one way or another?

Congrats, Underseer. With one sentence you have confirmed every suspicion I have about you.

The "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (given the pretentious lie that that phrase encompasses), would be that offensive operations don't require overwhelming force as Powell used in the first Gulf War. It is essentially emphasising the principles of Maneuver and Offensive, sacrificing Mass and hoping to increase Economy of force. But I'm sure you knew that already. :sleep:



Saddam's strategy was obviously to avoid direct convnentional conflict with our troops. It was fast and easy because they let us barge in. Great, so we were able to drive straight to Bagdhad with minimal opposition, and so what? Anyone can drive straight to Bagdhad if the enemy army spends most of its time putting on civilian clothes and running away.

Saddam's strategy was to wage a guerilla war. His strategy began after Bush donned his flightsuit and declared victory on that carrier, and that is the point from which Rumsfeld's doctrine fails utterly.


Oooh, so Saddam had a strategy! I thought he was busy trying to hide his skanky butt in a hole in the ground. But he was in charge all along! Wow, I'm amazed at your breadth of perceptive intuition about something you're obviously so well-versed in.

I'm also glad to know that anyone can drive straight through Iraq - I'm surprised that the previously most fearsome military in the middle east hadn't set up concession stands for the visiting Iranian and Saudi military convoys.



More importantly, Rumsfeld's Doctrine has utterly failed in Afghanistan. Karzai only controls Kabul. Warlords, the Taliban and Taliban supporters still control the rest of the country.

If we had followed the Weinberger Doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not be in the pickle we're in right now.

If Rumsfeld's Doctrine was correct back when generals were asking for more troops, and is correct now, why is the administration now flipflopping on troop strength in Iraq?

Okay, so we should have invaded Afghanistan with several divisions, and let the locals go jihad on us the way the Soviets did, right? I'm sure that would have been much more efficient than using indigenous forces to overthrow a deeply-rooted, fanatically hostile tribal gov't, particularly once that gov't had assassinated the indigenous forces only charismatic leader.

I know, Underseer! Let's just put you in charge! I can tell with your grasp of geopolitical realities we'll be just peachy in a few months. What's that first step again? Send in more troops (per your article)? Gee, seems like I've heard a democrat say that before somewhere... but then, your pick for the next Executive has firsthand experience in that front. Or would it be appeasement and withdrawal, which has worked so well in North Korea?

I don't know why I bother. But if anyone with grey matter is reading this, the reason the Executive is considering more troops is twofold:

#1 is that they don't want to be accused of screwing the troops (ala BJ Clinton) by not giving the local commanders what they need - these articles show that these accusations will fly regardless. Even when the funding of these things is being debated ("I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it").

#2 is that they badly underestimated the ability of our forces in peacekeeping and reconstruction duties, simply because that's not what armies are for, nor what the administration wanted to do with them. The fact that a lot of the units we have doing this work are being drawn from the Nasty Guard & Reserves is cheerfully ignored by the media.

Again, our current administration is making a horrible go at on-the-job training, but do we really want our country to spend massive amounts of blood and money building primitive countries up? If not, then criticising the current administration for their inability to turn sows' ears into silk purses is hypocritical at a minimum.

[jmervyn]

I still prefer Texas Souffle to BJ, as a moniker for Shrub, but I really like it!

Sorry, BJ = William Jefferson. As well as = Monica's hummer while Arafat is on hold.

[maccool]

Sorry, BJ = William Jefferson. As well as = Monica's hummer while Arafat is on hold.

Crap, color me a long-hair. I thought it stood for Bush, Jr - which as we all know is techinically incorrect. Well, Texas Souffle he shall remain.

[llad12]

If anything, Rumsfeld has my admiration - he wants to eliminate the hidebound, blinders-on military like Shinseki and White that practice what is called 'fighting the last war'. I know Americans (and liberals in particular) suffer from ADD, but doesn't anyone remember how much crap Rummy took for ditching the Crusader self-propelled artillery program? And that was crap from both political sides - he practically had a revolution on his hands.Admiration for Rumsfeld? Be glad you're not on patrol in Falujah ...

Consider this article from the "Hack"


Thin Skins Bleed Easily
By David H. Hackworth



The central theme of Sun Tzu’s timeless book, The Art of War, is for commanders to take care of their troops. If one of his generals had sent warriors into battle with defective chariots, I’ll bet you a fortune cookie that the offender’s head would have quickly decorated the end of a pike.



But that’s far from the case in the 2004 U.S. Army. And a classic example of leadership negligence is our soldiers’ current chariot, the Humvee.



As early as Oct. 3, 1993, the Ranger fight in downtown Mogadishu demonstrated the added value of armored Humvees. Subsequent shoot’em-ups in ex-Yugoslavia proved once again how effectively this rugged vehicle protects our grunts.



Yet the high brass, from SecDef Bill Cohen to Donald Rumsfeld to almost a generation of generals, never bothered to adjust their budgets to buy more armored Humvees. And today, troops are being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan because there aren’t enough of these bullet-and-shrapnel-stoppers to go around.



Why is the armored Humvee in such short supply when after-action reports have been shouting its praises since 1993?



For sure, there’s been no shortage of cash. Since the need for these obviously essential lifesavers became apparent, the Pentagon has ordered more than $5 trillion of toys – from irrelevant big-ticket items like Star Wars II, to fleets of VIP jets to fly generals and politicians to and fro, to Gen. Tommy Franks spending almost half a million dollars on a VIP show-and-tell stage he had sent from the USA to Qatar so he could spin the Iraq War in a slick “Today” show-like setting.



Meanwhile, in this high-tech day and age, the troops are actually back to the same old sandbags and jury-rigged plates of steel welded to their vehicles that my recon platoon used at the end of World War II when we were fighting Tito’s insurgents in northern Italy.



And as the brass ease into the blame game, the thing that frosts me is that no one is being held accountable. Not one head has fallen as legs and arms keep getting blown off and more and more body bags are zipped.



The logisticians are saying the senior commanders didn’t tell them what the requirements were. And the combat skippers are saying that the nature of the war changed from slamming Saddam with an iron fist to fighting guerrillas who use rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices as their weapons of choice.



I don’t buy this bureaucratic game of passing the hot grenade. Long before Saddam’s statue came toppling down in Baghdad a year ago this month, it should have been clear to any career officer with any knowledge of guerrilla warfare that we were about to find ourselves smack in the middle of an insurgent war and needed armored vehicles to more adequately protect our warriors.



But the Pentagon’s Cheap Charlie estimate back then was that a mere 235 armored Humvees would do just peachy-keen for the occupation phase of our misadventure in Iraq. Now, after 720-plus dead and thousands of wounded – and hundreds of Humvees destroyed or damaged – the same geniuses have suddenly concluded that we need more than 5,000 armored Humvees.



The brass’ lame excuse is that they didn’t expect things to turn violent in Iraq. And considering it took months for Rumsfeld to finally admit that our forces were engaged in a guerrilla war, upping the Humvee order early on might have interfered with the all-pervasive miasma of denial – and who knows how many precious careers.



The $180,000 vehicle is being built by Armor Holdings Inc. A year ago, the company was popping out 60 armored Humvees a month. This month, it will turn out about 200, and the goal is to kick up production to 450 units a month by November. If the Army can find the money.



But even if some gold-plated Cold War porker like the Air Force F/A-22 is canceled and the money is transferred to the armored Humvee account, the word is that Armor Holdings won’t be able to meet demand until sometime next year.



In the meantime, more Americans will be blasted to pieces, while those responsible are promoted or check out of the military to cash in as defense lobbyists.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=68&rnd=67.16472818124863

[jmervyn]

Admiration for Rumsfeld? Be glad you're not on patrol in Falujah ...

Consider this article from the "Hack"

I've been on patrol in Safwan. Don't believe everything you see on the news, Ilad. At least Rummy attempted to rock the boat, unlike most other mili-crats.

However, Hackworth is generally on the ball. Are you supplying the article to confirm or deny my allegations? Sounds to me like confirmation, though he lumps Rummy in with the rest of the lot. Again, this is confusing the so-called doctrine (which I'm ambivalent about) with the insufficiency of our forces in conducting modern LIC (which I agree with, and agree with Hackworth's blaming the 'brass').

[llad12]

I've been on patrol in Safwan. Don't believe everything you see on the news, Ilad. At least Rummy attempted to rock the boat, unlike most other mili-crats.

However, Hackworth is generally on the ball. Are you supplying the article to confirm or deny my allegations? Sounds to me like confirmation, though he lumps Rummy in with the rest of the lot. Again, this is confusing the so-called doctrine (which I'm ambivalent about) with the insufficiency of our forces in conducting modern LIC (which I agree with, and agree with Hackworth's blaming the 'brass').It was in line with the LIC and both the brass and Rumsfeld's poor choices in providing enough body armor and armored vehicles for protecting the "grunt" in the field.

I don't argue about Rumsfeld's military plan for initially conquering Iraq considering it's success (the only possible exception: our supply lines being stretched and underprotected). Now the political reasons and subsequent post-war problems, I will argue about all day .... :wink2:

[jmervyn]

It was in line with the LIC and both the brass and Rumsfeld's poor choices in providing enough body armor and armored vehicles for protecting the "grunt" in the field.

I don't argue about Rumsfeld's military plan for initially conquering Iraq considering it's success (the only possible exception: our supply lines being stretched and underprotected). Now the political reasons and subsequent post-war problems, I will argue about all day .... :wink2:

Again, the lightning bolt of consensus strikes the OTF, and considering our polar views it is pretty amazing. Again, I think the error is in considering the whole ****-up of "reconstruction" being part of the "Rumsfeld Doctrine".

I'll bet Rummy hates that phraseology now, since it inherently blames him for our inability to conduct LIC operations with Cold War force structures. Particularly because he is such an advocate of force modernization and revision - though I'm surprised that the "Stryker Bridgades" appear to be such a tame implementation of same. And trying to blame Rumsfeld exclusively for lack of funding & support in these matters is just wrong-minded; the Congress & Senate are surely to blame for throwing pork-barrel touchdowns when we need better boots and rifles. But such is the nature of our Gov't. Pity.

The supply line issue is an unhealthy trade-off when emphasizing Maneuver in any plan. I'd bet that the holes left in the plan by the 4th ID's lack of participation are partly to blame...

[dantose]

OK, I think the first problem is we have different views of where his doctrine begins and ends so lets talk about specific points instead.

1) Use of armor. Whether or not this was rummy's call, the shift in the use of the abrams was VERY effective. I think this is probably the first time we have seen how brutally effective the vehicle can be. I can get into specific examples but I doubt this will be a point of contention.

2) Amount of troops needed. Rummy et al dropped the ball on this one. we don't have nearly enough warm bodies over there. Gen. Shinseki's estimate of troops needed to enforce the peace in post war Iraq has been validated and I think one of the wors choices mde in the whole process was getting rid of him. I will say that the berets were a bad idea though, give me back my partol cap!

[Underseer]

Congrats, Underseer. With one sentence you have confirmed every suspicion I have about you.
Happy to disappoint you.


The "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (given the pretentious lie that that phrase encompasses), would be that offensive operations don't require overwhelming force as Powell used in the first Gulf War. It is essentially emphasising the principles of Maneuver and Offensive, sacrificing Mass and hoping to increase Economy of force. But I'm sure you knew that already. :sleep:
Yes, and Rumsfeld's insistance on waging war on the cheap, has had real-world costs. Try doing a little reading, starting with the articles at the beginning of this thread.



Oooh, so Saddam had a strategy! I thought he was busy trying to hide his skanky butt in a hole in the ground. But he was in charge all along! Wow, I'm amazed at your breadth of perceptive intuition about something you're obviously so well-versed in.
Right. All those weapons hid themselves in mosques. Saddam made no plans for guerilla warfare, and did nothing but hide in holes from before the invasion until he was caught. Thank you for setting everything straight.


I'm also glad to know that anyone can drive straight through Iraq - I'm surprised that the previously most fearsome military in the middle east hadn't set up concession stands for the visiting Iranian and Saudi military convoys.
Thanks for bringing up the Iranians, that's worth noting. Compare and contrast the response of the Iraqi army when Iran attacked them, to their recent response to the first stages of our invasion. When we waltzed through, they offered no credible resistance. They didn't even try.

Congrats! Your boy Rumsfeld's attempts at war-on-the-cheap works smashingly when there is no credible opposition!


Okay, so we should have invaded Afghanistan with several divisions, and let the locals go jihad on us the way the Soviets did, right? I'm sure that would have been much more efficient than using indigenous forces to overthrow a deeply-rooted, fanatically hostile tribal gov't, particularly once that gov't had assassinated the indigenous forces only charismatic leader.
So instead, we should just roll over and die and let the Taliban do whatever they want everywhere except for Kabul. Meanwhile, we'll let Afghanistan fall to hell because we're too busy concentrating everything we have on an invasion that has nothing to do with al Qa'eda. Brilliant.


I know, Underseer! Let's just put you in charge! I can tell with your grasp of geopolitical realities we'll be just peachy in a few months. What's that first step again? Send in more troops (per your article)? Gee, seems like I've heard a democrat say that before somewhere... but then, your pick for the next Executive has firsthand experience in that front. Or would it be appeasement and withdrawal, which has worked so well in North Korea?
Hey, appeasement! Nice of you to bring that up.

Let's see, what was al Qa'eda's NUMBER ONE demand? Oh yeah, pull American troops out of Saudi Arabia. What did Bush do? Rolled over and caved in to their demands by turning tail and running as fast as he could from Saudi Arabia. That's the way to show them who's boss!

OK, let's accept for a moment that sending in more troops would be an extremely bad idea and that anyone who would suggest such a thing is a complete idiot. As you say. So what is the Bush administration considering right now? That's right, they're busy flipflopping and admitting we need more troops. So by your logic that means they're idiots, right?


I don't know why I bother. But if anyone with grey matter is reading this, the reason the Executive is considering more troops is twofold:

#1 is that they don't want to be accused of screwing the troops (ala BJ Clinton) by not giving the local commanders what they need - these articles show that these accusations will fly regardless. Even when the funding of these things is being debated ("I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it").
So Bush should increase troop levels to stave off accusations that are going to be made no matter what he does. Amazing use of logic.


#2 is that they badly underestimated the ability of our forces in peacekeeping and reconstruction duties, simply because that's not what armies are for, nor what the administration wanted to do with them. The fact that a lot of the units we have doing this work are being drawn from the Nasty Guard & Reserves is cheerfully ignored by the media.
That they badly underestimated the abilities of our foces in "peacekeeping" (your use of that word is completely delusional, but whatever) is at the heart of this discussion. If he had listened to those you insist were "obviously wrong," then we wouldn't be in this pickle right now.


Again, our current administration is making a horrible go at on-the-job training, but do we really want our country to spend massive amounts of blood and money building primitive countries up? If not, then criticising the current administration for their inability to turn sows' ears into silk purses is hypocritical at a minimum.
We should be spending massive amounts of money rebuilding Afghanistan for a variety of national security reasons.

We should not be rebuilding Iraq at all because we should not have invaded at all. We should have concentrated on al Qa'eda. I know it's hard for you to remember them, but they are the primary threat, not imaginary WMD.

[jmervyn]

Happy to disappoint you.


You don't disappoint me; you hardly rise to meet my expectations. I had prepared a more detailed refutation of your idiocy, but my computer locked up -doubtless disgusted by my stooping to your level
:surprise:

I guess that you not only don't get it, but never will. This is a conflict between the sworn enemies of the U.S. (be they Al Quaeda, Baathist, or just nutbags) and our armed forces. While you might prefer to sing Kumbaya and pass flowers, such tactics failed the Roman Empire in appeasing barbarians and they're failing the U.S. now. And I don't even consider the U.S. to be Imperialist or degenerate as you and your buddies do.

Please do us all a favor and continue to post your incorrect, illogical, inflammatory, and insane ideas and the articles that support them. God willing, the minor number of people who are moderate, or liberals who have some brains left, will realize that you have nothing worthwhile or constructive to say. If enough people realize that the polarization of America and placing of blame is a deliberately destructive mentality, we might have a future for our country.

I'm sure you want the last word. After all, it validates your existence, right?

[Underseer]

You don't disappoint me; you hardly rise to meet my expectations. I had prepared a more detailed refutation of your idiocy, but my computer locked up -doubtless disgusted by my stooping to your level
:surprise:
You have an amazingly well-developed self-image. Considering the content of your posts, I have a difficult time understanding why, but all the same I'm very happy for you.


I guess that you not only don't get it, but never will. This is a conflict between the sworn enemies of the U.S. (be they Al Quaeda, Baathist, or just nutbags) and our armed forces.
I get it just fine, it's you who has his head buried in the sand. This is a war between us and al Qa'eda. I know it's hard to keep track of all this hard stuff, but the Ba'ath party did not attack the World Trade Center, the Ba'ath party did not attack the Pentagon, and when millions of Muslim fundamentalist idiots ran cheering in the streets, they were hoisting signs and pictures depicting Osama bin Laden, not Saddam.

Even if you don't believe me, Bush himself is on record saying that Iraq "had nothing to do with the [sic] September the 11."

Try laying off the Kool-Aid.


While you might prefer to sing Kumbaya and pass flowers, such tactics failed the Roman Empire in appeasing barbarians and they're failing the U.S. now.
Now you've gone totally dellusional.

I am not the one who wants to appease al Qa'eda. You and your buddies are the ones insisting that we devote the vast majority of our resources attacking someone other than al Qa'eda. Bush was the one who appeased bin Laden by turning tail and pulling our troops from Saudi Arabia just like bin Laden demanded.

The result of all this madness: we've barely made a dent in al Qa'eda's operations, we've massively increased their recruitment to the point where we could never incarcerate al Qa'eda operatives faster than they get new ones, and we've turned our nation into international pariahs which makes it harder to get help from other nations (notice all the rats evacuating the sinking ship in Iraq).


And I don't even consider the U.S. to be Imperialist or degenerate as you and your buddies do.
Then you need to read the white papers written by the good folks at the Project for a New American century, provided you can get your head out of the sand long enough to do so. The Iraq operations has thus far followed their recommendations to the letter, and as per their own words, this is all about American hegemony.


Please do us all a favor and continue to post your incorrect, illogical, inflammatory, and insane ideas and the articles that support them.
So far, you have completely failed to show that anything I've said nor any article I've linked to is illogical, inflammatory or insane. You have however managed to offer a bunch of poorly thought out refutations ("he's flip-flopping on troop strength to stave off criticism that is going to come no matter what he does"), unsubstantiated declarations of your own expertise and ad hominem attacks on me.


God willing, the minor number of people who are moderate, or liberals who have some brains left, will realize that you have nothing worthwhile or constructive to say.
*yawn* More ad hominem and unsubstantiated assertions.


If enough people realize that the polarization of America and placing of blame is a deliberately destructive mentality, we might have a future for our country.
This is a joke right?

The incompetents in the Bush administration have perpetrated the most staggering and complete diplomatic failure anyone can think of and in the process have royally screwed up the war on terrorism. They've put us in a position in Iraq where there can be no good outcomes (attack and look like monsters or not attack and look weak). And for pointing out their inadequacies, I'm being "polarizing"? This accusation from the good folks that brought us eight years of unending attacks on the president about blow jobs? We might have a future for this country, but only if we get rid of the evil morons currently occupying the White House.


I'm sure you want the last word. After all, it validates your existence, right?
No, it prompts more half-baked responses from you, which are on the whole highly amusing.

[dantose]

there is so much bad info in this thread that I cannot even begin to correct it all. Someone, please shoot this thread and salt the earth where it is buried. failing that please shoot me.

[jimmyboy]

I wonder if we'd capture Bin Ladin and fix up Afghanistan by now if we had directed all of our resources in Afghanistan instead of dirverting it to Iraq.