Useful Context On Rumsfeld
New Plans Foresee Fighting Terrorism Beyond War Zones (Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post)
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.
The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.
Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.
[snip]
Overall, the plans underscore Rumsfeld's conviction since the September 2001 terrorist attacks that the U.S. military must expand its mission beyond 20th-century conventional warfare by infantry, tanks, ships and fighter jets to fighting non-state groups that are, above all, difficult to find.
Keep the Big Dog running (Jed Babbin, Examiner.com)
Months before Sept. 11, as Rumsfeld began the transformation of the Pentagon, he ran into contumacious obstructionism from the army and its then-Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. Shinseki dug his heels in and refused to change much of anything about the Army. Shinseki went as far as to go behind Rumsfeld’s back to the Senate where his political mentor (and long-time family friend, Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii) and others backed his play.
But for the political cover Sen. Inouye gave Shinseki, he might have been fired then and there. Civilian control of the military means people such as Shinseki cannot be allowed to play the back-channel political games he played again and again. Shinseki stayed, and the Army went on to spend billions on the Stryker armored vehicle, a Cold War style peacekeeping vehicle that is too big and too heavy to be moved by a C-130 tactical airlifter without being partially disassembled.
And then came Sept. 11. The Secretary of Defense became the secretary of war and the transformation he had brought to the Pentagon had to be continued under fire. Still, the Army resisted.
Shinseki balked at striking at the Taliban. For the record, our forces slashed into the Taliban around Oct. 5, 2001, less than a month after Sept 11. But — aside from Rangers and Army Special Forces — the Army stayed home. Shinseki wanted at least six months to assemble and move an enormous Soviet-like force into Afghanistan and the president wasn’t having any of it. This is why Shinseki retired in 2003 with a festering grudge against Rumsfeld.
And then Rumsfeld did the unthinkable. Instead of replacing Shinseki with one of his like-minded underlings, Rumsfeld looked for someone who would fight. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, a Special Forces vet, was brought out of retirement to transform the Army in the middle of a war. And he did it. But in the process Rumsfeld, Schoomaker and his team shook up a lot of people.
Rage at Don (Brendan Miniter, OpinionJournal)
In the opening pages of their new book about the Iraq war, "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor quote the Sept. 10 speech to frame the battle that has raged inside the Pentagon for five years. As the nation has weathered the most deadly terrorist attack on its soil in history, fought a global war on terror and liberated two countries, there has been a battle inside the Pentagon over the size, organization and weaponry of the U.S. military. And that battle has only intensified as the bureaucracy that Mr. Rumsfeld chastised for being stuck in a Cold War mindset has picked up allies in Congress, the military and in some quarters of the administration. It is this coalition that is now pushing for Mr. Rumsfeld to be fired.
But it's not just the defense secretary's head the former generals, anonymous leakers and senators are after. This is a classic Washington turf and policy war. In the balance is the nation's ability to fight the war on terror and confront other threats around the globe.
All three articles provide useful insight and background on the transformation that Secretary Rumsfeld has been charged with. They are especially helpful as an antidote to editorialists who don't know much about foreign or military affairs but nonetheless feel compelled to grind their ideological axes.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 04/25/06 22:20 | American Politics | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Rumsfeld's larger vision for the military is not the problem, at least not for most Americans. His preparation and conduct of the Iraq war is. As you have noted, a good leader needs to be able to set aside (and even go against) his own ideology when the situation calls for it. Regardless, I think the military (and the situation in Iraq) would benefit from a new leader who could take a fresh look at things. Sometimes, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, someone can become such a lightning rod for criticism that they are a distraction and a drag on the organization and its mission.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 15:10 on 04/26/06
Transformation of the Cold War military and bureaucracy is much too important a task to leave to the sort of person who could be confirmed in the current political environment should Rumsfeld step down.
In many ways, the Iraq War has gotten in the way of that transformation. I think people are mistaken if they think Rumsfeld wants to be bogged down in an occupation. Indeed, his expressed preference is drawdown, sooner than later. But, that's not ultimately his decision, but his boss's.
Putting a footprint three or four times as large as the current force as an occupying force doesn't seem like a good idea to me, yet that's what most critics seem to be advocating. In contrast, I'd suggest Rumsfeld has been right all along to advocate a light force, and that the drawdown should have happened sooner than it has. The U.S. is terrible at occupation (not that it's something we should strive to be good at). Whatever. That's all water under the bridge at this point.
I'm rather thankful this recent shakeup hasn't included Rumsfeld. Karl Rove losing his policy portfolio, on the other hand, is a nice move. Another nice move would be a Treasury Sec who's a significant figure. I don't think I'm asking for too much. :)
Posted by Kevin @ 16:40 on 04/26/06
Just a little OT: The "Examiner" that Jed Babbin wrote this for appears to be the "San Francisco/Washington Examiner" Philip Anschutz bought. We are now looking at Anschutz's end game. And it looks good!
Posted by Brad S @ 11:07 on 04/27/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.