Donald Rumsfeld: Major League Asshole

[sspadowsky]

If I were this chickenhawk douchebag, who avoided military service as though it were the clap, I'd be a little apprehensive about condescending to a bunch of heavily-armed, unhappy troops. Read on....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...?oref=login&hp

Disgruntled Troops Complain to Rumsfeld
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 8, 2004

Filed at 10:44 a.m. ET

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgruntled U.S. soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort from the Pentagon chief.

``You go to war with the Army you have,'' he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.

In his prepared remarks earlier, Rumsfeld had urged the troops -- mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers -- to discount critics of the war in Iraq and to help ``win the test of wills'' with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own -- not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?'' Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

``We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,'' Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that troops should make the best of the conditions they face and said the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.

``You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up,'' Rumsfeld said.

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least ``Level 3'' armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap metal and used bulletproof glass.

During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units sometimes get priority over the National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment in Iraq.

``There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not'' discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its ``stop loss'' power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or quit.

Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of war.

``It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood'' by soldiers, he said. ``My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used.''

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers who are heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win.

``They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win,'' Rumsfeld said.

[GAsux]

I read that on CNN. Horrible. If you're going to be a dick in private, that's one thing. But to answer questions that way in a forum that you know will be widely reported, that's just silly.

Basically, even though we anticipated huge amounts of urban combat, we failed to properly equip the troops. His answer, it's not money, just time. Why wasn't uparmouring part of the initial plan?

As for stop-loss, basically he said sorry, suck it up and press on. Everyone in the military knows and understands that, but to have someone in the DoD leadership state it so blatantly in a public forum is sad.

Still baffles me why people, especially those in the military, believe that a Republican Administration in general equals good times for the military. Yeah, not so much.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Eh, that's Rumsfeld. At least he doesn't praise our troops out of one side of his mouth, pander for their votes, and then implement the same policies that Rummy talked about in this article. Not naming any names, of course. :capital

[GAsux]

Point taken. At least he has the decency to wear his asshole on his sleeve.

[mburbank]

GA, that's an excellent phrase.


I just think it's swell that at a time when so many cabinet secs are eaither leaving a sinking ship, or being shown it's portals that we can count on Rummy's fine fine work and resume of results.

[kellychaos]

An as yet unsubstantiated rumor on Drudge is that a reporter prompted the soldier to ask the question as the reporter didn't think that he'd get the question properly answered and/or the soldier would have more impact due to his sincerity and, of course, the fact that he's a soldier would add more authority. I say that the ends justifies the means in this case regardless how the soldier came to ask the question. The fact is that Rumsfeld's feet were put to the fire and he failed miserably in his response.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That same reporter must've prompted the round of applause the question received, too.

Matt Drudge is a moron.

[kellychaos]

Agreed. I just try to get a "balanced" account of things.

[VinceZeb]

*cough*BillClintondidthesamethinginSomalia{BlackHa wkDown}*cough*

I'm sorry. The stupidity of the message board must be giving me the sniffles.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Bill Clinton prompted a reporter to ask Don Rumsfeld a question in Somalia....?

[GAsux]

No you damned hippy liberal. Bill Clinton made troops dig through dumpsters to for scrap metal to use as armor for helicopters. Jesus.

Anyway, it would appear the "planted" question did in fact come from a reporter. Shady journalism perhaps, but it hardly changes the nature of the question, nor Rumsfelds response to it.

The heart of the matter is this. If the Administration is going to stand in front of the troops and say we support you and we appreciate the work you do, and concurrently we're going to give you the tools to do the job, then there should not be a single convoy vehicle in the entire country driving on Iraqi roads without proper armor.

If we can delve out multi-million dollar contracts to find a way to provide food for mess halls all over the country, we can also find ways to contract up-armoring Humvees and Dueces.

The fact is, the Army was built for a ground war in Europe. No one with a shred of brain power refutes that. hence the Armies recent push to be a leaner, more mobile force. Conventional European ground war doctrine does not include provisions for heavily armoured support and supply vehicles because there is no anticipation of IED's, etc. Additionally, heavy armor which already has such equipment would be tasked for the bulk of the combat.

But in an urban environment, which the Admin KNEW it was getting into, heavy armor is useless. Insted you rely on lightly armed, mobile vehicles. Which are clearly not equipped to handle rockets and explosives.

The Administration felt it was more important to start the wheels of war than it was to ensure all the tools for the job were ready. If enough up-armored vehicles weren't ready to meet the demands of war, they should not have given a green light.

Doing so tells soldiers on the ground that you have no regard for their safety, and that the "right tools for the job" babble is little more than blowhard Pentagon speak.

[GAsux]

P.S. Vince, I understand the angle you were playing. I'm saddened that the "so and so did it first" argument is the best you've got to offer.

Fact is it was wrong then, and it's wrong now. I dont give a fuck who's in the House. When you send troops into combat without giving them the tools they need to survive, you can't expect them to continue to be an effective, cohesive fighting force for long.

[mburbank]

VINNCE COULD YOU PLEASE WORK A LITTLE HARDER, THE OLD YOU IS ASHAMED OF THE NEW YOU!

Oh, and Bill Clinton is president anymore. Just thought I'd mention it.
And even if there was equivalence in any way between a blackhawk crash on a single mission and a multi year war in two different countries, are you saying you thought Clinton was doing a good job when he 'did the same thing' or a bad job?

Does that make you pro Clinton ar anti Rumsfeld?

Just asking. I know you must be one or the other, 'cause lord knows you aren't borderline reatrded. You just do a really, really, really good job of pretending to be.

See? I made that whole joke and I never said 'short bus'.

Oh, crap. Well as long as I've already said it

ENJOY YOUR RIDING TRIP IN THE SHORT BUS TO SCHOOL YOU HAVING OF RETARDATION GUY!!

[Anonymous]

The Daily Show had a field day with this. The full line was "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you hope to have or wish you had," by the way.

[ziggytrix]

You go to war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you wish you had.

[Brandon]

Don't know if any of you saw this, but King Neocon Bill Kristol himself has jumped on the anti-Rumsfeld bandwagon:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/033dyhas.asp

The Defense Secretary We Have
From the December 15, 2004 Washington Post: Our soldiers deserve a better defense secretary.
by William Kristol
12/15/2004 3:25:00 PM

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
in a town hall meeting with soldiers
at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8

ACTUALLY, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task--and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

[mburbank]

Good for Kristol, and I agree with everything he said.

Now if he has any balls at all (and a wolf jumping on a fallen animal doesn't need balls, just teeth) he'd follow this line of reasoning.

he just decribed Rumsfeld as incompetent , irresponsible and arrogant. The President says Rummy is doing a "marvelous Job" and when he asked him to stay on as sec. of defense, he was really glad Rummy said yes. Rummy is the civillian in charge of the Pentagon. W is the commander in cheif, responsible for Rumsfled. If the boss doesn't fire but in fact praises a manager who is incompetent , irresponsible and arrogant, that makes the boss incompetent , irresponsible and arrogant.

It's all well and good to pile on Rummy. Who doesn't like jumping up and down on a bag of shit? But every instant W keeps Rummy at his post is an instant he is not just AS bad as Rummy, he's worse.

Kristol needs to read the text of yesterdays presidential press conference. If Rummy thinks it's okay to refuse to accept responsability for anything, well you know where he gts that idea? All W told the press was "Don't ask me" "That's not my department" "I'm not going to answer that question."


So what's it going to be, conservative pundits? Now that the terrifying prospect of a Kerry presidency is over, do any of you have the nads to state the obvious, that W is doing a lousy job? Or is going after Rummy as high a standard as you care to support?

I agree, "These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have." There's only one person who could give them what they deserve, and that's W. But I guess you go to war with the President you have.

[kellychaos]

Admitting that he's wrong about anything (aka anti-waffling), including his staff appointees, is a major motif in all that is Bush.