Will the new secretary of defense be more effective in Iraq or will he make the same mistakes Rumsfeld did?

Question

Also, what was the main problem Rumsfeld had?

Answer 1

I feel the new SOD will end up making the same mistakes because he is not fluent in the thoughts or ideals of people he is supposedly helping.

Answer 2

The effectiveness of the new Secretary of Defense will remain to be seen until this conflict is over. However, based on his credentials, I will speculate that he will not be any better than Rumsfeld. He is trained to deal with state threats (ie Soviet Union
), not non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda (which requires different thinking/mindset). And he will probably be content with the gold plated fly-boy toys that sucks up so much money from the US taxpayers and leaves little for the actual training, equipment, pay, benefits, etc of our troops. "Machines don't fight wars, people do. And they use their minds." - Col. John R. Boyd The Pentagon will go on as the worst managed and led part of the US Government. Business as usual in Washington DC.

Rumsfeld had many problems: 1) did not listen to the advice of the professional military generals about Iraq, 2) was content with the gold plated fly boy toys that would win against the Soviet Union but not Al Qaeda, 3) had a piss-poor plan for post-invasion Iraq if he even had one.

Answer 3

The new one will likely get out of Iraq a lot faster than Rummy would have, for one thing. The American public has turned far enough against the Bush policies in the Middle East that that is likely job #1...get out of Iraq, calm things without bombing anyone else like Iran or North Korea, and then likely to rebuild the American military which is likely to have fallen off since this all started.

Answer 4

I don't think he made any particular mistake other than not predicting the amount of hatred between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, which allowed insurgents to easily infiltrate and stir the pot to cause unrest. Since Saddam ruled his nation thru fear and intimidation, this level of unrest was not known until he was removed from power.

I'm unsure how the new SoD will handle it, but here's my take:

Prior to WW1, Iraq did not exist. There were three separate provinces under the Ottoman Empire, Mosul (Kurds), Baghdad (Shiites) and Basra (Sunni). With the peace treaty and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British ruled these provinces as one unified territory, which gained it's independence in 1936. Ever since then, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites have battled for political power and their right to self-govern.

In order to stop the violence, it seems evident that it is time to separate these provinces once again and allow them to reestablish their territories and self rule. Once each has that power, the motivation for violence against the others is gone.

If the treaty of WW2 can be undone and East and West Germany can return to it's unified state, why not get over WW1 and divide up the forced unification and allow these three their sovereignty once again?

Answer 5

If things go better he will claim credit - if they get worse he will blame Rumsfeld's legacy.

Rumsfeld did not anticipate the sectarian warfare - they (he and Bush) figured democracy would just happen. BTW there was no exit strategy because Bush never intended to leave Iraq. The idea that a pro-US democratic goverment would welcome the permanent presence of US troops in Iraq forever. Sorta like Korea.

Answer 6

From this guys credentials i think he'll do a great job, he knows his stuff is what i mean, rumsfields problem was that he wouldn't admit to his mistakes,

Answer 7

Well, he used to run the CIA. Enough said.

Answer 8

the policy will continue