Jump to content

Rumsfeld vs. Generals


TPS

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I don't understand is out of the hundreds of Generals that have served for Rummy, only 6 question him. To me that's pretty darn good. I know at work most of us hate our management and are pretty outspoken about it. If only 6 out of hundreds hate a guy then maybe he isn't hard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticisms directed at Rumsfeld from retired Generals should give the American people a very good feeling about the job the Secretary of Defense is doing.

665655[/snapback]

 

Monday morning Generals? Yeah they give me warm and fuzzies just like the idiots on TSW on Monday. <_< If they're retired how do they have any idea what's going on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monday morning Generals?  Yeah they give me warm and fuzzies just like the idiots on TSW on Monday.   <_<   If they're retired how do they have any idea what's going on?

666208[/snapback]

 

FWIW, I know a few retired three stars that still maintain high level clearances and access due to their consultant work.

 

Also, FWIW, things get pretty Machiavellian within the E-Ring. If anything, I question the timing, and would look at the relationships between those complaining and those not, respectively. You need to also remember that you have two former SecDefs on this administration, one doing a second term as. The current relationships both civilian and military were forged a long time ago. So were relationships with outsiders. The Clinton admin, being basically not of the old time establishment didn't have those long term ties and connections. In some cases they actually went to the Carter well for people. I know a guy pretty well that was a light bird during Carter, was marked as an up and comer, and retired a three star under Clinton. He also was an outspoken advocate for Kerry. Pete Pace may lean Democrat politically, but his military ideology fits in with what's current.

 

Take a look not only at the JCS, but the COCOMs too. Look how many Navy-Marine 4 stars are floating about out there, and where they are. This also shows a different direction the "Rumsfeld DoD" is heading. Heading away from the AirForce-Army domination as of recent years. And, as has been mentioned, a lot of people just disagree.

 

There is more at work here than whether Iraq was done good or bad, criticizing Iraq is a defacto criticism of a restructure of the Department and the transofrmational guidance that has been issued over the last few years. Another irony, the Dem national defense message is borrowing off a lot of the transformational guidance language initiated under Rumsfeld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I know a few retired three stars that still maintain high level clearances and access due to their consultant work.

 

Also, FWIW, things get pretty Machiavellian within the E-Ring. If anything, I question the timing, and would look at the relationships between those complaining and those not, respectively. You need to also remember that you have two former SecDefs on this administration, one doing a second term as. The current relationships both civilian and military were forged a long time ago. So were relationships with outsiders. The Clinton admin, being basically not of the old time establishment didn't have those long term ties and connections. In some cases they actually went to the Carter well for people. I know a guy pretty well that was a light bird during Carter, was marked as an up and comer, and retired a three star under Clinton. He also was an outspoken advocate for Kerry. Pete Pace may lean Democrat politically, but his military ideology fits in with what's current.

 

Take a look not only at the JCS, but the COCOMs too. Look how many Navy-Marine 4 stars are floating about out there, and where they are. This also shows a different direction the "Rumsfeld DoD" is heading. Heading away from the AirForce-Army domination as of recent years. And, as has been mentioned, a lot of people just disagree.

 

There is more at work here than whether Iraq was done good or bad, criticizing Iraq is a defacto criticism of a restructure of the Department and the transofrmational guidance that has been issued over the last few years. Another irony, the Dem national defense message is borrowing off a lot of the transformational guidance language initiated under Rumsfeld.

666235[/snapback]

 

Makes great sense, just felt I had to get a dig at the idiots over at TSW. :lol:

 

As far as criticism of Rumsfeld of course I have no idea if it's right, wrong or what, but there will always be people who disagree with the people at the top. It's just human nature. But it does warrant some attention however whenever people "in the trenches" complain about the direction coming from the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes great sense, just felt I had to get a dig at the idiots over at TSW.  :lol:

 

As far as criticism of Rumsfeld of course I have no idea if it's right, wrong or what, but there will always be people who disagree with the people at the top.  It's just human nature.  But it does warrant some attention however whenever people "in the trenches" complain about the direction coming from the top.

666252[/snapback]

 

I think, as with anything else and anyone else, one can take one part of something and find what they want out of it. I personally agree with the transformational planning guidance issued under Rumsfeld, was too long in coming. Along with that, I understand why certain Pentagonites are against it. Many don't want to leave the legacy way of doing things.

 

I also disagree with going to war using a strategic model based on new concepts that haven't been integrated and implemented yet. The new model calls on a lot more political-military planning than just military planning. This requires cooperation within the government that just isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friggen Army.  They seem to have forgotten their role in the world.  They are there to do, not to !@#$ing think.

670514[/snapback]

 

Thanks my point totally...

 

No truer words can be spoken... Make that the whole military... So you can then reach the conclusion: If you want to think... Don't go in/join...

 

Flame away...

 

:P:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...