So Now That Rumsfeld Is Gone -List The Democrat Gripes With The Job He Did in Detail?

Question

I understand that many including myself are disappointed with the way the war is going with no end in sight. But, aside from the fact that going to IRAQ was arguably a mistake to begin with can someone tell me what Rumsfeld did or didnt do that warranted his dismisal/resignation? If you tell me about the uparmor of the Humvees again I'll puke. No one, not even Speaker Pelosi forsaw the IED problem. The fact that our vehicles were not armored to handle a blast is ridiculous. The question of acceptable losses is something all military commanders grapple with. Did we expect or are we demanding that we suffer no losses in future conflict or else?

So again, lets hear he list of complaints because I'll bet there will be a lack of complaints specfic to the way rummy interpreted Bushs Iraq policy

Answer 1

I'm a republican and I think he did a pretty cruddy job.

Hoping the next up can handle the mess....



Edited this because I had to attend a few Promotion cerimonies...


Rumsfelds biggest problem was he did not listen to his field Officers. They told him what they needed but he only half-heartedly listened.

If you ignore the Generals, things spiral out of control in a wicked way. It affects everything from morale to combat effectiveness.

It wasn't that he did not get armored vehicles to us, but they were there and he didn't know about it. There were dozens of these things siting around and his people failed to keep him informed. Basically he surronded himself with inept people.

I can forgive for bad choice for help, but when you ignore several four star Generals, you ask for disaster.

As far as Iraq policy, I really don't care. What I do care about is keeping my men in one piece and getting them home safely. If our leadership would have listened to our Generals on the ground, this would have been a whole lot easier.

Answer 2

The biggest to me is that there weren't enough troops. He listened to selective military(that told him what he wanted to hear) and didn't listen to others. For instance our top troop strength in Iraq is around 130,000-at the height of Vietnam we had over 550,000. Iraq isn't Vietnam but history should have taught us something.

The second big mistake I saw was a lack of understanding of the difference between the religious factions-it seems pretty evident that an understanding of the culture wars within and a little history would certainly have led him to different conclusions than "we'll be seen as liberators" (when in fact only a portion of the population would see us that way). Now, I'd say a lot of us regular folk didn't really know the difference between Shiites & Sunnis before the war but someone is his position really should.

Perhaps he should have read GW's Dad's book:

In 1998, former President George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor during the Bush administration, collaborated on the book A World Transformed, a political history covering significant world events which occurred during the first three years of Bush's presidency (1989-1991): the collapse of the Soviet empire, the unification of Germany, Tiananmen Square, and the Gulf War.

In Chapter 19, which discusses the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War (also known as "Desert Storm," the military operation to liberate Kuwait from occupation by invading Iraqi forces), they wrote:


"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

It's hard to understand such huge miscalculations.

Answer 3

Snobbery seems to overrun this website. even better than political bashing. there is not any longer some thing incorrect with menial perplexing artwork, see you later with the aid of the undeniable fact that's finished properly. people might want to take delight in regardless of their perplexing artwork. Democrat or Republican. The Democratic party develop into once widely used for being the operating guy's party; yet now they're widely used because the liberal elitist party. The operating guy has to compromise his moral concepts to vote for the democrats; who look to have none.

Answer 4

Here you go.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

Summary of the article:

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Answer 5

What do you mean nobody predicted the IED's? Many people did, I know of a contractor that developed a faster, lighter and stronger form of transport that was specifically designed for the exact type of mission that has been waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. His vehicles were far lighter, stronger, faster and cost less than the humvees, and comprehensively out performed them in like for like trials but because he did not have friends in high places, with corruption rife in the Washinton beltway and the Pentagon, he didn't get funding or contracts to supply them.

Rumsfelds military prefered to leave their troops in harms way.

Are you puking yet?

Answer 6

Rumsfeld's ignorant decision to not listen to the top military brass about the proper troop levels in the beginning of the illegal invasion was the beginning of the end for him. I could go on and on, but why bother?

Fix your email, here is my reply.........................

Sorry, I disagree and prove to me where, when and how this has been disproven? General Shinseki was contradicted and chastised by the Pentagon for his efforts. Why do you think so many insurgents were able to pour across Iraq's borders unimpeded? Why did Rummy give the ok to allow looting in Baghdad once it was secured by our milirtary? Especially when it was discovered later that the money gained from it was funneled to the insurgents?
Lastly, tell me why Bush says he listens to the military commanders in the field on the progress being made in iraq, yet Rummy continued to strip these same leaders of decision making? Don't believe me? Then why were so many ex Col's and generals complaining about him? Let me guess, you think these are all liberal lies right?

Answer 7

Not enough troops, disbanded the army (with Bremer's help), didn't guard buildings from looting (except the oil ministry, what's that tell you?).

Answer 8

I'll spare the bandwidth of enumerating them in this answer, but this article should pretty much lose you your bet.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153319

Answer 9

Great question - he is a Republican and that is really all the liberals need to hate him.

Answer 10

He got the job done. Just because he wasn't polite to stupid questions by journalists is why people don't like him. He didn't take there crap.