Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Rumsfeld's self-inflicted wounds

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

Rumsfeld's self-inflicted wounds
The outgoing defense secretary was too focused on transforming the military, and failed to plan for achieving political goals in Iraq.

By Frederick W. Kagan, Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Finding the Target: The Transformation of the American Military."
November 12, 2006

DONALD RUMSFELD had the chance to be one of the great American heroes of all time. He held office at a moment of enormous danger. He had many admirable qualities necessary for success. But like the tragic heroes of old, hubris and inflexibility made vices of his virtues, leading to his own fall and the collapse of his life's work.

Rumsfeld was in many ways ideally suited to be secretary of Defense in the wake of 9/11. His experience in the same position under President Ford and as ambassador to NATO seemed to fit him to the task of overseeing a complex military coalition. His determination and self-confidence were essential in a wartime secretary — and unusual in recent times. When he showed, early in his tenure, that he meant to take positive control of the Pentagon's sprawling bureaucracy, many observers cheered. This was precisely the sort of man the nation needed at the military's helm at a time of crisis.

As former CIA Director Robert Gates prepares to succeed Rumsfeld, the chorus is already rising to declare that Gates must be more open to advice from the military, more of a consensus-builder than a tyrant. Perhaps. It isn't clear how a more open secretary of Defense would have fared given the advice the military gave Rumsfeld.

Belief in the value of technology and the need for light, swift ground forces pervaded the senior military leadership in the 1990s. Then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki had launched an ambitious program to "lighten" the Army and equip it with advanced precision weapons. Shinseki certainly warned that more troops would be needed to secure Iraq in the wake of major combat operations. But Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander who developed and executed the actual war plan, wanted fewer. Many officers opposed the "light footprint" approach with which Rumsfeld tackled the problem of the Iraqi insurgency — but not Gen. John Abizaid, who took over from Franks right after the end of major combat operations. A secretary of Defense who encouraged discussion and dissent would have perhaps anticipated more of the flaws in the policies he was proposing. Still, the strategy that has led to disaster in Iraq belonged to the commanders at least as much as to Rumsfeld. Scapegoating him in isolation will prevent us from learning the essential lessons of our recent failures.

For the problem with Rumsfeld was not his flawed managerial style, but his flawed understanding of war. Early in his term, he became captive of an idea. He would transform the U.S. military in accord with the most advanced theories of the 1990s to prepare it for the challenges of the future. He was not alone in his captivity. As a candidate, President Bush announced the same program in 1999 — long before anyone thought Don Rumsfeld would return as secretary of Defense. The program, quite simply, was to rely on information technology to permit American forces to locate, identify, track and destroy any target on the face of the Earth from thousands of miles away. Ideally, ground forces would not be necessary in future wars. If they were, it would be in small numbers, widely dispersed, moving rapidly and engaging in little close combat. This vision defined U.S. military theory throughout the 1990s, and it has gone deep into our military culture. Rumsfeld's advent hastened and solidified its triumph, but his departure will not lead instantly to its collapse.

At its root, this "transformation program" is not a program for war at all. War is the use of force to achieve a political purpose, against a thinking enemy and involving human populations. Political aims cannot normally be achieved simply by destroying targets. But the transformation that enthusiasts of the 1990s focused too narrowly on destroyed the enemy's military with small, lean and efficient forces. This captivated Rumsfeld, becoming his passion. He meant it to be his legacy. It was the fatal flaw in this vision that led, in part, to the debacle in Iraq. Focused on destroying the enemy's military quickly and efficiently, Rumsfeld refused to consider the political complexities that would follow that destruction. He and Franks pared the invasion force down to the smallest level that could defeat Saddam Hussein's army, but refused to consider the chaos that would follow the collapse of Hussein's government. This failure is inherent in the military thought of the 1990s. Rumsfeld did not invent it. He simply executed it.

Having made the mistake of failing to plan for achieving the political goals of the Iraq war, Rumsfeld then compounded his error. The war in Iraq threatened military transformation. It was expensive and sucked scarce defense resources away from transformational programs. It was manpowerintensive and hindered Rumsfeld's efforts to reorient the military away from a focus on land power. It was intellectually distracting; counterinsurgency has little to do with transformation. Here Rumsfeld's virtues became his greatest vices. Instead of recognizing the danger of losing Iraq, he remained committed to transforming the military to meet undefined future threats, spending billions of dollars preparing to fight Enemy X in 2025. He consistently opposed increasing the size of the ground forces, despite the obvious growing strains on the Army and the Marines of repeated deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

He fought to keep expensive weapons systems, such as the F-22 fighter jet and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which were billed as "transformational" because they used precision-guided munitions to strike remote targets. That money could have been used for better armored vehicles, more body armor and more soldiers. The same determination that had seemed so promising when he first took over became a stubborn refusal to change course in a storm.

Rumsfeld has paid a high price for this failure. He will not be known as the secretary of Defense who transformed the military, but as the secretary of Defense who, at best, nearly lost the Iraq war. Worse still, his stubbornness has destroyed the ground forces. The Army and Marines have worn out their equipment and their troops. Units must swap tanks and Humvees just to be able to train. The Army brass recently leaked the fact that only the units that are in Iraq or about to deploy to Iraq are combat-ready — an unprecedented military crisis. Rumsfeld leaves behind him a military far weaker and less capable than the one he took charge of in 2001.

The greatest irony of all is that the military Rumsfeld has destroyed is the one he created. He was secretary of Defense in the mid-1970s as the military was shifting from conscription to the all-volunteer force. He shepherded the volunteer military through its early growing pains and supported it valiantly against its many critics. Perfecting it through transformation was to be the culmination of his life's work. The damage he has done to it instead is his tragedy — and the nation's.

Posted by: Calabrio

There's a wonderful touch of revisionist history in that article. And I don't know how to comment on it. What it says, in essence it basically accurate, but it does so dishonestly.

And what amazes me is that the very same people who embraced the notion of the small light force military are now the guys who are the most vocal critics of Rumsfeld.

If the critics of Rumsfeld are honest, and not just partisan, they will now at least be willing to invest the money needed to rebuild the military. After the RADICAL cuts through the Clinton administration. After the heavy use since 9/11. We need to be ready to spend A LOT to build a military that is both light, swift, and high tech, but with lots of boots and 20th century weapons as well. Recruitment money, equipment, and then military benefits need to be heavily funded.

We no longer have the luxury of living in a bipolar world, now we live in a world with emerging national threats and worse- non-state actors funded by hostile regimes.

And in order to do this we need to radically restructure all the so-called "ENTITLEMENTS" that consume about half of the federal budget.

Posted by: Marcus

One thing I didn't see mentioned in an admittedly cursory scan is the fact that the Pentagon has become so mired in bureaucracy that it would be nearly impossible for any one human to make the changes that are so desperately needed. I've read excerpts from some of Rumsfeld's memos and he says about as much. He was obviously frustrated as hell. As much as I am loath to defend him, he did have a point.

But to Calabrio's comments, let me say this: The lack of accountability as far as how our tax dollars are spent on defense is unimaginable. There was a story a few years ago that got almost zero coverage that told how an external audit of the Pentagon's finances showed that over a TRILLION dollars was simply unaccounted for over a one year period. What little they did uncover showed a culture within the middle and upper ranks that spent (our) money like drunken sailors. There were millions spent on personal items, parties, and whatnot, all charged to us.

Then there are all of the shady deals that go on between our government and the defense industry. Things like the afore-mentioned F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, which have absolutely no role in this "new" kind of war or any that are foreseen. Or the "Star Wars" missile defense system that has yet to be proven to even work in real-world conditions, if it can at all. It's almost cliche to say it, but Eisenhower's warnings of the "Military-Industrial Complex" seem rather quaint compared to the situation today. I don't think even he could have imagined how tangled up we have become in it. It's a not-so-well-known fact that the major defense contractors have manufacturing or research facilities in nearly every congressional district in the nation, from small electronic component suppliers to huge assembly facilities. The reasons they do this should be obvious. Hint: It's got nothing to do with efficiency.

This has to stop. For a country that spends more on defense than the rest of the world's industrialized nations combined (or something close to it), we ought to be getting a whole lot more for our money. People mock government programs for being wasteful and inefficient, but many are quite the opposite. The Social Security system is one of the most efficient government programs there is. Yet it is targeted for "reform", while the biggest black hole of tax dollars (defense) gets a pass. If we concentrated on TRULY reforming our military, there is no reason we couldn't strengthen it immensely, all without spending one more dime. In fact, we could undoubtedly REDUCE spending on it by billions. But that would take an effort beyond any mere mortal's ability.

But before we gut "entitlements" to the poor, let's start where the real entitlement class resides.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

But to Calabrio's comments, let me say this: The lack of accountability as far as how our tax dollars are spent on defense is unimaginable.

True. And unfortunately this lack of accountability exists throughout almost all government programs.

But the military is even worse. The arguments about the military/industrial complex do genuinely apply in this context. Retiring officers advocate weapon systems with the promise of getting private sector "jobs"- or continual paychecks for nothing. Many in the military attribute the rush to buy F-22s while phasing out B52s to exactly that. And you mentioned that.

Quote:

But before we gut "entitlements" to the poor, let's start where the real entitlement class resides.

How about we do both?

And it's not the entitlements to the needy I take issue with, it's the ones to the shiftless- and the corresponding expense and bureaucracy that burns money as well.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

The greatest irony of all is that the military Rumsfeld has destroyed is the one he created. He was secretary of Defense in the mid-1970s as the military was shifting from conscription to the all-volunteer force. He shepherded the volunteer military through its early growing pains and supported it valiantly against its many critics. Perfecting it through transformation was to be the culmination of his life's work. The damage he has done to it instead is his tragedy — and the nation's.

What a bunch of crap. First of all, Rumsfeld didn't destroy the military, Clinton did. Second, our enemies have changed drastically since the 70's. If Rumsfeld hadn't changed the military, he would have been called a 'dinosaur' or 'inflexible.' Third, he was doing what Bush asked him to do. Fourth, having been in the military, and knowing that it's likely that the writer of this article hasn't, I can vouch for Rumsfeld's superior knowledge of how to fight a war over some pussy L.A. Times column writer.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

1) What actions did Clinton take to "destroy the military"?? Wasn't it the GOP-led Congress holding the purse strings that resulted on deep defense cuts that ultimately, using your words, "destroyed the military"???

2) So you think Rummy has been "doing a heck of a job".

NEWS FLASH: He didn't. So that puts you out there by yourself w/ the lone positive opinion of Rummy. So much for your "vouch".

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

NEWS FLASH: He didn't. So that puts you out there by yourself w/ the lone positive opinion of Rummy. So much for your "vouch".

1. Wrong.

2. Wrong again.

I've told you and told you, stop getting your information from americahatingpussy.org.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

1. Wrong.

2. Wrong again.

I've told you and told you, stop getting your information from americahatingpussy.org.

Looks like YOU are the one suffering from the GOP brainwash........

GDP DEFENSE SPENDING LOWER UNDER GWB THAN CLINTON

"Although the president campaigned to restore the military, his first defense budget represented virtually no change; the second – after September 11 – a minuscule increase; and the third, though much trumpeted, a wholly insufficient one. The 2003 defense budget of $379 billion, less purely operational costs of the war, is 3.1 percent of the estimated U.S. GDP. To put this in perspective, average yearly military expenditure from 1940 to 2000 was 8.5 percent of GDP; in war and mobilization years, 13.3 percent; in non-war years, 5.7 percent; by Republican administrations, 7.3 percent; by Democratic, 9.4 percent; and by the Clinton administration, which did not speak to the military, 3.6 percent. The fact that GDP has expanded is unfortunately no comfort, in that the costs of maintaining a technologically advanced force have expanded even more; and of still less comfort is that the proposed increase, depending upon Daschle and events, may be nothing more than a bargaining position."

source: http://www.conservativeusa.org/defensecuts.htm

Also, the defense cuts in the '90s was INITIATED BY BUSH SR., not Clinton.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

First of all, what is the actual figure of Clinton's military spending, in dollars? Wonder why that was conveniently left out of the article? Apparently the writer has a problem with his figures. There is grudging mention of the fact that GDP has expanded, but no mention of how much. How does this article prove anything except that he looks like a moron?

The attempt to compare $379 billion to any percentage is so pathetic a 12-year old could see through it. Haven't you ever learned anything about statistics? What you are doing is comparing a number to a percentage, a pitiful logical flaw. You say 3.1 percent is less than 8.5 percent, but that's only true in percentage points. What about dollars? 3.1 percent of what? 8.5 percent of what? Don't know, do you? Nope.

It's also convenient to use a statistical mean of 60 years and then compare it to one year. Know what the fed budget was in the 1940s? Millions not trillions. But defense spending was likely high even back then, considering we were gearing up for war. Factoring that in skews the data upward. Not only that, but the federal budget is much larger now than it was in 2000. MUCH LARGER. So is the GDP.

Furthermore, the article is flawed because not only is there no comparison of actual dollars, but there is also no comparison of the ratio of defense spending to the respective federal budgets of Clinton or Bush. It would make sense, if you were really going to compare the two, to align those two sets of figures. But no, the author is trying to skew numbers to make a point, and he got caught using faulty logic and even more faulty math.

By the way, this is from your OWN SITE:

"Consider this: Defense Department spending has increased by $104 billion since fiscal 2001, and that does not include more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Face it, Johnny, you are unqualified to make economic comments.

And you definitely are unqualified to use an

smilie.