Rumsfield in the firing line

Ever heard of the term, "Fallguy"?

I don't think Franks is going to be any kind of fall guy. Nor Rumsfeld, for that matter. Both serve at the pleasure of the president, and only the president. All the evidence is that they both have his confidence.

At the end of the day, Truman said it best with his desk sign. The buck stops here. If there is criticism to be made about the plan, the only proper place to lodge it is with the commander in chief.

But to do that, people have to wait more than 11 days into a military campaign. I know you are all itching for failure, but you are going to have to be patient like the rest of us and see how it actually turns out. All this quagmire and failure talk is vastly premature, not to say inconsistent with the facts on the ground. This is not "Task Force Smith" and even if it was, the US managed to survive that mistake. If a mistake was made here, it can and will be corrected.

Hey, no fair. I don't wish to see our military fail. I thought it was interesting to take note of the recent blame-shifting and recriminations (a Washington, DC, tradition not unique to any administration) -- that's not the same as wishing for failure.

It is a Washington, DC tradition. We saw it for example in the war in Afghanistan after about 2 weeks, and before that in Kosovo. In both cases, the criticisms were absurdly premature.

I came across this interesting piece in the Spectator (linked by Andrew Sullivan). It's a British piece, but I think it is applicable to sections of the US media as well, not to mention some of the more hyperventilating people on these boards.

Ugly, perhaps. But human nature.

The interesting thing about all the unnamed "senior officials" in articles and reports is that you could easily find someone to express any diverse point of view and describe them as a "senior official."

They did it when Clinton was President too.

Fascinating article.

What he describes is what I see in the majority of American print and television media. It's an overall, very pessimistic view of the war.

Since when is a war textbook?
I hear this a lot.. all is not going as planned...when does it ever... and who the hell came up with the notion it did. This is somethign the press has been saying and aparently has stuck in peoples heads. There is no a->b->c here... you never know what your going to encounter and therefore need to make changes on the fly..

The main objective is to win. how you get there may take adjustments to the plan. No general or official ever said.. this is exactly how the war is going to go or how we expect it to go.

go watch more CNN if you think anyone ever said there is a timeframe or concrete plan

You haven't actually read this thread, have you?

Here's a repost of an article posted earlier, just for you:


Source: Washington Post

"Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials.



Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.



This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein"

Another one...
You cannot belilve what you read in the NY times or the Washington Post. They would love to see the US lose this war and as their buddy at Columbia Univ said see the US troops dragged through the streets.



That quote means nothing. It says to me that things are getting mroe costly and we need more resources... it does NOT say... oh crap.. things arent following the black and white we planned on.

So I am not supposed to believe what the Post or the NYT tell me ( I am reading both, daily, to get a balanced view of what's happening) but you are publishing a hatefilled site devoid of fact called conservativefrontline (emphasis added). Now when was the last time I've came across rethoric like that again?

Ok so you are saying that by what they write and the spin they put on their news, that does not translate to you their anti war stance?

The Washington Post is not anti war. Neither is the British Times, also I paper I read.

Iran-Contra springs to mind, as do the names Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and Admiral William Poindexter. Letting others take the fall is a time honoured tradition in many countries, yours not excluded.

So you're suggesting one should follow the war through the peaceful and unpartisan views of Soldier of fortune?

Well, the Washington Post's editorial page has consistently supported the U.S. action against Iraq. Today's editorial included this passage:

"By remaining resolute in its campaign to rid Iraq of those murderous formations, along with their dictator and his weapons of mass destruction, the United States will eliminate a serious threat to its own security and open the way for positive change in a vital region. It must stay the course."

So I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WP has an anti-war stance. ... I read it every day, and I've seen nothing to support that notion.

A question. How long does one have to wait? "Until it's done", perhaps? When will that be, if ever?

I am not itching for failure. I want the war to stop. Point. Men, women and especially little children dying is absolutely disgusting and has no justification. There is NO JUSTIFICATION in the claim that this war is to liberate the Iraqi people, because the Iraqi people seem to object being shot at, bombed, made homeless and strved in the name of their liberation, which should be obvious, even to you. What is it with you Americans that you can only understand your own ideas of patriotism and yet no one elses? I understand the horrors of losing close friends in a war very well, and I DO NOT FEEL HAPPY at seeing American dead or dying. But I also understand the pain of others losing loved ones.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can win a war in the military sense and yet still lose it. You can lose it the other way because the people of the defeated country hate your presence and the humiliation. The US and the UK are on the best road to losing this war in that sense.

Whenever it will be, it was always likely to be more than 11 days into the campaign. Beginning the criticism now is vastly premature. It's so unrealistic that charges of opportunism are bound to follow.

Of course, the regime in Baghdad could bring the suffering to a close immediately. All they have to do is surrender now as opposed to being dug out by force later. This has always been their choice, but instead the regime seems to be going for the strategy of maximizing suffering in order to win sympathy in the Arab world, and in the west.

On the other hand, the US and the UK could go home, now!

Could, but won't. That would hand victory to Saddam. Is that what you want?