I was in the smoke shop yesterday and a very interesting conversation was in the air. When the topic turned to the generals who are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, one of our friends pointed out that they are Army generals.
Now, if you have not made yourself familiar with Tom Barnett and his book The Pentagon's New Map, you are way behind the curve. His plan, which Rumsfeld supports, drastically alters the role of the Army. Note that you don't hear many Airforce generals complaining.
Although our "smoking man" was quick to give credit for this idea to Krauthammer, he seems to have inside knowledge himself. You see, a classic gentleman's smoke shop often attracts a certain kind of client. (There is one in particular who proves the point best. He is well known among the long-time regulars to be CIA, however, he will not admit it.)
It was clear yesterday that my interlocutor was an expert of sorts. He did admit to having inside information about the Navy's new submarine plans and that these Navy based these plans on exactly the roles laid out by Barnett.
You are likely to hear the moron brigade discuss this issue without this context as they do here. Again we have an example of Conservatives as the party of fluidity and adaptation and Liberals as backward looking, calcified idiots.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"You are likely to hear the moron brigade discuss this issue without this context as they do here. Again we have an example of Conservatives as the party of fluidity and adaptation and Liberals as backward looking, calcified idiots."
Could you please discuss what you mean by this statement. I went to your posted link and the blogger did have some editorial comments but for the most part his post was factual information regarding generals speaking out against Rummy. What does that have to do with Fluidity, adaptation and calcified idiots? And who are the moron brigade?
So what you're saying is Barnett, a guy who never served in the armed forces, who moved from department to department since Bush has come in office and is now a consultant, knows more about wars than these generals? hhmmm...
Here's an exerpt from a Barnett colum:
"Your big-bang strategy to reform the Middle East took down Saddam, which was good; you've completely screwed up the Iraq occupation, which is bad; and now you don't seem to know exactly where you're going, which is not so great."
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2005/050215_mfe_barnett_1.html
1. The term "Moron Brigade" in this post clearly indicates those who discuss issues with such profound lack of depth as they did in that post.
2. Barnett's book is an example of the "fluidity and adaptability" the Right are willing to consider. History teaches that the casualties of WW1 were appallingly high because the tactics of military leadership had not caught up with the technology (machine guns) of the time. Their answer, time and again, was to throw in more soldiers.
3. A rigorous and talented historian and/or tactician possibly can have better ideas than generals. Your assumption is that their ideas are better, just because they're military. That's not necessarily true. The gist of the discussion seems to be that high ranking generals have all the best ideas by virtue of who they are, not what the ideas are.
4. How many generals (retired and active)think Rumsfeld is doing a good job? You don't even know. But you readilly assume that six in disagreement is a lot.
5. You tout credentials when they suit you, and ignore them when they do not. In a scenario where Rummy criticizes the president's handling of the war, and with the generals siding with Bush, you'd embrace Rummy, I have zero doubt of that.
6. Re-enlistment is up among troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. This speeks volumes as to what those on the ground think about how things are going. If generals trump defense secretaries, then don't troops trump generals. I'm using what seems to be your logic . . .that proximity to the fighting equals greater validity of opinion in matters of strategy and tactics.
7. It's interesting that you discount Barnett's legitimacy in matters of strategy, and organization of the military, yet you use him to support your belief that the war is failing.
8. There is a reason that there is a civillian leadership over the U S military. Study history, please. Besides, not taking the advice that was offerred is not the same thing as "dismissing" the opinions of the military leadership in general.
9. Many on the Left pronounced both the Bush wars as failures before they even started. The pronounced failure of the War in Iraq is premature. I find it laughable that critics think they know how long a war is supposed to last, how many casualties are supposed to occur, how many terrorists there were before and after (is there some sort of terrorist registry I'm unaware of? If so, let's go get those guys). This sort of talk indicates a lack of understanding of history.
10 Speaking of lack of historical perspective, this is far from the first time there's been friction between the civillian administration and military hierarchy
Furthermore, Burnyourtires hasn't questioned the motives of Rummy's critics. If they were criticizing a Democrat president, you can bet there'd be mention of the book deal and scandal in his post. See the editorial article at realclearpolitics.com by Jack Kelly 4/18/06. (Entitled,Record Re-Enlistment Rates vs Wide Spread dDssatisfaction). It also contains facts about those who ctiticize Rumsfeld.
Ok here we go.
1. I read insults like "morons" and "stupid" so many times in your blog to define people I wasn't sure who you were talking about. That post seems pretty factual. If you consider someone with different views as a moron, well.... there are alot of morons in the world.
2. I don't quite understand your point here. What does listening to history have to do with the right being more fluid than the left. It seems to me they listen only to their own agenda nothing else. That doesn't seem fluid to me. And as far as adaptability, we must STAY THE COURSE. Yea the right is adapting all right. To record low poll numbers.
3. True, a historian can "possibly" have better ideas than high ranking GENERALS, but I doubt it. That's like saying someone who studies nursing is better than a practicing nurse. Come on! There's no substitute for experience. Someone can talk all day, but until you're there...
4. It doesn't matter how many generals support Rummy, the topic of discussion was these guys don't. Everyone knows a soldier does what he is told to do when he/she is serving. I'm curious as what happens given more time.
5. SCENARIO talk talk talk Find one example of this. Of course I tout credentials when they suit me... Don't you?
6. Re-enlistment is up because guys want to see the "shit." They're adrenaline junkies. Neither one of us knows how they feel. This doesn't mean anything. It's a war and of course people are gonna re-enlist. Plus, thanks for using my logic.
7. I didn't discount anything. He probably knows quite alot. I'm quoting a column from your source showing you Barnett, your source, believes Bush sucks too:)
8. I understand why there are civilian leaders. Come on... I'm not a total bafoon. Just mostly. Looks like these Civilian leaders are doing a really great job, huh. These guys have messed up at every turn. Not enough troops, Republican Guard let go, flowers at our feet, Iraq oil would pay for the war and rebuilding, No WMD, no Iraqi government set up in 2003 when it should have been. I hate to tell you this, but this war is about OIL and war profiteering. Oh yea, it's about mushroom clouds... Sure it is...
The only thing keeping this war afloat, other than our billions we pay (social security could already be fixed if we didn't have this war) are the soldiers on the ground. So far, they have been the only bright spot as far as America goes. And why are they dying? Mushroom clouds over Knoxville?
Not taking advice offered is worse than dismissing it. This shows an agenda with no regard for strategy. How many days since "Mission Accomplished?" One thousand and.....
9. I hear more people complaining of why the heck we're there in the first place than how long we're gonna be there. We should be there for ever:)
So what you're saying is everyone that criticizes the war doesn't understand history. So I guess Mertha is an idiot that doesn't understand history.
It looks to me like history is repeating itself. Gimme a V Gimme an I Gimme an E Gimme a T...You get the picture. And to be perfectly blunt, this war has been a failure. No WMD. Isn't that the reason we're there?
10. So?
Poll numbers show you're in the minority. Oh yea, Bush doesn't look at polls.
ps i'm glad your blogging again:)
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/
that's beautiful
did i mention i think the press are out to get republicans?
nice... you sling alot of insults, " asinine assertion, highly skilled at changing the focus of discussion, Joe liberals," and what ever.... but you never really say anything or refute any of my claims. If the point of your post was to throw mud with nothing to back it up than you succeeded. You sound like Ken Mehlman and all the other Right wing pukes that can only throw insults and lies and play politics every chance they get but never say anything worthwhile. They are the ones who have lied and divided America. You don't wanna be like that do you? Come on, say something with substance.
Oh, and as for your assertion all I'm talking about is the comparison of vietnam and iraq, I think you missed a few other points, but way to grab one and go with it. This thread has to do with Generals and Rumsfeld, the comparison to Vietnam is just icing on the cake. QUAGMIRE
But since you focused on my second to last topic point:
Both wars were fought when they really didn't need to be. In both wars, America was trying to "free" each country. War profiteering. Vietnam-quagmire, Iraq-quagmire. Both wars alienated our allies. To be honest I'm not sure if the people in charge of Vietnam lied the way bush did though, so maybe you're right... but I doubt it.
Rush or someone must have told you Reporklicans to bring up the history of war when you talk to dems, because that seems to be a new thing for you all. I've heard it from a few of you lately, but none of you make any sense. Which one of your demigods you can't live without told you this?
Oh yea, back to the topic
One of the Generals, Gen. Anthony Zinni,was in charge of CENCOM. Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.
. This is no ordinary dude mind you, this is a guy who was in charge of ALL our troops in the middle east. He says bush and rummy suck. Go figure.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
another nice link for you http://www.bushoniraq.com/rumsfeld1.html
oh.. and... here's your reason for 2389 Americans killed and 17469 americans wounded (like with blown off body parts). And give me one reason this war has helped you please? and how did vietnam help you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
Those labs Cheyenne said were so dangerous were for balloons. And they knew this all along.
Please stop being divisive and start being united. This is a very divided country we live in. No more insults, just facts please. And stop drinking the cool-aid bush is giving you. It was republicans that lead the charge against Nixon for his lies.
p.s., I can't believe you asked Latebloomer to bring it to the table for you:)
"Late Bloomer, in some future post would you be good enough to outline the differences between the two wars?" Maybe you should do this yourself.
byt
oh yea, reform this
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624
1-2 trillion for the war. think that would help social security?
you're welcome to come to my blog anytime and we can discuss issues. http://burnyourtires.blogspot.com/
byt
I know you want more funny rummy stories
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042306C.shtml
Wow. That was way more insulting than anything we have ever written. It was also the least responsive collection of jibbering we have have ever had on this blog. I am not at all kidding when I say that I litterally do not have the time to address the ideas in your comments. What you consider evidence is not and what you seem to think is relevant isn't. We can't teach you what one is supposed to learn in college here.
Also, jackbauer4prez is obvioulsy free to ask LateBloomer to look into something and post it. We have done that for other readers before. You were just being mean and petty.
Post a Comment