I'm guessing history might have something to say about this.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Rumsfeld kept trying to tell everyone how "complicated" his stuff was, because to everyone else, it looked like "incompetence."
The both share the "comp" part.
Rumsfeld didn't really achieve much of anything at all.
The Generals didn't really fight him on his ideas about smaller, faster, mobile assault forces. They disagreed on the rather elementary point that policing and providing security for a country of 25 million, with a hostile, well-armed insurgency, would take many, many, more troops.
Some knuckle-dragging KKKate groupie is saying that Rumsfeld learned from Vietnam that a large occupying force creates "complacency" among the installed regime. to whit: the South Vietnamese never produced a viable fighting force.
So, uh, just asking genius, ... where's Iraq's viable fighting force, what with Rumsfeld's failure to provide adequate US troops?
Smaller, faster, mobile assault forces are actually a good idea, especially in this environment. Heavy artillery/armour in a counter insurgency would result in even more deaths by American fire than we are hearing about now. The problem is that they don't have enough small battle groups to maintain control. These groups have to keep moving around. When they move, the insurgents just keep coming back.
Rumsfeld is a smart guy and a visionary. The problem is he got the order from the President to march in to and take over a bees nest. It was Bush who didn't listen to Powell telling him that this wasn't a great idea.
3 comments:
Rumsfeld kept trying to tell everyone how "complicated" his stuff was, because to everyone else, it looked like "incompetence."
The both share the "comp" part.
Rumsfeld didn't really achieve much of anything at all.
The Generals didn't really fight him on his ideas about smaller, faster, mobile assault forces. They disagreed on the rather elementary point that policing and providing security for a country of 25 million, with a hostile, well-armed insurgency, would take many, many, more troops.
Some knuckle-dragging KKKate groupie is saying that Rumsfeld learned from Vietnam that a large occupying force creates "complacency" among the installed regime. to whit: the South Vietnamese never produced a viable fighting force.
So, uh, just asking genius, ... where's Iraq's viable fighting force, what with Rumsfeld's failure to provide adequate US troops?
moron.
Smaller, faster, mobile assault forces are actually a good idea, especially in this environment. Heavy artillery/armour in a counter insurgency would result in even more deaths by American fire than we are hearing about now. The problem is that they don't have enough small battle groups to maintain control. These groups have to keep moving around. When they move, the insurgents just keep coming back.
Rumsfeld is a smart guy and a visionary. The problem is he got the order from the President to march in to and take over a bees nest. It was Bush who didn't listen to Powell telling him that this wasn't a great idea.
Post a Comment