Some Thoughts On Rummy.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader missed the initial kerfuffle concerning Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld's comments about "going to war with the army you have." But they are worthy enough to deserve some commentary from your Maximum Leader.
First off, your Maximum Leader was a little put out in the knowledge that the question was planted by a reporter. But, after thinking about it for a little bit, the reporter planting the question didn't detract from the necessity of answering the question. In the end, bringing up this whole aspect of the story struck your Maximum Leader as an attempted diversion.
Next off, isn't it a great thing to see an enlisted man asking a difficult, pointed, and uncomfortable question of the Secretary of Defence? That man asked the question and put his superiors on the spot. He did so knowing that he wasn't going to be dragged out and shot. He wasn't going to be retailiated against. He was a citizen-solider who wanted to know about what resources were being given to him to fight a war the Secretary and President wanted. It was a sight that made me proud to be American.
As for Rumsfeld's comments itself. They weren't very thoughtful. He should have waited a moment longer and composed a better answer. But there are two important undercurrents to what he said that are important to note.
The first undercurrent is the easier one to comment upon. As so many others have noted, this was a war that the US started. We had the opportunity to delay. We could have tried to get the "army we wanted" before going to war.
This is where most people stop their interpetation. We could have waited and crafted an army that would be better suited to the war we found ourselves in. But your Maximum Leader asks you to think about that for a moment. How do you get that army?
You get it through a political process. And in many ways, the army we have is the army that Congress gives us. While your Maximum Leader will not spend a lot of time here discussing the military procurment process and how "pet" weapons systems aren't killed when their usefulness is ended. Neither will he spend lots of time saying that the US hasn't recovered from the massive cuts of the 90s. Let it suffice to say that our political procurement process is not suited to building ANY single type of army. We will always have an army by committee. Your Maximum Leader doesn't have a problem with that. So long as the army can be tweaked along the way as needed.
Which leads to the revelations that the armour manufacturers reported that they could have increased their outputs if they were asked. They just weren't asked. Your Maximum Leader hasn't read enough about this. The articles on this topic don't seem to address the questions your Maximum Leader wants answered. Those questions are: 1)who made the call not to ask for increased production? And 2) what was the rationale behind the decision?
Follow on questions to the first point are: Was it some procurement person who didn't want to have the army slapped with contract related fees? Was it some desk commander who determined that he knew what the men in the field needed better than the men themselves? Was it a field commander who had to make a choice between armoured humvees or something else?
Follow-on questions to the second point are: How did was the rationale communicated down the line? Was the rationale communicated?
You see these are complicated questions. And they deserve sensible answers.
But there is one more point that your Maximum Leader would like to make on this item. Rumsfeld's comments were callous and also can be interpreted to mean that he knew that this was an issue that wasn't being addressed. If Rumsfeld and his commanders knew that armoured Humvees were a concern (and who really didn't know); and they also knew that production could be increased; and they chose not to increase that production. Then Rumsfeld should resign. He failed in his responsibility to advocate for the troops on the ground.
Of course, when you consider the prison scandal, and this supply issue together; it seems to become more clear that Rumsfeld ought to go. There are plenty of others who could be effective in the Secretary of Defence role.
Carry on.
UPDATE: While it is not surprising to see in print, it still reflects your Maximum Leader's position too... Senator John McCain expresses "no confidence" in Rumsfeld.
First off, your Maximum Leader was a little put out in the knowledge that the question was planted by a reporter. But, after thinking about it for a little bit, the reporter planting the question didn't detract from the necessity of answering the question. In the end, bringing up this whole aspect of the story struck your Maximum Leader as an attempted diversion.
Next off, isn't it a great thing to see an enlisted man asking a difficult, pointed, and uncomfortable question of the Secretary of Defence? That man asked the question and put his superiors on the spot. He did so knowing that he wasn't going to be dragged out and shot. He wasn't going to be retailiated against. He was a citizen-solider who wanted to know about what resources were being given to him to fight a war the Secretary and President wanted. It was a sight that made me proud to be American.
As for Rumsfeld's comments itself. They weren't very thoughtful. He should have waited a moment longer and composed a better answer. But there are two important undercurrents to what he said that are important to note.
The first undercurrent is the easier one to comment upon. As so many others have noted, this was a war that the US started. We had the opportunity to delay. We could have tried to get the "army we wanted" before going to war.
This is where most people stop their interpetation. We could have waited and crafted an army that would be better suited to the war we found ourselves in. But your Maximum Leader asks you to think about that for a moment. How do you get that army?
You get it through a political process. And in many ways, the army we have is the army that Congress gives us. While your Maximum Leader will not spend a lot of time here discussing the military procurment process and how "pet" weapons systems aren't killed when their usefulness is ended. Neither will he spend lots of time saying that the US hasn't recovered from the massive cuts of the 90s. Let it suffice to say that our political procurement process is not suited to building ANY single type of army. We will always have an army by committee. Your Maximum Leader doesn't have a problem with that. So long as the army can be tweaked along the way as needed.
Which leads to the revelations that the armour manufacturers reported that they could have increased their outputs if they were asked. They just weren't asked. Your Maximum Leader hasn't read enough about this. The articles on this topic don't seem to address the questions your Maximum Leader wants answered. Those questions are: 1)who made the call not to ask for increased production? And 2) what was the rationale behind the decision?
Follow on questions to the first point are: Was it some procurement person who didn't want to have the army slapped with contract related fees? Was it some desk commander who determined that he knew what the men in the field needed better than the men themselves? Was it a field commander who had to make a choice between armoured humvees or something else?
Follow-on questions to the second point are: How did was the rationale communicated down the line? Was the rationale communicated?
You see these are complicated questions. And they deserve sensible answers.
But there is one more point that your Maximum Leader would like to make on this item. Rumsfeld's comments were callous and also can be interpreted to mean that he knew that this was an issue that wasn't being addressed. If Rumsfeld and his commanders knew that armoured Humvees were a concern (and who really didn't know); and they also knew that production could be increased; and they chose not to increase that production. Then Rumsfeld should resign. He failed in his responsibility to advocate for the troops on the ground.
Of course, when you consider the prison scandal, and this supply issue together; it seems to become more clear that Rumsfeld ought to go. There are plenty of others who could be effective in the Secretary of Defence role.
Carry on.
UPDATE: While it is not surprising to see in print, it still reflects your Maximum Leader's position too... Senator John McCain expresses "no confidence" in Rumsfeld.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 12/13/2004 08:02:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home