1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Rumsfeld and the Generals...Another Perspective

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, May 8, 2006.

Top Posters
  1. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    http://www.theamericanspectator.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9778

    Rumsfeld and the Generals

    By Lawrence Henry
    Published 5/5/2006 12:08:26 AM

    EXCERPT


    If the Army didn't want to do something--as in the Balkans in the 1990s--it would simply overstate the force requirements: "The answer is 350,000 soldiers. What's the question?"


    NOW ENTER A NEW PRESIDENT, a new party, and suddenly 9/11. This President Bush was not content to consult the biggest Rolodex in foreign policy (his Dad's). He wanted to get something done fast, and he did it. Within a month, two dozen or so Special Forces ops, dropped into Northern Afghanistan, had rounded up tribal help and set the Taliban on the run. The fall of Kandahar followed within about a month. When the big battalions showed up under Gen. Tommy Franks, GIs began to die -- not before. And it was big Army thinking that let bin Laden escape -- if indeed that's what happened.

    The early stunning triumph in the north, still unappreciated by the public, didn't escape the generals for significance. Of those two dozen Special Forces operators, most were sergeants, with a captain or two and a few warrant officers sprinkled in. They exploited "joint" capabilities to the max, calling in laser-targeted bombs delivered by the nearest available fast-mover, never mind the branch of service. The whole operation stood as a rebuke to division-level thinking -- and, in fact, to the Powell Doctrine.

    What was worse, from the generals' point of view, the President and the SecDef liked this quick, slashing approach to war and wanted to do more of it -- wanted, in fact, to reorganize the entire military along such lines. The Cold War had seen the Air Force predominate in the Pentagon turf wars, with the fanciest weapons systems and ultimate defense against -- and delivery of -- nuclear weapons. (Can't leave out the Trident sub; the Navy had its hooks in, too.) Now, everything would be turned topsy-turvy, with those hard-to-control Spec Ops types and the Marine Corps, with its self-contained Expeditionary Units, at the center of the show. The President even brought back a retired Spec Ops general, Peter Schoomaker, to replace the looks-like-America Eric Shinseki as U.S. Army Chief of Staff. Secretary Rumsfeld cancelled the appropriation for the humongous Crusader artillery system.

    The World War II generation would have understood the pique, as I say. The generals got their rice bowls broken. That rattling noise, under all the whining, was the jingle of hundreds of generals' prospective shoulderboard stars washing out the Pentagon sewers and down the Potomac .

    So never mind the apparent policy differences or the complaints that Secretary Rumsfeld is "arrogant" and "doesn't listen." Those are just pretexts for making a political move, hardly unexpected from the politicized Army that survived the Clinton administration.
     
    #1 carpro, May 8, 2006
  2. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks! [​IMG]
     
    #2 SpiritualMadMan, May 8, 2006
  3. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, there's a new perspective: it's Clinton's fault!
     
    #3 Daisy, May 8, 2006
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daisy, I actually think some neocons WANT Senator Clinton to win the presidency, so they can start afresh with Clinton bashing!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Funny how a president who has not been in office for over 5 years is to blame for America's ills. Ills, like that budget surplus he left us with...wait...where did it go?
     
    #4 Magnetic Poles, May 8, 2006
  5. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe she is currently the major fund-raiser for the conservatives.

    The surplus was just there to make Bush look bad by comparison...I guess.
     
    #5 Daisy, May 8, 2006
  6. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well we know who daisy idolizes!
     
    #6 SpiritualMadMan, May 8, 2006
  7. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ, of course.
     
    #7 Daisy, May 8, 2006
  8. Rocko9

    Rocko9 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ, of course. </font>[/QUOTE][​IMG]
     
    #8 Rocko9, May 8, 2006
  9. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Beg Pardon?

    Why then did you jump to Clinton's defense even though the qoute didn't accuse him orher of anything? [​IMG]

    Although I doubt it...

    It could have started in the Reagan years and was never corrected thus surviving Clinton, as well...
     
    #9 SpiritualMadMan, May 8, 2006
  10. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    **about time** Of course, I pardon you.

    What defense? I didn't jump to his defense, I mocked Lawrence Henry's boogey-man invocation of him.

    It's more popular to blame 41, but what could have started?
     
    #10 Daisy, May 8, 2006
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yea, it's never Bush's fault; everything is totally the fault of Bill Clinton.

    I know I miss having Bill Clinton as president, and look forward to having Hillary as the next president.
     
    #11 Terry_Herrington, May 9, 2006
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We have an economy stronger than during the clinton administration. Unemployment is lower, home ownership is higher, the economy is booming. Wher did the surplus go? Lets see, we have had to spend money on 9/11, two wars, how many major disasters in this country which is unprecedented.

    The surplus was a result of excessive taxes. Our government had more of our money than we did. It was waiting for them to figure out which new program to spend it on. I can do that just fine on my own. I dont need the clintons to do that for me.
     
    #12 Revmitchell, May 9, 2006
  13. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    mitchell you are not very reverant...don't you have a flock to take care of...or is it really politics you care for and pummeling the new darlings of Rupert Murdock oh by the way take my new poll on Fox News...will you still watch fox after the Murdock marriage to the Clintons ..Bill and Hilllary or has that already happened and we just did not know about it?

    The ultra rich are feeling the results of this economy ..ask the lower and middle class about this economy, they are under stress big time!
     
    #13 ASLANSPAL, May 9, 2006
  14. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Misdirection. The real topic is more difficult to handle.

    Liberals want to believe everything bad that is said about Rumsfeld.
     
    #14 carpro, May 9, 2006
  15. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    [out on a limb]
    The surplus went to the Iraqi invasion and "refunds" to the rich. Natural disasters are bugeted for - what makes you think the number is unprecedented?

    No, the surplus was our excess SS taxes which should have been held in reserve for future payouts instead of going to the rich who don't pay excess SS taxes.

    It was collected for the old program.

    Roosevelt set it up. Bush tried to take it down - he may have succeeded by virtue of this deficit. If the dollar goes into a serious devaluation during a depression, your savings won't help you much.
    [/out on a limb]
     
    #15 Daisy, May 9, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...