| Army Times calls for Rumsfeld to resign
|
The Army Times, the unofficial newspaper of the US Army, is calling for Rumsfeld to resign. Here are some excerpts:
Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.
Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.
But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons...
The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.
...On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.
...This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.
[Thanks to Tim Bishop for the link.]
Posted
by D. Weinberger at May 10, 2004 06:37 PM
Comments
to me the central issue is the sick sexual perversions involved, and not "torture" per se. this draws an obvious line between anything worthwhile at all, and nothing worth a damn--compounded by the fact that the prison is not to be destroyed, which means the occ. auth. chooses to tacitly condone this behavior by maintaining its shadow.
Posted by: bw | May 10, 2004 08:06 PM
David,
Are you a Joseph Heller fan? If so, I have another link for you, to some classic pentagonese:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,634637,00.html
And the article about the memo:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,634638,00.html
Thanks for the linkback.
Posted by: Tim | May 11, 2004 03:45 AM
Breasts matter-Attny Gen John Ashcroft ordered the bare one covered
"A lawyer in Knoxville, Tenn., filed a class action suit claiming that victims who watched the show [j.j. and timberlake] experienced "outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." CBS was flooded with protest calls. The Federal Communications Commission received 200,000 calls and e-mail messages and opened an investigation."
Posted by: bw | May 11, 2004 07:12 AM
Rumsfeld should resign.
Posted by: user | May 11, 2004 08:27 AM
What do you think Tim? Should he resign?
Posted by: Agility Issue and Bug Tracker | May 11, 2004 12:20 PM
Army Times is about as unofficial as you can get, seeing as it is the same company as the USA Today.
Posted by: Anon | May 22, 2004 05:20 AM
I question the motive and the timing. If Abu Graib is an atrocity than the bridge hangings was a nuclear war.
We all know the anti American, anti military media is demon rat infested. I cancelled advertising in the Stars and Stripes because it resembled the New York communist slimes.
It is harder to brain wash battle hardened troops than Kerry poison ivy league college kids but demoncrats will try anyhing to win reinfection.
One nation under God.
Two under Bush
Three under Der Rumsfeld Marshall.
www.spiritofamericapartybook.com
www.pirateradio.com
Posted by: abutom | November 4, 2006 01:49 PM
[Exact transcript of
[(MilitaryCity.com Discuss the editorial), Monday 11/6 2006] & the ""old warrior" commentary": it's me]
"Old Today, 01:46 AM
Unregistered
Guest
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Discuss the editorial
Serious question: is anybody in the military in favor of declaring martial law in the US? Because it seems posse comitatus no longer applies. Bush could conceivably do it.
Should we?
Reply With Quote
Unregistered
#2204
Old Today, 01:46 AM
kerravon_guest kerravon_guest is online now
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Reputation: 6
kerravon_guest is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Discuss the editorial
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtotrainer
A draft isn't just untennable, it's impossible as a practical matter unless you're willing to take the military completely offline for at least 2 years.
What the hell is the point of a draft anyway? The current volunteer army is perfectly adequate to topple the remaining tinpot dictators.
Quote:
Rumsfeld didn't adjust the troop numbers down, Franks did. And as for the invasion, it worked brilliantly.
Exactly. We have a new gold standard for what can be achieved. Iraq's government was overthrown with something like 60k troops. Could it have been done with even less? Ideally we want to get it down to a point where we can have a coalition where the US contributes less than 50% of the troops. We need a new paradigm that enables the free world to wean itself off US-dependency. In case the US gets taken over by the anti-freedom. We need to find a way of setting up more Afghanistans, where we make more use of locals, or defections. Start military coups artificially. Provide air support to any enemy base that is willing to defect. I don't think we'll ever get as good a result as Afghanistan again, where there were locals already fighting the government, but we can probably do better than Iraq, where basically no use of locals was made until after the invasion was completed. Something inbetween. It requires more invasions and more experiments before we can come up with a new doctrine for situations where much of the "enemy" is actually praying for us to win.
Reply With Quote
kerravon_guest
View Public Profile
Send a private message to kerravon_guest
Send email to kerravon_guest
Visit kerravon_guest's homepage!
Find all posts by kerravon_guest
Add kerravon_guest to Your Buddy List
#2205
Old Today, 01:46 AM
Unregistered
Guest
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Discuss the editorial
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
You can't be "against the war" and "for the troops".
yes, you can
My support of the troops extends to want them only used on legitimate missions
Reply With Quote
Unregistered
#2206
Old Today, 01:47 AM
Unregistered
Guest
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Mr. Allen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
[QUOTE=Robert Alan_guest]No, I don't believe that I have missed the point of the article at all. The war has not failed. Not yet anyway. That won't happen until the democrats regain power in congress, or the White House. THEN it will fail.
Mr. Allen:
If you think that the Iraq war is succeeding, you must be intentionally ignoring the facts. Even accepting the questionable premise that there was a good reason to invade Iraq, the administration strategy since Bagdhad was taken has been arrogant, incompetant and destructive of U.S. interests. The current situation is not the inevitable result of the overthrow of Saddam. It is the result of a series of very bad decisions made by the administration.
1. Dismantling the bureaucratic infrastructure with no plan to replace it, resulted in chaos, and a power vacuum into which the insurgency grew.
2. Overall failure to realize that the U.S. had to engage in a counterinsurgency plan with the goal of winning hearts and minds. Instead, we generally adopted a brute force tactic, which resulted in alienating many Iraquis who might have joined in the US effort to rebuild the country.
3. Failure to provide the troop level needed to preserve security during the inital phases of the occupation.
4. Rampant corruption in the privatization (or "profitization") of the occupation effort, resulting in inadequate funds for useful military resources.
And there is more. My point is, the current chaos was avoidable.
As to your comment about the cowardly "anonymous" generals, I don't understand. I have seen lots of them on TV. Now, even Paul Wolfowitz and the other neo-con architects of the Iraq invasion are condeming the incompant handling of the war, and pointing the finger of blame at Rumsfeld, et al.
I do not believe that in your heart of hearts you think that the administration has shown even minimanl competance in the handling this war. Your loyalty to the Republican Party, or to the President, is causing you to say things that an intelligent person could not truly believe. I have not doubt, however, that when the war effort finally collapses, you will blame Democrats and the media, for the result.
An old warrior [100 meters/10.3 sec. ] still returns
on a beautifull day to the Karakorum 2 to fight You
even if he had once an U.S. Army ID and had kown
Your athletic mountaineering U.S.-Army weakness:
The "tradition of subordination of the military to civilian"[Army Times 11/6]
will never work neither seen the legal system how it emerged actually by brute force of marshall law during history nor now around Baghdad in decay nor in the next 20 years around Kabul where the Western Alliance promised to stay for the "future of Afghanistan".
It's all over next spring after the presidential elections in Pakistan.
"All officers and most enlisted personnel know
and respect that they cannot publicly criticize
their chain of command"("realclearpolitics"):
That could become coyote obedience. Since "The Blue Pentagon Papers"[Vietnam] our task includes: Remove [other]officers by "friendly fire" including Donald Rumsfeld[former Navy pilot].
A tainted war in Kabul and Iraq requires extreme measures.
Is Donald Rumsfeld a battlehard soldier ?
He dropped bombs out of an aviation arm chair. Is that enough ? Is it too little and less ?
re:"that the administration has shown even minimal competence in the handling this war":
Afghan Pashtun Radio spoke in one recent morning
edition of the Western Alliance and U.S. warfare
in Helmand, Herat, Kunduh and around Kabul as a "Knesset"[jewish parliament]"concept of lazyness".
Does Mr. Allen act more like a Bush-lobby bidder?
Mr. Allen pretended that wars are wone at home
and not at the frontlines.
The honorable Donald Rumsfeld[=field] with his lovely paradigmatic nick is a constant reminder how easy it was to start a car-war and once unfolded becomes a difficult march field. Athletic sprintracer striker results are more and more
required in the deep and narrow valleys and the steep high mountains[Kandahar-Hindukush].
Reply With Quote
Unregistered
#2207
Old Today, 01:50 AM
RCP III
Guest
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Discuss the editorial
I absolutely support the removal the SoD.
Reply With Quote
RCP III
#2208
Old Today, 01:51 AM
Unregistered
Guest
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Mr. Allen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
[QUOTE=Unregistered]
Since "The Blue Pentagon Papers"[Vietnam] our task includes: Remove [other]officers by "friendly fire" including Donald Rumsfeld[former Navy pilot].
A tainted war in Kabul and Iraq requires extreme measures.
[Kandahar-Hindukush].
Hang on--are you advocating assassinating Rumsfeild?
Reply With Quote
Unregistered
#2209
Old Today, 01:52 AM
Unregistered
Guest
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Discuss the editorial
because that is a bit harsh. this editorial only said he should be fired, not fired at"[(MilitaryCity.com Discuss the editorial), Monday 11/6 2006].
Posted by: Old Warrior | November 6, 2006 07:06 AM