Monday, March 20, 2006

great writing from the general PAUL D. EATON

from the very go it was apparent to anyone with any kind of military backround or knowledge that rumsfeld was incompetant in his position, way above his head, and inept.
now you can hear it first hand from one of the generals rumsfeld and the president respects for his military knowledge, highlights within quote tags are mine

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.
In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.


a GREAT read from someone who knows a thing or two about how to conduct the military forces of the United States of America.
you're going to find things like the following, which I reported before however those people that support the decisions we've made in Iraq thought I was just a liberal with unfounded critisism.



Last, you don't expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver" reaching from the Pentagon. Commanders in the field had their discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals and providing police uniforms randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi construction firms to build barracks was withheld; contracts we made for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi Army were rewritten back in Washington.


how could anyone think we could win the war of ideas when we deliberately undermine the effort to help the Iraqi's "stand up so we can stand down"...this certainly looks deliberate doesn't it, these people STILL have less electricity, less water, less gasoline then before our invasion...who doesn't know we had to reubuild the infrastructure if we were to win the hearts of the Iraqi's?...I'll tell you who, rumsfeld, that's who.
please read the entire writing, it is well worth the trouble, while I may or may not agree with the generals politics, I certainly respect his military knowledge.
Rumsfeld tendered his resignation twice, but was refused (is involuntary servitude is part of the President's appointment power?).
once a resignation is refused, every single error from that point forward becomes imputed to the person that insisted refused the resignation.
we need a new secretary of defense, we need someone that knows something about conductiing our military forces and someone who can come up with some kind of plan for success, to which this secretary of defense has none.
the longer rumsfeld remains in a position he is sadly unqualified, the longer and the harder our mission becomes, and the longer fought will there be success

First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground



amen