Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
macinrack writes to tell us that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
"Sorry, Don, you go to the polls with the voters you have. They're not the voters you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Dubya
This has to be some of the worst timing for any policy decision. If only he would have resigned a few days ago (and Bush not said he was going to stick around to the end), the Republicans would have had a real chance.
... last week would have been the perfect time to finally accept his prior offers and for Bush to say "hey, we've made some mistakes in Iraq, it's time we all sit down together and figure out how to do it right" instead of his continued stubborn insistence on staying the course and doing things his way.
Sure, he may not have specifically offered until today, but he has offered his resignation at least twice in the past
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Bringing new meaning to the (Red White and) Blue Screen of Death!
Oh wait, what? Bob Gates?
/Nevermind, then.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I, for one, welcome anyone else that might replace him.
Fuck, at this point, I could just about support Kissinger!
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
I happened to catch Fox News about 5 minutes before Bush's announcement began. They showed one of teh Fox News corrospondents standing outside the White House, talking about the impending announcement. If you listened really carefully, you could hear people in the background chanting "Na-na-nahh-na, na-na-nahh-na, hey, hey, hey...goodbye"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.
That strategy being bomb key locations (and some not-so-key ones just to be safe), then declare victory? I've seen Risk games with more strategy than that. WWII had strategy, this was barely practice for a real war.
Which war did Rumsfeld help win? Afghanistan? The Taliban are retaking cities everyday. Iraq? You know that more US soldiers died after the declaration of "victory" than during the so called "war" ?
Militaries aren't designed for nation building.
they are designed to kill
thus the crux of the entire problem.
To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)
His strategy for war was mediocre at best. Rumsfeld was lucky enough to fight a war against a country 10 times smallert than USA (25 mil vs 300 mil population), with 20 times less money, 50 smaller army and weapons from 1980. In a traditional war you want competent people like Gen. Zinni and Gen. Shinseki, who were fired by Rumsfeld for, well, accurately predicting current disaster in Iraq.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
This happens only after Republican blood was spilled in the election. The blood of thousands of soldiers spilled on the battlefield didn't count for squat.
The real menace within the DOD is Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of all of the USA's global imperialist schemes since at least the Carter years.
Unfortunately, last year someone decided he was of better use as president of the World Bank than Deputy Secretary of Defense.
I read recently that simulations done under the Clinton administration found that an invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "nation-building" would requite sustained troop levels of 400,000. Rumsfeld, completely lacking any understanding of the middle east, the culture, and peoples, figured we can do it on the cheap. Alas it tis not so. Kind of reminds me of when Brutus assasinated Caesar, he figured the people would be happy and cheer him. I honestly think Rumsfeld thought the Iraqi people would support him as Brutus thought.
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
I guess he can go and shake hands with Saddam Hussein one more time. "We had a lot of fun times, huh? Too bad you used our gas on civilians. Perhaps if it'd be Palestinian civilians you were killing with our hardware you might have got away with it..."
You can not initially win a war. You either win or you lose. He and his cronies started a war that can not be won. What is worse, is that he's been planning this since the 80's.
Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Bush started a war in Iraq for the wrong reason. What is worse is that in doing so, Rumsfield sought evidence to make his case, as oppossed to making his case around the evidence. Mr. Rumsfields was is, was, and will continue to be a disaster. For you to claim otherwise is absurd.
Who knew the New American Century was actually only six years long?
Well, us American voters kinda prefer the Old American Century, with Habeus Corpus and without torture. Don't you ?
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Militaries aren't designed for nation building. they are designed to kill thus the crux of the entire problem.
Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?
What war?
I don't recall any declarations of war...
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
I agree, to a point, the timing to coincide with the GOP losses indicate, more than regret that his execution of Iraqi Freedom, but an attempt to duck a real grilling. He won't have a lot of people running interference for him now. This is going to really isolate Bush. It should be a very interesting 2 years.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Um, it was pretty bloody clear right from the word go that it was going to end up in a guerrilla warfare situation and a decades long occupation. The idea that it would be all over in a year or two was utterly utterly naive. More, the unwillingless to listen to an ally who has spent the last 40 years managing a situation just like that is stupidity.
In conclusion, either the man is a complete dolt or has a whole other agenda.
Deleted
I preferred the pre-1950-or-so names. DoD was the War Department. Short, honest, and to the point. Homeland Security was Civil Defense. That name was better, too, because it implied that civilians had a part in defending their country against the enemy. "Security" sounds like we're to rely on some sort of external force like the police or Guard to keep us "secure."
-b.
Somebody else in charge would not have invaded Iraq when we needed to win the war in Afghanistan.
"Bringing western style democracy to Iraq" has never been more than a slogan to win elections. It worked like a charm for 2 in the US, including one presidential.
If Rumsfeld were a competent Defense Secretary, he would have protected the US by winning in Afghanistan and pursuing a counterintel global pursuit of our terrorist enemies. Not created a catastrophic distraction that alienated our allies and our own citizens from each other.
--
make install -not war
My guess is Bush threw Rumsfeld to the wolves to appease Nancy Pelosi, but I could be wrong.
I spent more than nine years in the military, most of it infantry - I was a professional bullet stopper. During the first Gulf War we walked across the border with 410,000 troops and are now operating with a bit more than a third of that. The only way to win a war is to win it - otherwise let's get the hell out and quit sacrificing our young men and women in an unwinnable conflict.
I supported the war based on the information that was provided - and that information turned out to be a bit less than accurate. Right now we either need to win the war or get the hell out and quit sacrificing troops when there aren't enough to effect any real change in Iraq.
Right or wrong, we're neck-deep in it now. Let's either win this damn thing or get the hell out of it. We can impeach Bush later if it seems appropriate.
And it seems appropriate.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
- Walsh Iran / Contra Report
Developers: We can use your help.
"...mostly because he usually tells it like it is even when how it is isn't what people wish they were hearing."
Rumsfeld doesn't "tell it like it is", he uses condescension and (indirect) insults to avoid answering questions he doesn't like. *That* is why people don't like him.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
6.5 years ago, the entire world was telling the US there was no cause of warring on Iraq. There was no plausible link w/ 9/11, no WMDs to be found, no threat whatsoever.
When US did invade and then finally conceded there were no WMDs, the entire world went "told you so" while the US poked their ear drums going "Lalalalalala".
The obvious answer today was as obvious for the rest of the world back then.
But every time an outsider brings it up, it's "you're not with us you're against us" kinda crap. The US citizens were BS-ed out of reason into accepting this early on and now comes the time for the Bush family and their friends to account for what they did.
It's going to be a tough time for Gates to fix the situation. Let's hope his Iran/Contra dealings gave him enough experience...
The obvious answer now is no different than it was 6.5 years ago.
Repeat after me: There we no Weapons of Mass Destruction! It was a lie then. It remains a blatant lie today.
Second:
"Underserved flak"? This coward who used the blood of other people's children to assert his manhood long after his opportunity had passed, managed to destroy a military force that had already demonstrated its inferiority to the US military machine in 1992. No, sir, he deserves all the flak coming his way and more.
Third:
"Unjustified investigations"? Are you insane? Why did all those people, on both sides die in Iraq? Why is Iraq falling into the guagmire of civil war, just as the critics of his bullshit plan predicted? Where is Osama? Where is the connection between Osama and Saddam?
Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.
Oh, one more thing. Rummy did a GREAT JOB telling the world that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you better get some quick like North Korea, or you'll end up like Iraq. See Iran for more on this subject.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
AIPAC, which Rumsfeld has strong links to, was. AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in Washington behind the AARP, and is composed of pro-Israel hawks and zionist Christians. Wolfowitz, Perle, and many other members of the Bush administration are deeply linked to them as well. AIPAC represents hard-line Israeli interests. (Incidentally they're also the reason why you never hear criticism of Israel in the United States of America, because they actively and tirelessly lobby government, academia, and the media to suppress our freedom to speak honestly about and discuss openly the situation there. Their favorite tactic against people who make outrageous statements like "Palestinians are people too, and they deserve to live in peace," is to call them "anti-Semites" and target them for character assassination.)
r wp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf>
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."
It's overstating it a little to say that we invaded Iraq on AIPAC's orders. There were other parties who went along, but AIPAC was centrally involved. And what AIPAC wants from Washington, it gets. This despite a huge portion of the American public who opposed the invasion and even despite American Jewish opinion, 52-62% of whom opposed the invasion.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the giants of international relations (they're like the Freud and Jung of the discipline), published a remarkable paper on the subject last March: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/
Essentially what we've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war on Israel's behalf (on behalf of Likud and other Israeli hawks, that is). It's also why Bush started making noises at Syria recently before things really started to fall apart in Iraq, because they're next on AIPAC's list. Iran comes after that.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is.
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
yay
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Seriously, we managed to "defeat" a 3rd world army that had been under economic sanctions for years.
How much "strategy" does that take? Particularly with our weapons.
His whole "strategy" is "keep dropping bombs until we drop the right bomb on the right place at the right time". Go check the new sites. Find the LAST time we dropped any bombs on Iraq. Was it a year ago? A month ago? A week ago? A day ago? An hour ago?
Just a quick search shows us bombing them on 27 October 2006.
And yet our troops keep being killed.
Rumsfeld is not "Good at war, bad at peace". Rumsfeld is bad at war and bad at peace. Rumsfeld cannot tell the difference between war and peace. And Rumsfeld doesn't care.
I'm a student at Texas A&M (where Dr. Gates is currently university president,) and I'd have to say I disagree with this assesment of the man. He has done a great job here of seeing problems, finding a solution, and forcing it through even with strong opposition on some things. He has improved our faculty, decreased class sizes, and worked to change our image, all without ruining what many of us like about the university.
Yes, the CIA has gotten a bad rep of late, however, judge the man for himself, not for what you think of an agency that by its nature doesnt really defend itself from a bad reputation. (Note, I'm a republican, but not a Bush supporter, and am very glad to see Rumsfield gone.)
Only for Americans that were fed lies through their media. For nearly every other country on the planet the war was an unjustified fabrication - no one believed there were any WMDs in Iraq.
And for protesting the American government pushing through the war, other countries were villified. Next time when the entire world tells you that you are wrong, it might be a good idea to listen.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.
Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
From a semantics point of view, you are correct. The problem is that Bush uses "war" both in the semantics context (i.e. we are shooting them, they are shooting us) and in the legal context (i.e. Commander in Chief, broad war powers, etc.) Without that formal declaration, the legal context doesn't exist, and therefore the derivative powers don't exist.
It may be a silly piece of paper to you, but it's the U.S. Constitution to the rest of us. We have declarations of war for good reasons, like how to know when it's over. But I guess that's the point of undeclared war -- perpetual sacrifice, continuous casualties, being told to "get over it" and just go along. In fact, being told to "get over it" is getting kind of old to me . . .
I am not a crackpot.
Consider the equivalent situation in politics. According to several in-depth reports (notably from "Frontline" at PBS), Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the White House (with the exception of Colin Powell) completely screwed up the post-war occupation of Iraq. Rumsfeld himself intervened in several important decisions and overruled the suggestions of senior commanders in the field.
Who pays the price? Nearly 3000 American soldiers died, and 50,000 soldiers are wounded.
Though Rumsfeld was fired today, he will still live well on his multi-million-dollar corporate pension. Yet, how will we restore the lives of 3000 dead soldiers and 50,000 severely wounded soldiers?
Yes, you can pardon someone before they are charged as, notably, Ford did for Nixon.
This is not intended as any disrepect for your service in Desert Storm, but I have to wonder what counts as information "that's provided" in your world.
At least three months ahead of the invasion you could have already watched or read reports from a number of leading European, Australian, Canadian, and Asian news sources that the yellowcake documents had been determined by experts to be forged, the aluminum tubes were a mundane (non-nuclear) component, the hydrogen trailers were likely used for weather baloons, the long shed-things were not WMD facilities but used to raise chickens, and that the true report of biological WMD in Iraq was very old with subsequent verification during the Clinton administration that the WMD had been gotten rid of.
It's clear to me that when making a decision in 2003 you didn't try, but instead jerked your knee according to what was "provided" or put directly under your nose. Next time the war drums start beating, I suggest you and all the others who made the same mistake pull your heads out of Corporate America's newsy-tainment ass.
The second statement doesn't support the first. You may be right that there was a disparity in the composition of forces, but what about the conduct of the "hot war" made it "mediocre?"
The initial invasion was Rumsfeld's attempt to start a new war doctrine for U.S. forces, and thus leave his stamp on the military. He envisioned a lighter, faster U.S. force that could be deployed cheaper, a modern equivalent of Blitzkrieg. Apparently he forgot that much of the strength of the U.S. military came from logistics and having solid supply lines. As our forces raced up the highway towards Baghdad, they became too stretched out, our supply lines weakened, and the flanks started to come under attack by Iraqi forces. This forced us to stop and regroup and replace the strategy with a more conventional buildup and advance. Basically, the doctrine failed.
The disparity in forces was such that the victory in the conventional war was a guarantee, even with a foolhardy start to things we were easily able to pull it together. Of course, the fact that Rumsfeld was unable to see the flaw in his brilliant new doctrine and the fact that he was unable to see that the end of the "hot" war would only be the beginning are related. The man is incompetent at his job. Always had been, always will be. I would be a better defense secretary. A terrible secretary to be sure, but I'd at least be able to accept the advice of those better versed in war than myself. Rumsfeld thought ideology would trump reality, and he was wrong.
The enemies of Democracy are
Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.
You really need to keep up.
The Republicans are the party of bigger government than even the Democrats and have been for 30 years
They spend more, increase the size of government much more.
Anybody who votes for Republicans for fiscal issues is a delusional moron who hasn't paid a bit of attention to the situation in decades.
Indeed, a quick glance at Digg's top stories shows that people were on their toes all over America, just waiting to pounce on any perceived shenanigans at the polls. Over 1/3 of all the stories on yesterday's front Political News page are about Republicans trying to steal the election.
http://www.digg.com/politics/page3
Actually this new leadership and the new body of lawmakers just elected has the opportunity to show the world that Americans don't deserve to be attacked (and therefore we won't). Your comments show that you're A. Ignorant and B. All you really know is what your favorite Fox News commentator tells you (which is COMMENTARY or OPINION, not FACT).
What have YOU done to prevent terrorism? Nothing, instead you use terms like 'islaminazi' and you chicken-hawk around--all that does is make people want to punch you in the fucking face. You're an idiot, your views suck and the fact that you still want to fight means you probably should be in jail because you're anti-social, anti-freedom and anti-me. With people like you in this country (and when people like you are given a loudspeaker), it's no wonder people want to blow us up.
I fear ALL you religious nutjobs--be you Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I fear ALL of you blind followers, you who trust people who are proven liars--all on blind faith. Your faith to stupid causes is not admirable. Your arrogance is not admirable and no one cares what you think any more, because you DON'T THINK. You spit out whatever useless facts that someone else tells you to. You might as well not be a person because you're not adding anything to society. You're taking away the valuable oxygen and food that could be used by someone to make the world a better place, where country music is about your dog and your whiskey again and not about some dead soldier. Think with your mind for once, and stop doing what your preacher/general tells you to. Sheep. Sheesh.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
> On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more
> technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your
> cushy civilian job...
Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.
Instead of intelligent argument, just lash out, yell and scream, tear off some heads. You sure are a good representative of the military mindset. I think you prove the previous poster's point.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Of course it was an act. He doesn't have to "offer" anything; the president can fire him any time he pleases, and of course if he really wants to resign, no one can really make him stay on the job. An offered, but refused, resignation that is made public can only be politcal theater. There's no reason to tell anyone about it otherwise.
In the wake of a scandal, Rumsfeld in efect said "Don't blame the Prez, I take responsibility." to which Bush responded "No, no, we're in this together." Both get to act all big about accepting responsibility while implying it's not really their fault and not really having any consequences.
Now he resigns, and it is accepted, in response to what? The fact he'll soon be answering prickly questions in front of a House oversight committee, and it will be easier for the administration if he's not a current member.
Your post broke slashdot. You are the last comment in the database that can be replied to. Go ahead, try replying to my post. You can't. It'll end up under the this article itself at the very bottom instead.
You should make t-shirts and sell them through Cafe Press to celebrate.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON