Re: It is very striking that we hardly get any real data about Bush's wars

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:32:35 GMT, "Acharya" <harinam108@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Nicholas Name" <nobody@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i7hr121s7dud8lkbnifb9lnmkovqialkv1@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:09:12 GMT, "Acharya" <harinam108@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Want to find out? Join the armed forces.

How representative of your intellectual and moral bankruptcy this
ridiculous statement is.


I was talking about real soldiers

NO-you were fantasizing about joining the army as a vehicle of
obtaining a coherent policy analysis of the hideous debacle in Iraq.

This is a real soldier who has done one.

Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general, was in charge of training
the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.

Published on Sunday, March 19, 2006 by the New York Times

A Top-Down Review for the Pentagon
by Paul D. Eaton


During World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before
D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the
invasion. The most important quote in it was this: "It is impolite to
criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your
allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to
lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our
allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far
greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary.
Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the
advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for
input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally
and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what
has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step
down.

In the five years Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon, I have
seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance
by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of
the senior leadership.

I thought we had a glimmer of hope last November when Gen. Peter Pace,
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced off with Mr. Rumsfeld
on the question of how our soldiers should react if they witnessed
illegal treatment of prisoners by Iraqi authorities. (General Pace's
view was that our soldiers should intervene, while Mr. Rumsfeld's
position was that they should simply report the incident to
superiors.)

Unfortunately, the general subsequently backed down and supported the
secretary's call to have the rules clarified, giving the impression
that our senior man in uniform is just as intimidated by Secretary
Rumsfeld as was his predecessor, Gen. Richard Myers.

Mr. Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his cold
warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in
technology to replace manpower. As a result, the Army finds itself
severely undermanned ? cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the
administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12
or 14.

Only Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff when President Bush
was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Mr.
Rumsfeld retaliated by naming General Shinseki's successor more than a
year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his
authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody
has complained since.

Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Mr.
Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted
counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground
forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the Army;
rather, it increases only our Special Operations forces, by a token 15
percent, maybe 1,500 troops.

Mr. Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He
rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent
just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III
of the war ? ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored
competent advisers like Gen. Anthony Zinni and others who predicted
that the Iraqi Army and security forces might melt away after the
state apparatus self-destructed, leading to chaos.

It is all too clear that General Shinseki was right: several hundred
thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase
IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we
would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.

The true professional always looks to the "What's next?" phase.
Unfortunately, the supreme commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, either didn't
heed that rule or succumbed to Secretary Rumsfeld's bullying. We won't
know which until some bright historian writes the true story of Mr.
Rumsfeld and the generals he took to war, an Iraq version of the
Vietnam War classic "Dereliction of Duty" by H. R. McMaster.

Last, you don't expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for
tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on
the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the
former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver"
reaching from the Pentagon. Commanders in the field had their
discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals and
providing police uniforms randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi
construction firms to build barracks was withheld; contracts we made
for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi Army were
rewritten back in Washington.

Donald Rumsfeld demands more than loyalty. He wants fealty. And he has
hired men who give it. Consider the new secretary of the Army, Francis
Harvey, who when faced with the compelling need to increase the
service's size has refused to do so. He is instead relying on the
shell game of hiring civilians to do jobs that had previously been
done by soldiers, and thus keeping the force strength static on paper.
This tactic may help for a bit, but it will likely fall apart in the
next budget cycle, with those positions swiftly eliminated.

So, what to do?

First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr.
Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will
listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground. Perhaps
a proven Democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman could repair fissures
that have arisen both between parties and between uniformed men and
the Pentagon big shots.

More vital in the longer term, Congress must assert itself. Too much
power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging
war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should
remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call our
generals, colonels, captains and sergeants to testify frequently, so
that their opinions and needs are known to the men they lead. Then
when they are asked if they have enough troops ? and no soldier has
ever had enough of anything, more is always better ? the reply is
public.

Our most important, and sometimes most severe, judges are our
subordinates. That is a fact I discovered early in my military career.
It is, unfortunately, a lesson Donald Rumsfeld seems incapable of
learning.

Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general, was in charge of training
the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.


not peaceniks, cowards, pacifists,
religious sentimentalists, social dropouts, drug abusers, nihilists,
anarchists, outcastes, pseudo secularists, and anti-Americans like you.

oh no a lits.

You just havent got it yet have you?

You don't speak for America but only a dwindling rump of extremists
sharing a collective psychosis. The chickens have come home to roost.

Oh -seeing as you bring up the subject of outcastes(sic)



Sky Falls in on Bush The Outcast

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1734222,00.html

Plagued by Iraq, the President's own party is abandoning him as his
poll ratings plunge.
by Paul Harris


When president George W Bush launched a high-profile series of
speeches last week aimed at calming nerves about the Iraq war he chose
to do so in the heart of Washington DC. At George Washington
University, he asked America to stay the course through troubled
times. It was a familiar message to an audience that had heard it all
before.

What was new was the make-up of the crowd: only five Republican
congressmen and one senator attended. As displays of loyalty go it
left a lot to be desired. It seems Bush should worry less about the US
abandoning Iraq and more about his party abandoning him.

Tarnished by the war and a never-ending flow of domestic scandals,
Bush is increasingly being seen as a liability to Republicans facing
November's mid-term elections. Many of the party's senior members are
distancing themselves from their President with a new willingness to
disobey orders from the White House.

The reason for the change is simple: disastrous polls. Four published
last week put Bush's approval ratings at historically low levels.
Gallup and NBC gave him 36 per cent, while CBS had him at 34 per cent
and Pew on an anaemic 33 per cent. 'When the President is above 50 per
cent then party unity follows. When you sink into the thirties it is
every man and woman for themselves,' said Larry Haas, a political
commentator and former staffer in the Bill Clinton White House.

While Bush will never fight another election, that is not true for
many members of his party running in the congressional ballots. The
Republicans now control both Houses of Congress, but fear that Bush's
sinking popularity could drag them down too. Most worrying for them
was a poll of independent voters - the political middle ground - that
showed Bush's approval rating at 23 per cent, down from 54 per cent
when he first took office.

'The Republicans could be in real trouble if this election becomes a
national vote about Bush,' said Haas.

No wonder Republican complaints are starting to emerge from behind
closed doors. Many senior party members blame Bush's horrific second
term on his senior staff and say a shake-up is needed. Republican
Senator Norm Coleman has called for precisely that. 'I have some
concerns about the team that's around the President...We're not
operating at the highest level of political sensitivity.'

A year ago, fresh from the election victory of November 2004, such
talk would have been brutally put down by Bush's senior adviser, Karl
Rove. Now it is becoming common on a number of issues. Even Bush's
fresh push on the war has met internal criticism, as Republican
presidential hopefuls look at polls showing 80 per cent of Americans
believe Iraq is sliding into civil war and 52 per cent think troops
should pull out.

'We're in a lot of trouble in Iraq. The American people know it and we
need to face up to it and talk about how we get out of it,' said
Senator Chuck Hagel, a possible Republican candidate for 2008.

The Republican abandonment of him has added to the woes of a
presidential lame duck unable to pass fresh legislation. Several of
his main aims for his second term, such as tax cuts, have been
derailed. His future plans look equally hopeless. One was a guest
worker programme for the millions of illegal immigrants who keep
America's service industries going. But it stands little chance of
success as Republican mid-term election candidates have found
anti-immigration measures going down better with the electorate.
Congress passed a bill mandating the building of a 12ft wall along the
Mexican border. No mention was made of a guest worker scheme. 'The
desire is to make sure the borders are secure first,' said Republican
Senator Arlen Specter.

It has been the same on other issues. Bush has come under fire for
supporting the now-scuppered ports deal with a firm from the United
Arab Emirates, for being too soft on China economically and for not
doing enough to protect jobs. And Republican fiscal conservatives have
been appalled at the spiralling spending that has created record
deficits.

All this has ensured there is no 'Bush candidate' emerging in the next
race for the White House. The obvious heirs, Vice President ***
Cheney and Florida governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother, have
ruled themselves out. Every other main candidate, from Senator John
McCain to right-wing Senator George Allen, is running as a critic of
much of that legacy.

The only bright spot in Bush's fortunes has been the continued
infighting in the Democratic party, which is still failing to present
a unified front to the American people. Last week Democrat Senator
Russ Feingold moved a motion to 'censure' Bush over a secret service
wire-tapping scandal. He wanted to raise the possibility of
impeachment and the spectre of a Watergate-style investigation.

But instead of gaining Democrat support, figures such as John Kerry
and Hillary Clinton refused to say if they backed the move. Feingold
lambasted his party for 'cowering', as Republicans were provoked into
a rare moment of unified support for Bush.

But it did not last. Bush's misfortunes had returned by the end of
last week in the sort of spectacular snub late-night comics dream of.
The villain was not a rogue Republican but Jessica Simpson, a reality
TV star. She declined to appear next to the President at a charity
event for fear of 'politicising' the cause of the disabled. It
dismayed Republicans.

'It's never been a problem for Bono,' said Republican spokesman Carl
Forti. But the message was clear: when even Jessica Simpson does not
want to be seen with you, you know you are in trouble.

< drivel cut >

.