President Bush just announced that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will resign.
Rummy will be replaced by former CIA chief Robert Gates.
Frankly, Rummy’s departure may have a greater impact, as far as Korea is concerned, than the results of the midterm elections.
Just to add my own two cents here, I understand why Rumsfeld had to go given the way things have been going in Iraq. That being said, I think he handled Korea—and by Korea, I mean South Korea—extremely well. I can only hope that the change in Pentagon leadership doesn’t lead to a slacking in U.S. effort to review and reorganize the U.S. presence in Korea in line with current strategic and political realities. I know Rummy stepped on a lot of toes pushing military reform, and I can only imagine there was some degree of resistance from within the military bureaucracy concerning the realignments and troop reductions in Korea. My fear is that with Rummy leaving amidst widespread criticism, the new Pentagon leadership might feel tempted to take a conservative course in terms of force realignments and military reform. And ultimately, that would be of little help to any of the parties concerned.
64 Comments
I’m firmly on the other side of that, as far as CFC is concerned, hoping Gates will reverse what I consider to be a catastrophic strategic mistake for U.S. regional long-term interests. That does not apply to other areas of military reform, however.
To start the bidding, here’a a quoted paragraph from “The Corner” at National Review Online (a group blog). I couldn’t possibly agree with it more.
“Iraq & The Dems [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Hey Jonah,
I think Bush should force a vote on Iraq as soon as the Houses turn [meaning the two houses of Congress, in early Jan when the next Congress is formally convened under Dem leadership). If we’re not in it to win it, our boys shouldn’t be dying any more. Get everybody on the record. If we’re not going to win, bring them home, now.”
And may it set an example for US troop withdrawal from Korea, too.
Rumsfeld is the only one in the Bush cabinet who actually accomplished something. Senior military leadership will protect their turf at almost any cost. Rumsfeld shook the military establishment, but in the end I think history will show he was on the right track.
‘rumsfelf accomplished something..’ right wing extremist
three thousand (projected to happen soon) us troops dead
one million iraqi civilians dead
cakewalk
liberators
go to war with the army you have
nuclear nk
us as laughingstock
iran emboldened
three thousand us troops dead
yeah, that’s quite an accomlishment!
‘i love rumsfeld!’ expat who’s never served the us in his life
‘i’m creepy looking.’ dogbert
Paul H, pulling out from Iraq is selfish.
I’d like you to recall the name, Pol Pot. After the Vietnam pull out, the whole region went Communist, and some dude named Pol Pot, under the guise of Communism started purging a lot. He had Chinese Communist support to begin, but this dude managed to kill more people than Hitler or Stalin.
Pulling out from Iraq will result in way more people than 3000 US troops.
I guess that’s not important, because at least it won’t be US GI boys dying.
Pulling out from Vietnam was a mistake. Way more people’s lives in all of IndoChina became 3rd world level and a hell of a lot of people died than 58000.
But, I guess that’s not important, because US boys in the 60’s and 70’s had a right to experiment with drugs, enjoy the prime of rock and roll pro create children without clear fathers.
and, yes, I do know that Pol Pot is not Vietnamese.
But, pulling out from Iraq will do something bad generally in the whole region.
I’d bank on it.
Kerry complained a lot about an incursion into Cambodia, but by the heavens, that was the right thing to do ! Could have saved the people who died because of misguided communism/dictatorships.
Robert Gates comes from GB41’s viewpoint of the world and will be a distinct change from Rumsfeld beyond just personality.
Rumsfeld was an innovator and challenged the uniform services to change the American military in many ways. Argue about those changes if you will, especially as regards to Korea.
Gates is more of a consensus guy, a team player if you will. He got this job not because of Korea or transformation. He gets this job to figure out how to withdraw from Iraq and not ignite regional war that destroys America’s preiminent position in the world’s oil patch. Gates has been studying what to do about Iran too. Iraq and Iran are like Siamese twins. I think it was not planning for Iran in the midst of the end of Saddam’s rule that was Bush’s major plunder over there, but hey thats another tale.
The time is short, there is only so much Gates can do in 2 years and I suspect Korea will be left as Rumsfeld planned it out, no doubt with GB 43’s approval.
WJK:
It’s funny how many people are still replaying that Vietnam scenario in their minds. Every modern war henceforth has been compared to that tragedy when most modern war has nothing to do with what happened there.
What’s going on in Iraq has nothing to do with what happened in Vietnam, and yet, here we are, still stuck in that mindset.
Everything is related to the loss of that War, as if somehow if we win this war and that war we can somehow make up for that Loss.
I tell you there is some truth to Sartre’s claim that people are fixated on the idea that somehow changing the future can change their past when in fact they are changing neither. Trying to refight a war that’s 60 years old is waste of our time.
We’ve already wasted a trillion dollar over there and there is no end in sight, even a bad gambler knows when to fold.
Even if there ever was such a thing, Iraq had nothing to do with our so called War on Terror. Hard to believe there is such a thing when are borders are wide open. This concoction of “war on terror,” was just an invention cooked up by George Bush and his cronies to fill their own coffers. Military Industrial Complex has become a reality. George Bush and his cronies deserves to burn in Hell, too bad I don’t believe in his silly religion.
What happened on 9/11?
Why?
Who did it?
Where are they from?
What do others in the region want to happen?
Rumsfeld was strongly criticized for not putting enough boots on the ground in Iraq–former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Eric Shinseki being among the first to publicly disagree. So, will Rummy’s opponents in the DoD now look to double or treble our presence? Or has the plan to escalate already been shelved?
Wanna explain to me how 9/11 is related to Iraq? Please don’t give me that standard BS about WMD.
seouldout wrote:
Rumsfeld was strongly criticized for not putting enough boots on the ground in Iraq–former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Eric Shinseki being among the first to publicly disagree. So, will Rummy’s opponents in the DoD now look to double or treble our presence? Or has the plan to escalate already been shelved?
———————————————————–
Putting more boots on the ground would only have meant more ‘ducks on a row’ for these suicide nutbags to blow up.
The major mistake we made was dissolving the Iraqi army after the war. Rumsfeld should have spent more time watchin’ WWII movies rather than yelling at other generals like little children.
I was Rumsfeld fan when he first started and appreciated his efforts to break the Penatgon bureacracy. Unfortunately, he had zero tact and eventually came off as a grumpy old man who was “always the smartest guy in the room”. From what I have heard, 9/11 and the inital success in Afghanistan and Iraq saved him from an early exit from the Defense Department.
It will be interesting to see how much brushback the services, particularly the Army, will give on all of his transformation efforts or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the best way to build a legacy is to make sure you break something enough so it cant be fixed, its going to be hard to reverse course, especially in a lame duck administration.
I think we may be past the point of more troops having an impact in Iraq. We really dont have too many available to surge anyway, unless we are talking about options that will break the Army and Marine Corps for a decade or more. What we need is a political solution - the Iraqi Government needs to be put on notice that the clock is ticking. I cannot believe that we need to train more Iraqis because at any one time, 20% of their troops are on leave! WTF! Its their country and they are at war, we are maintaining our troop levels so Iraqi soldiers can take leave!?
As far as US policy in Korea, and in the Asia-Pacific Region in general, I believe that there will be very few course corrections and Iraq and Afghanistan will consume most of the attention and priority of effort.
Origami wrote:
Wanna explain to me how 9/11 is related to Iraq? Please don’t give me that standard BS about WMD.
You associated them in your post - Richardson did not.
If there was no connection, it wasn’t for lack of malicious intent.
You may have heard of this group called “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” If we’re under the illusion that we can run away from then, we’ll learn the hard way when Afghanistan becomes the new Iraq and Iraq becomes the new Cambodia. No matter where we go, they will follow. There’s room for argument about how to win the war, but there is no reasonable argument that we’ll end the war, make everyone love us, or make ourselves safe if we do a Sir Robin and “bravely run away.” We’d just persuade every dime-store punk on earth to feel like it’s his lucky day.
One thing that should be noted here is that Rumsfeld is merely the political fall guy because the Democrats, still with no real platform, despite Republicans complete brainwashing of the religious right, still managed to sweep this election. Bush had no choice but to remove the most visibly outspoken and controversial one.
The question of the war and the job Rumsfeld did is irrelevant. Although comparing Iraq to Vietnam to thereby defend him is a little sickening. In my opinion he is a monster. His “you have to go to war with the Army you have” comments to troops, his complete defiling of the Geneva conventions, his “old Europe” comments, his downplaying of the looting in Baghdad, …this is pretty disgusting stuff. The general worldwide hatred of America he and his government inspired is unconscionable. The toll Rumsfeld himself has taken on American ethics and morality is far greater than gay marriage or abortion ever could.
Putting aside the question of whether he was prepared for war or not, he should have at least resigned during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal. For me, nothing highlights the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Bush administration like when Rumsfeld, admitting that it had happened on his watch and that he took responsibility for it, but then just more or less leaving it at that.
Am I glad he’s gone? Not really. It doesn’t change anything. What’s done is done.
The Goat:
You associated them in your post - Richardson did not.
————————————————————
I really don’t wanna get involved in a pissing contest, but pray tell, what other wars were there related to 9/11 other than Iraq and Afghanistan? Wasn’t there an insinuation that 9/11 was an impetus for these wars?
I’m certainly not a mind reader.
————————————————————–
Nothing I’ve read about Robert Gates impresses me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
…sounds very much like incompetent career politician, fully in line with those worthless neo-cons Bush likes so much. Incompetence does define this Presidency.
joshua wrote:
Gravatar
Wanna explain to me how 9/11 is related to Iraq?
If there was no connection, it wasn’t for lack of malicious intent.
You may have heard of this group called “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” If we’re under the illusion that we can run away from then, we’ll learn the hard way when Afghanistan becomes the new Iraq and Iraq becomes the new Cambodia. No matter where we go, they will follow. There’s room for argument about how to win the war, but there is no reasonable argument that we’ll end the war, make everyone love us, or make ourselves safe if we do a Sir Robin and “bravely run away.” We’d just persuade every dime-store punk on earth to feel like it’s his lucky day.
————————————————————–
Pretty typical neo-con logic that goes something like this:
“They’ll kill the Jews first and then come after rest of us.”
Perhaps if there wasn’t a Jewish State we wouldn’t be having problems with the Arabs in the first place. Little strip of land in Palestine is not worth all the blood we’ve been manipulated to spill in their name.
I love all these neo-cons who believe we need to kill all the Arabs in the world because the world would be safe for US, when in fact the world would be only safe for them. Anyone stupid enough to buy into that crazy logic is a fool!
And here I was thinking you thought it was the Mexican immigrants who were destroying America. My mistake—apparently, it’s the neo-cons/Jewish cabal that’s manipulating U.S. foreign policy.
Personally, I blame the Knights Templar.
Origami,
There is not much point in going on with this as you see only what you want to see, rather than what has been written.
Just wow.
If there was any justice in the world, Rumsfeld and the top echelons of the Bush and Blair regimes would be tried for war crimes a la Nuremberg.
And after being convicted on the basis of the irrefutable evidence of their atrocities, hung by the neck until dead.
Joshua,
Malicious Intent
Sure, that’s causus belli. Let’s declare war on everyone that doesn’t like us !
“Al Qaeda in Iraq”
You also may have heard about this group called “Al Qaeda in the U.S.”. You know, the guys who trained at U.S. flight schools on only how to take-off (not land a plane), bought one-way tickets on the same credit card, and were generally ignored by the FBI.
OK, so maybe invading your own country is out of the question, but what about “Al Qaeda in Britain” ? Why didn’t we invade Tony Blair’s country ?
“Bravely Run Away” (a.k.a. - “cut and run”)
We never should have been there in the first place and our mere presence is creating more problems than it’s solving. So, you’d prefer to throw more soldier’s lives into the grinder for zero to negative benefit than risk looking cowardly ? This isn’t a Hollywood movie where the dead get back up.
Origami, I’m not trying to pick on you, but you seem unaware there was an extensive Jewish (and Christian) presence in the Middle East for centuries before Islam even existed. There were Jewish kings in the region for centuries. The so-called “Palestinian people” are a recently invented pretext to conquer the remaining non-Muslim controlled land in the region. Also, Muslims by far and away kill more Muslims than the U.S. troops who have the thankless and maybe futile task of promoting democracy in Iraq. They have this funny concept called “jihad” that compels them to kill anyone who doesn’t submit to their sect’s version of “true Islam,” and so 9/11, the Bali/Madrid/London bombings, etc.
Rummy really brings out the nutters.
Michael:
Origami, I’m not trying to pick on you, but you seem unaware there was an extensive Jewish (and Christian) presence in the Middle East for centuries before Islam even existed. There were Jewish kings in the region for centuries. The so-called “Palestinian people” are a recently invented pretext to conquer the remaining non-Muslim controlled land in the region
————————————————————-
Sounds like you’re the one who’s brain washed. If you were to do a little DNA test, Palestinians and the Jewish people are the “same people” divided by different cultural identity.
DNA evidence seems to me more indisputable than religiosity. Unfortunately crazy religion makes people do crazy things, doesn’t it?
Iraq is not Vietnam.
Vietnam was a civil war where we were fighting against a nationalist movement of unification. In Iraq we are fighting a movement intent on division.
As we witnessed on Sept 11, the Islamofascists want to see globalization and democracy rolled back to protect their power and influence over the Islamic nation.
Michael:
Also, Muslims by far and away kill more Muslims than the U.S. troops who have the thankless and maybe futile task of promoting democracy in Iraq.
————————————————————–
Michael you are more brainwashed than I thought. There was never “an intent” by the Bushites to promote so called “Democracy in Iraq.” That was purely an after thought. In fact, the Bushites had every intention of setting up a puppet regime in Iraq. Unfortunately, this didn’t work out because of public outcry.
[quote]They have this funny concept called “jihad” that compels them to kill anyone who doesn’t submit to their sect’s version of “true Islam,” and so 9/11, the Bali/Madrid/London bombings, etc.[/quote]
And how did invading Iraq help solve this problem? Al Qaeda was destroyed after the Afghan War. It was Iraq which gave them a new leash on life. It has now become a training ground for these terrorists.
Marmot:
And here I was thinking you thought it was the Mexican immigrants who were destroying America. My mistake—apparently, it’s the neo-cons/Jewish cabal that’s manipulating U.S. foreign policy.
Personally, I blame the Knights Templar.
—————————————————————-
OK,
I’m just rattling these off my head, maybe I’m wrong but:
Rush Limbaugh, Khrathhammer, Bill Krystal, Richard Perle, Mark Levine, Mike Savage (Michael Wiener), Paul Wolfowitz….should I go on?
You’re right, Theses people had absolutely no influence in Bush administration. This is all in my head. I need to see a psychiatrist.
Well, this will give the guy more time to shoot lawyers in the face.
As opposed to shooting his nation in the foot.
Not that I expect the Dems will be doing any better. Politicians are politicians and the Gang Of Perverts have given them both a clutserfuck of a police action Iraq that can’t be dealt with without the deaths of thousands. And if anyone thinks the Dems wont be enjoying the broad, unanswerable-to-anyone, near dictator powers given to the president recently when they take the office, I got some nice swampland to sell.
Umm…Origami, I wasn’t addressing Iraq, only your statement: “Perhaps if there wasn’t a Jewish State we wouldn’t be having problems with the Arabs in the first place,” which is basically flies in the face of history–the region was long settled by Jews, Christians and non-Muslim Arabs before Mohammed arrived, then Islam took over and marginalized those people, bringing us up to the present where Islamic governments like Iran and Syria expressly state that they want to wipe out Israel. Also, I meant the identity of the Palestinian people as a political entity.
They don’t want to stop there either, as should be obvious to you by the fact that Islam is the only major religion with adherents that slaughter people worldwide, including other Muslims from other sects, with the express intent of subjugating the world to their religion.
I actually agree that invading Iraq on false pretext most likely exacerbated the problem of “Islamofascists,” but the problem existed prior to invasion and had little to do with Bush’s actions.
See, don’t you feel better now? The first part of recovery is admitting you have a problem. Now, if you just lay off stuff like this for a couple of weeks, you should be just fine.
Commenters who should be reveling in Rummy’s departure are instead going all flakey and dumb on us.
Didn’t have time to read the comments, but I once said, in regard to the Korea connection, that a better parallel for people to be drawing today would be between Carter and Rumsfeld. Rumsfled is ultimately leaving because Iraq was not shaped up well enough fast enough, but another important factor was the bad blood created by stepping on the toes and by the Vietnam War-era minded people (like Powell) who just see the world and the military’s role differently than Rumsfeld.
But, another factor I doubt we’ll hear anybody talk about is how Rusmfeld and crew didn’t get positive spin for how successful the main war fighting was - and that was thanks to the media in large measure.
They went straight from doom-n-gloom about how deadly the war was going to be and how long it was going to take (the street fighting and WMDs and how Iraq would immediately break apart if we did win) —- into nothing but talk about how badly the war was going —– to nothing but how badly the reconstruction has been going. They didn’t have time to stop and say, “Hey, I guess we were wrong. The war wasn’t so long. And, gosh, I guess we weren’t completely bogged down like we said. Nice job.” No. They went straight into finding another way to say everything was going completely wrong.
And here again, Rumsfeld’s efforts to reshape the military naturally took away some voices within the military who might have come out defending the institution and events in Iraq.
But, ultimately, Rumsfeld fell because he wasn’t successful enough. They were after his scalp from day one because he wasn’t the kind of intellectual dullard the media and dems are used to dealing with and beating up on. They wanted to take him out like they did Gingrich some years ago and like they have wanted to do with Rove and Wolfiwitz. Pretty much anytime you hear the public pundits pulling out Nazi references and words like “fascist” —- you can tell the rep they are going after must have a brain….
“Well, this will give the guy more time to shoot lawyers in the face.
As opposed to shooting his nation in the foot.”
That was Cheney, no?
Mr. Rumsfeld had good and bad attributes. Unfortunately, as one commenter mentioned “The toll Rumsfeld himself has taken on American ethics and morality is far greater than gay marriage or abortion ever could.” is quite accurate. The way in which this war has been prosecuted has harmed America more than helped it but the blame should be shared by several who are no longer in the Bush administration. Ultimately, Mr. Bush should leave — along with Mr. Rumsfeld — since he bears the ultimate responsibility for the incompetence and corruption that has caused more effected more harm despite the intent to cure.
America is at war, the war on terror. Yes, don’t make any mistake about it. Islam terrorists are just waiting to blow up your city.
I am not joking. It is real. Now, Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Where do you think they will use it? They will use it against Israel, Great Britain and the US.
We have to get them (terrorists) before they get us, unless you want another 9/11. And, I think the next target may be municipal water plants. A few armed terrorists can put chemicals into drinking water system and wipe out thousands, including babies. A 9/11 again.
The most effective way to get terrorists are to go where they live (Bush’s words) and finish them there before they attack the US. I support the president 100%. Democrats( I am one) are very wrong on this issue.
Withdrawing from Iraq will give the opportunity for Iran to annex Iraq. There will be a puppet president in Iraq, but he will support Iran’s effort to hit the US. Iranians believe they have to kill maximum number of the infidels and create havoc in the planet so that the next comming of their major prophet can happen. Iranian president has vowed to make this happen.
As Rummy leaves and if Bush moderates his stance, the US is wide open for another terrorist attack. More deadly than the 9/11. When that happens all democrates and liberals will again blame CIA, military and Bush for the attack.
The spin doctors!
For my safety and my children’s future, I support the president 100%. And, all those who voted for democrates because of Iraq do not know what is going on. Totally clueless.
We are at war!
What is the 9/11? Who were the terrorists who hijacked the planes and used them to kill thousands of the innocent US citizens?
Did the US military kill any of their families? Israelies? No. As I understand for none of them the revenge was the motive.
They were religious zealots. They wanted to kill Americans for religious reasons. And, they have not changed their religion of murder, destruction and deaths.
They will come again. The 9/11 was just a start. It was not a fluke. It is the first attempt of what is to come.
More terrors are waiting for the US citizens. Islam terrorists, because of their religion, will not stop. They will continue to attack the US till Americans accept Islam as the religion.
Either you stand up and fight the terrorists or submit to their rule. I chose to fight.
“Well the problem is that destroying the world might be the prerequisite for making it “right,” as the Nazis, Communists and Islamists believe. In other words, the world must be purified by human blood — earthly paradise can only be built on the ashes of destruction and death.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar.....p?ID=24199
#
usinkorea wrote:
“Well, this will give the guy more time to shoot lawyers in the face.
As opposed to shooting his nation in the foot.”
That was Cheney, no?
_____________________________
Since when do details matter for “witty” potshots. :p
R. Elgin, Amen to comment #35.
Yankeesfan_77. Reference Vietnam, and yes this is not a forum on a war that ended 31 years ago. While it had all the attributes of a civil war, it was legally a war between two internationally recognized states. BOTH of which, by the way, were comprised of nationalists who did not recognize the other’s right to exist as a separate state. More importantly, the North’s leader, dear old Uncle Ho, was not a nationalist first, despite the rewriting of history. He was a Communist internationalist who had spent virtually his entire adult life out of Vietnam as an agent of the Communist International. This, in fact, is what allowed him the prestige within the Party to become one of its major leaders (but certainly not the only one). The evidence is that Uncle Ho viewed nationalism as a necessary stage through which Vietnam would have to pass in order to set the stage for the transition to communism. If you study the war in detail, you will note that while he employed a “united front” strategy, which included the VNQDD, he and the Party ran the organization and were not adverse to bumping off VNQDD leaders who developed enough power to threaten their own (v.g. Nguyen Binh). If you would counterargue that the U.S. still had no place in that war, I would agree, with the qualification that the provision of military advisors and limited military assistance was certainly within the powers of the various U.S. Presidents up until 1965, when massive troop reinforcements were sent in that included many draftees.
Enough said. Do not be mislead by Uncle Ho’s much vaunted “nationalist” credentials. He was a member of a small group of revolutionary communists and must be judged by the goals of the group rather than his individual declarations, which were always skillfully tailored to suit his audience. After 1948 the Indochina War was not about Colonialism or any other “ism”. It was about whether or not the future Vietnam would be a single Party state, or a multi-party state. The single-party side won. Perhaps unsurprising, given that the weight of its history was as a monarchy, with a brief interregnum of Colonialism under various guises.
Come to think of it, perhaps there are similarities to Iraq.
wjk #4 &5: I was alive back then (Vietnam war to include the Cambodian invasion) & remember it well. IMO Vietnam analogies are of limited usefulness vs a vs the Iraq war because the two situations are so different, though I admit it’s useful to make a comparison between the US domestic political response to both wars; certainly our enemies do that.
I need to go back and reread my Cambodia history to once again try to discern cause and effect, but you should know that Cambodia in March 1970 was effectively a neutral country, though much of the Cambodian hinterlands was effectively occupied by North Vietnamese/Viet Cong troops. That month, a pro-US Cambodian military faction overthrew the neutralist Cambodian King (Sihanouk, I think he was out of the country at the time) and this was immediately followed by a US invasion to try to “take out” the North Vietnamese military HQ for South Vietnam (COSVN? I think that was the acronym).
US domestic political reaction was overwhelming (not so much in Congress but by student riots etc) and forced Nixon to limit the invasion period to only a few weeks. North Vietnamese took a hit but they recovered after a year or so and then the war went on.
New pro-US Cambodian government couldn’t survive even with US advisors and military assistance against the newly energized native Cambodian Communists (Khmer Rouge). Whether they would have taken over eventually and had their “Killing Fields” (as horribly documented in the movie) is one of the great unknowns of history, though I think the author William Shawcross made an indictment of the US causing all of it by its invasion in his book “Sideshow”. I
ncidentally, I think I’ve read that Shawcross is still alive and I think he is in favor of the US role in this current war! (only going by memory of reading third-hand accounts of this so apologies to him if I’ve distorted his view. Somewhere I’ve got a copy of “Sideshow” but haven’t looked at it for 20 or more years).
Some Dems in Congress at the time of the Nixon impeachment hearings (19730 wanted to indict Nixon for exceeding his authority to wage war by the secret US bombing in Cambodia (1969) and then the invasion, .
Going by memory in all this so I could be wrong about some of the details, but IMO there are more differences than similarities between the two situations.
In my #2 I wasn’t necessarily arguing for an immediate withdrawal, though I admit I’m absolutely stunned by the Rumsfeld resignation. Not necessarily a Rumsfeld fan, just that I don’t understand now why Bush didn’t do this a long time ago. Anyway, I do agree with the sentiment the letter writer expressed in #2; let’s get everybody in the new Congress on record with a vote as to what is to be done next in Iraq, in front of the whole world (and in front of their constituents).
A side note: there’s so much bad history and personal political distortion in the answers here that it is almost beyond belief.
?Ref, my just previous: “…A side note: there’s so much bad history and personal political distortion in the answers here that it is almost beyond belief.”
Didn’t mean to indict everyone, accidently hit “return” before I could finish editing. In particular I hadn’t seen your Vietnam comments in #40 yet lirelou, had I done so I might not have said that last at all. Good stuff, hope it will have some impact here, though I suspect it will simply splash down without much notice in the historical Sea of Japan (oops, “East Sea).
As to your & yankeesfan main point — without necessarily agreeing that Bush should also now resign, nevertheless it has always seemed illuminating to me that both Bush and Rumsfeld are former military aviators.
Origami said:
“If you were to do a little DNA test, Palestinians and the Jewish people are the “same people” divided by different cultural identity.”
That is a absolutely FALSE statement unless you use the standard which would make all human beings “the same people.”
Origami further said:
“Pretty typical neo-con logic that goes something like this:
- “They’ll kill the Jews first and then come after rest of us.”
Logic that is hardly born out by the political bent of the US Jewish community, liberal in every sense…
Origami topped it off with:
“neo-cons who believe we need to kill all the Arabs in the world because the world would be safe for US, when in fact the world would be only safe for them.”
The zero-sum safety scenario you have detailed is a perverted version of the zero-sum tolerance of Islam…nothing more than the deification of 7th century arab culture and its policies of forced assimilation can account for the instability today in the middle east.
Lirelou, I understand your sentiments regarding Vietnam but I think you missed yankeefan’s point, arguing something that isn’t at issue here. Ho’s nationalism vs. communism is moot. YF’s delineation between Vietnam and Iraq revolves only around the unity vs. separation of a nation issue. It’s an important difference that forebodes any form of unity in Iraq without a totalitarian gov’t like what Saddam brought. The Iraqies simply cannot be governed as one people and remain benevolent towards each other.
usinkorea,
“Hey, I guess we were wrong. The war wasn’t so long. And, gosh, I guess we weren’t completely bogged down like we said. Nice job.”
The vast majority of the Iraqis willing to fight weren’t stupid enough to think they could stand toe-to-toe with the U.S. Army, so they chose to bide their time and fight a guerilla war.
While we view ourselves as the “liberators”, most Iraqis views us as the “occupiers”.
For every person we kill, every village we raid, every house we pillage looking for weapons, we only create more enemies. It’s Vietnam all over again where the methods of finding and weakening the enemy only increase their number and their strength.
How do you save a population from the enemy when they are virtually indistinguishable ? Game over, man. Game over.
Naishi wrote: “The toll Rumsfeld himself has taken on American ethics and morality is far greater than gay marriage or abortion ever could.”
You hit the nail on the head Naishi. This administration will go down in history as the most corrupt and deceiptful we’ve ever had. It always amazes me that the conservative zealots still believe Clinton’s lie about a blowjob is far worse than Bush’s lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Last time I checked, nobody died because Bill C. got a nobber.
Were Clinton, et al lying when they read the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion? People need to get past that propagandistic fantasy and get a grip on reality. A refresher, if you want to call folks liars;
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
We’ve had Bush=Hitler comparisons, madcap, braindead jew-baiting from Origami, and general historical amnesia and emotionalism from the “victors” here. People get a grip: it was not the frothing lefties who got the Dems back in power, but it will be the mouthfoamers who squander that mandate quickly.
people in this day and age wondering what the relationship is between 9-11 and iraq?
surely it is evident that the us has been sullied by both
isnt it unfair that so many iraqis have to die for so few us soldiers
dlatn=troll. Dump this chump, Robert.
Of course, unlike the republicans, hopefully it’s not the mouthfoamers who were actually elected to office, since they’re the ones who actually have the power to squander the mandate.
Paul H., that was a very interesting input. Thanks.
Iraq is not Vietnam.???
Really? America is caught in the middle of a civil war. America has no clear plan of how to win or how to leave. The best troops America has are tied down so America cannot react to other emergenices. The war is not popular in America. American troops are being killed at an increasing rate as their enemy gets more bold and American morale declines. A largely imaginary enemy gets most of America’s attention. America has absolutely no historical knowledge of the area. America got into the war not realising the ramifications. Big buisiness in America is making a fortune on the war. Profiteering is rife. It is obvious to a five year old that America cannot force its will on that area. The elite’s kids don’t fight in the war.
Need I say more?
“Of course, unlike the republicans, hopefully it’s not the mouthfoamers who were actually elected to office….”
That was indeed my point: A sizable number of the new Dem lawmakers are (or at leased posed as) centrists or even right-of-center. Think Jim Webb in VA. Note Lieberman’s solid victory. The Blue Dogs, I recall, added a dozen or so members. We’re not talking Uri Party juvenile know-nothings (no insult to US politics intended) or even effete, sterile limousine liberals like John Kerry here.
Richardson wrote: Were Clinton, et al lying when they read the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion? People need to get past that propagandistic fantasy and get a grip on reality.
Reality check: Clinton didn’t invade Iraq nor lie to the American public about the reasons for doing so. Funny how the right winger christian zealots want to blame Clinton for everything that’s wrong with America but when they try to justify their demi-God Bush’s mistakes they say….”Clinton believed it too”. The hypocrisy and irony is off the scale.
Very simple question; did Clinton and the Dems lie about Iraq intel, or not? It’s a Yes or No question.
But we all know the answer is ‘No.’
Here’s the reality check 1; I didn’t blame Clinton for anything, I’m just pointing out the inconsistency in your claims. Some would call it hypocrisy.
Reality check 2; the vote to invade Iraq was 77-23 Senate, 296-133 House.
If the Dems didn’t come to the same conclusion, why did so many vote to invade Iraq?
I hate to jump into such pointless debates, but Maekchu should go back to 1998 and some of Clinton’s statements and some of his people’s statements when he bombed Iraq (and I believe the Sudan).
Did he “lie” to invade Iraq? No. He preferred a non-solution to what he said was a problem - Iraq with WMDs and on the verge of getting nukes. Was he telling lies? I think Richardson is right - answer that question. Because it is absolutely undeniable Clinton in 1998 claimed the same things Bush did in the run up to the war.
Every country is in constant evolution, even a backwater like Iraq. In 1996 it’s probably a sure bet that Iraq had, or was trying to possess WMD. By 2001/2002 when Saddam was trying to hang on to power, the situation had changed. Knowing if he had WMD, the world body would take action, Saddam got rid of all his little toys. Most likely to Syria. Hans Blick and the UN flunkies reported such factoids but they were ignored by Dubya and the New Templars. To equate a report Clinton read in 1998 for justification for a war in 2001 is only logical if you are trying to manipulate the public. Congress (and the public) can also be manipulated by false data. Few in Congress ever know the whole story anyway. But the White House knew what the real story was as they get the current most up-to-date intel on a daily basis. They ignored or downplayed these reports from both the NSA & CIA. Did Saddam ever try to get WMD? Of course. Did he have them in 2002. No. Did Iraq have a connection to 9/11? No. But Dubya tried to make the public believe there was a connection to justify his war. Sending up poor Colin in front of the UN with such weak ass evidence was a travesty to that great man. You see he’s long ago left that pack of liars as anybody with any personal credibility would have.
Much like the bible, you can twist and turn things any way you want in this scenario. But the bottom line is Dubya mislead the US public in the reasons for invading Iraq when he knew full well in advance that Saddam was no threat, had no WMD and was not connected to 9/11. Bringing up old reports from 1998 to justify his reasoning was brilliant and some folks (obviously) still prefer that brand of snake oil. It’s funny though how most folks who swallow all of this from the Bush administration are usually conservative right wingers who follow the platform blindly like sheep. Real patriots ask questions of questionable leadership. Sheep are not patriots, or responsible citizens.
But hey, what do I know? I’m just an intel flunky too. It’s guys like me who put together the analytical data that is ignored when the politicians have their own agenda. Politicians like George W. Bush. Oil….it’s the other white meat.
Follow the link;
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
And read the Dem quotes. Not from 1996, but from 2002 & 2003, the timeframe of the invasion.
No twisting, direct quotes from all your favorite Dems. Saying the same thing Bush did, with the same intel. Yet you call Bush a liar and continue to avoid answering for them. You can’t have it both ways.
And if you’re intel, your service is in serious trouble. It’s pretty sad, really.
usinkorea,
Two things:
1) Much changed in Iraq between 1998 and 2002. Using data from 4 years prior was not a good idea. See exhibit A : no WMDs.
2) Most importantly, nearly everyone else, including Clinton, Bush 41, and Powell, knew a full invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. You break it, you own it, and Iraq is not something pleasant to own. See exhibit B : the situation today.
This whole debacle has been many things, one of which is a lesson that reality will eventually win out over propaganda. Bush and his cabinet may have fooled many American people (including most of Congress), but somehow the Iraqis didn’t get the message that they were supposed to play into the fantasy.
“2) Most importantly, nearly everyone else, including Clinton, Bush 41, and Powell, knew a full invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. You break it, you own it, and Iraq is not something pleasant to own. See exhibit B : the situation today.”
I’ll play along with this to get something out of the thread.
I’m sure I won’t be agreed with here, but I’ll say this quickly, the idea that the US “knew” there were WMDs in 2002 is a crock of shit. That is why looking back at 1998 is fine — there was a consistent thread on WMDs and Iraq through two administrations from different, opposing parties - reps and dems.
But to move on to more productive ground where we might have more than a “na-na-na-na” discussion —
Clinton and Bush 41 decided not to take Iraq out. Both were wrong - in my opinion.
Powell is an OK guy, but his sticking to the Gulf War choice of putting up No Fly Zones and leaving Hussien in power was wrongheaded just as Bush Sr. deciding not to finish the war.
Clinton’s missile lobs were also bullshit, because they were not even close to a solution to the problem. He even called for regime change, and didn’t get it accoplished. It is somewhat like Reagan bombing Iran and somewhat like bombing Libya - but at least the Libya thing turned out to work.
But the question for the future is —– is “owning” Iraq bad? not worth the effort?
I say it is worth the effort. If the US and Iraqis and others can stabilize that nation and see a democracy grow, it could have a major, major impact in a region that is vital to the world’s interests not just America’s.
What bothers me is how most of the regular people I hear who attack the effort in Iraq — do so for no better reason than it is an attack on Bush and Rumsfeld and crew. It is simply petty armchair politics.
If someone believes the situation in Iraq is hopeless - I mean really believes it — or thinks the effort is not worth the costs - I can live with that.
I think they are wrong - but at least I can respect them having a reasonable opinion.
A good number of people thought staying in South Korea was a lost cause between 1945-1950. (Some thought so after the war period). And they thought so for many of the same reasons people are talking about Iraq being hopeless - bloodshed, ideological divide, and then plain thuggery politics was going to keep the nation down forever until it fell to the communist North without a fight. Which is why the US pulled out in 1948.
But Truman threw us back in and we stayed through thick and thin up to even today.
I think if 50 years from now, we still have troops in Iraq, and Iraq is as developed or close to as developed as South Korea, it will have been well worth it.
And it should not be as hard to build up Iraq — once enough Iraqis become committed to the idea that what is good for their future is to end the sectarian bloodshed and work together.
““knew” there were WMDs in 2002″
that should be “knew there were no WMDs in 2002″
pawikirogi thanks for supporting my statements that (in your words) ‘rumsfelf accomplished something..’
I didn’t expect such support from a grade school student. I know you had a little problem expressing yourself but I can read “between the lines” and understand what you are trying to say.
“three thousand (projected to happen soon) us troops dead” Even one death in war is two many, but I agree with you that in such a dangerous place with everyone owning guns leadership has held US deaths to a minimum.
“one million iraqi civilians dead” I’m not sure how you are doing in math and how you came up with the number one million (remember to watch the zeros) but there were, and still are a lot of bad guys, in that area and sometimes bad guys die. The former leader did not keep an accurate account of the deaths under his watch, but I think he had a problem with zeros also.
“cakewalk”
“liberators”
“go to war with the army you have”
“nuclear nk”
“us as laughingstock”
“iran emboldened”
Please pay attention in grammer class and rewrite the above.
“yeah, that’s quite an accomlishment!” I’m not sure if you should feel this way if you are talking about war and death. You should talk to your minister on Sunday about such feelings.
‘i love rumsfeld!’ expat who’s never served the us in his life” Try not to confuse love with respect. Also, if you have a crush on any of your teachers don’t let your fellow classmates know. Even if your parents are living overseas, you can stil join the military when you come of age.
‘i’m creepy looking.’ Don’t worry, the pimples will clear up.
It’s probably past your bed time so remember what your mother tells you.
Don’t talk to strangers - wear clean underwear - and if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
The UN was the body that thought it might be a good place to start. Remember we were looking to introduce stability to the region. What better place to begin?
5 Trackbacks
[...] It was probably inevitable, and if it might have been the only way to preserve any kind of bipartisan consensus on Iraq. I agree with Robert’s analysis, as it concerns Korea policy. Rumsfeld has managed the downsizing of the alliance creditably, confronting, rather than denying, the effect of the political trends there. Much of what Rumsfeld did right in Korea is owed to the very able assistance of Richard Lawless. If Lawless stays, and Gates listens to him, then the process of breaking Gates in may be an easier one. If not, he may continue to approach Korea from a 1985 perspective. Hope he’s been keeping up with the news, but nothing I’ve heard about Gates gives me much comfort. [...]
Bipartisanship Returns?…
If this is indeed what President Bush has learned from yesterday’s midterm elections, then it was a good day.
“The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselv…
[...] A great thing that happened just this past week was that Secretary Rumsfeld was removed. It was about time. Rumsfeld actually did some good things shaking up the Pentagon and as Robert mentioned his USFK policies were very sound, but he has out lived his usefulness because he has pretty much alienated himself from the military leadership at the Pentagon. I think President Bush actually kept him around this long just because he didn’t want to be seen as caving into Democratic demands, but he definitely needed to go and the election results gave the President the cover he needed to get rid of him. [...]
[...] A great thing that happened just this past week was that Secretary Rumsfeld was removed. It was about time. Rumsfeld actually did some good things shaking up the Pentagon and as Robert mentioned his USFK policies were very sound, but he has out lived his usefulness because he has pretty much alienated himself from the military leadership at the Pentagon. I think President Bush actually kept him around this long just because he didn’t want to be seen as caving into Democratic demands, but he definitely needed to go and the election results gave the President the cover he needed to get rid of him. [...]
adult cam…
The Marmot’s Hole » : Rumsfeld resigns…