Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Morning Calm
    Posts
    177

    Default

    No comment on Benning. I can say that CMATT was a nightmare, and the use of Institutional Training Army Reserve people was a mistake that set us back 9 to 12 months in Iraq. As far as MG Batiste, my issue is he really won't come out and say who was putting pressure on him not to ask for more forces, or who was denying him forces, my guess is that it was at the level below SecDef. When 1st ID RIP/TOA'd with 4th ID, 4ID units were directd to conduct Right Seat/Left Seat rides of the unit AO's down to the squad/section level. Usually the Army only does this at the company and above level. The 1st ID guys really didn't have good situational awareness of what was going on on the ground. They pretty much said "we have been in and out of the Balkan's for ten years and we received the power point briefing". I have to question the climate in a unit that would allow that subordinate units to be so cavalier going into the Tikrit area. as far as COL Hammes, I think he has a really good grasp of Maoist insurgency and how it is evoiving in the information age. My concern with COL Hammes book, is that it is at best a book on insurgency and counter-insurgency in the information age. My concern is that many people are taking Hammes' work is a definitive answer to the war we are fighting, I don't think that it is a definitive work, and I do not think that Hammes would argue that his book is the definitive work for GWOT. Just my $.02 cents which is suffering from poor exchange rates.

  2. #2
    Council Member SSG Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    125

    Default General Schoomaker....

    And now that General Schoomaker's refusal to submit an 08-13 POM has hit the airwaves, what impact might that have on Rumsfeld?

    I tell ya, I try not to be a Mondy morning quarterback. But with the luxury of hindsight I do find it difficult to make any excuses for Rumsfeld and other key leaders both civilian and military.

    This country was not prepared for this war, that is clear. I think that maybe President Bush could be doing a much better job at describing what we are up against, how long it will take etc, in detail. Seems like when he has done that on occassion he gets a bump in public approval ratings. Maybe he should do it more.
    Don't taze me bro!

  3. #3
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Mr. Rumsfeld’s Gamble Comes Due

    29 September post at the Westhawk blog - Mr. Rumsfeld’s Gamble Comes Due.

    It seems apparent that U.S. ground forces are finding it very difficult to maintain the current pace of overseas deployments and combat operations. Well thought out deployment plans are fraying at their edges; the Army is now making frequent changes to deployment schedules in order to maintain troop levels in Iraq...

    Secretary Rumsfeld, an avowed Transformationist, continues to resist any permanent additions of conventional ground combat formations in the U.S. military. As a Transformationist, he believes that technology, air power, and local proxies will substitute for U.S. infantrymen and armored vehicles. And he believes that this moment is the last peak in the demand for conventional Army and Marine Corps battalions. Mr. Rumsfeld is expecting a reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq, perhaps starting next spring. Recruiting and building more battalions at this moment only will result in these units uselessly taking up barracks space, while also absorbing funding that could better be spent on transformational technology like FCS...

    Now the decision point is the spring of 2007. If Mr. Rumsfeld’s gamble succeeds, that is, if he can reduce, say by mid-2008, the U.S. commitment to Iraq from today’s 15 brigades to 5, then the Army and Marine Corps’s current rotation crisis will have passed. The Future Combat System will be on its way, resulting, in the hopes of Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army leadership, in a far more useful, deployable, expeditionary, and sustainable Army. Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army will have avoided a dramatic lowering of the standards for soldiers and avoided creating useless old battalions, sinkholes, in their views, of wasted money.

    Mr. Rumsfeld’s gamble could fail. All of the previous targets for reducing the U.S. ground commitment to Iraq have failed – there is no reason to assume the spring 2007 target will fare any differently. Should the gamble fail, the Army and the Marine Corps will be forced to maintain their frenetic rotation schedules. But we should expect that the brigades so rotated will be missing more and more of their most experienced leaders and will be going back into battle with less and less essential training. The effects of these trends would then show up on Iraq’s streets and in Afghanistan’s mountains.

  4. #4
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    This whole argument about adding brigades or even divisions is entirley pointless unless they are planning a substantial increase in pay. Some people want to blame congress or Rumsfeld for refusing to increase the size of the Army but that whole argument is predicated on the idea that the Army is turning down large numbers of qualified applicants because there is no room for them. That is most decidedly not the case. I definitely not against a bigger Army but I just don't think it's possible right now, not without a substatial change in pay. That's a shame to. I have been in the Army for the last fifteen years and can't imagine doing anything else.

    SFC W

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •