Did He Seriously Pick Panetta....

#101
#101
The main complications in Iraq came from not planning procedures for contingencies likely to arise that in fact did arise. Such as there not being a wholesale embracing of their "liberators" by the Iraqis, and how to get the hell out.
 
#102
#102
rbroyles said:
The main complications in Iraq came from not planning procedures for contingencies likely to arise that in fact did arise. Such as there not being a wholesale embracing of their "liberators" by the Iraqis, and how to get the hell out.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the planning part, it was the implementation part that became the problem.
 
#103
#103
rbroyles said:
The main complications in Iraq came from not planning procedures for contingencies likely to arise that in fact did arise. Such as there not being a wholesale embracing of their "liberators" by the Iraqis, and how to get the hell out.
Click to expand...

The men who planned for this were quickly shown the door.
 
#105
#105
DickCheney.jpg
 
#107
#107
BigPapaVol said:
the lack of planning was definitely a problem.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It was more of a case of 5 dogs all leashed together and trying to run in different directions. Rumsfeld, as the SecDef failed to create and implement a cohesive strategy regarding post combat operations in Iraq.

There were a lot of viable strategies that fell on deaf ears.
 
#108
#108
DC Vol said:
I disagree. It was more of a case of 5 dogs all leashed together and trying to run in different directions. Rumsfeld, as the SecDef failed to create and implement a cohesive strategy regarding post combat operations in Iraq.

There were a lot of viable strategies that fell on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
there are no viable occupation strategies.
 
#110
#110
BigPapaVol said:
there are no viable occupation strategies.
Click to expand...

There were definitely things that were done right that were not done enough, and across the board.

I fully understand that after "combat operations" (as declared by Bush) ceased that it wouldn't just be bunnies and butterflies. But a lot of the experience of the "boots on the ground" Battalion commanders that were briefed directly to the JCS did not get piped to DoD strategy.
 
#111
#111
DC Vol said:
There were definitely things that were done right that were not done enough, and across the board.

I fully understand that after "combat operations" (as declared by Bush) ceased that it wouldn't just be bunnies and butterflies. But a lot of the experience of the "boots on the ground" Battalion commanders that were briefed directly to the JCS did not get piped to DoD strategy.
Click to expand...
because the compilation of all that advice was more troops than Rumsfeld believed palatable to our press.
 
#112
#112
BigPapaVol said:
because the compilation of all that advice was more troops than Rumsfeld believed palatable to our press.
Click to expand...

Well, that is part of it. We definitely are paying the piper for military cutbacks in the 90s... but Rumsfeld put far too much weight behind technology, ignored military feedback regarding the scope of operations in Iraq.

We were definitely geared for a different style of operation/war than what we encountered in Iraq, but simply put Rumsfeld's postitions did not provide the dynamic kind of reaction that would be required to shift equipment issue and training to the 18-20 year olds that the success of those operations would depend on.
 
#113
#113
DC Vol said:
Well, that is part of it. We definitely are paying the piper for military cutbacks in the 90s... but Rumsfeld put far too much weight behind technology, ignored military feedback regarding the scope of operations in Iraq.

We were definitely geared for a different style of operation/war than what we encountered in Iraq, but simply put Rumsfeld's postitions did not provide the dynamic kind of reaction that would be required to shift equipment issue and training to the 18-20 year olds that the success of those operations would depend on.
Click to expand...
I think he was caught between a rock and hard place. He wanted more troops to meet the needs on the ground but believed limited troops (probably correctly) was what Americans wanted to hear. He was trying to use the limited number of troops to avoid words like quagmire and such.
 
#114
#114
BigPapaVol said:
I think he was caught between a rock and hard place. He wanted more troops to meet the needs on the ground but believed limited troops (probably correctly) was what Americans wanted to hear. He was trying to use the limited number of troops to avoid words like quagmire and such.
Click to expand...

no chance, Rummy wanted small elite forces from the outset he didn't like large forces because he wanted to be the face of a changing Army. He really believed he could pull this off with minimal troops.
 
#115
#115
MontereyVol said:
no chance, Rummy wanted small elite forces from the outset he didn't like large forces because he wanted to be the face of a changing Army. He really believed he could pull this off with minimal troops.
Click to expand...
I agree, but he still had to battle with the brass to try and implement it. There was huge give and take there.
 
#116
#116
one good thing is we dropped some jaws with his use of elite forces to dominate a huge over-sized military. But occupation is synonymous with largess no matter how you try and change it. Unless you can train and develop Robocop.
 
#117
#117
DC Vol said:
My comment was 100% about Rumsfeld's abrasive nature, not his qualifications. With that said, Rumsfeld was not liked by many active military personnel.... make no mistake, he was a civilian making decisions against career military professionals.
Click to expand...

Maybe Rumsfield was abrasive to military professionals but we certainly didn't see the mass resignation of commissions we saw during the Clinton administration.

PanettaClinton.jpg


KB5252 said:
If Panetta did play a vital role in the policy decisions concerning the middle east under Clinton I have all the reason I need to dislike this choice.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment. :)

Emerging from the Washington courthouse, Panetta said he spent the day answering in detail questions about his knowledge of Clinton's relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. "I am personally not aware of any improper relationship, sexual or otherwise, by this president with any of the White House interns or anyone else for that matter," Panetta said.
Click to expand...

Dutch Report: Us Sponsored Foreign Islamists In Bosnia

America's 'Tacit Cooperation' with Iran in Bosnia.
 
#118
#118
BigPapaVol said:
I think he was caught between a rock and hard place. He wanted more troops to meet the needs on the ground but believed limited troops (probably correctly) was what Americans wanted to hear. He was trying to use the limited number of troops to avoid words like quagmire and such.
Click to expand...

Well, absolutely being any senior brass would be between a rock and a hard place in dealing with Iraq, but his inability to apparently work with the military that his position clearly requires only made that rock and that hard place grow more imposing. Also, from what I understand, he was absolutely against any form of troop number boosting in Iraq at any point, which directly butted heads with what senior military wanted. Also, fewer troops contribute to fewer casualties in a very off logic way I suppose.
 
#119
#119
DC Vol said:
Well, absolutely being any senior brass would be between a rock and a hard place in dealing with Iraq, but his inability to apparently work with the military that his position clearly requires only made that rock and that hard place grow more imposing. Also, from what I understand, he was absolutely against any form of troop number boosting in Iraq at any point, which directly butted heads with what senior military wanted. Also, fewer troops contribute to fewer casualties in a very off logic way I suppose.
Click to expand...
but the brass will always ask for more troops and he was trying to foster a new mindset for our military. He might not have gotten it done, but he's right for the future of our services. Smaller forces, rapidly maneuverable but with enormous combat power is what he's after. We don't have that capability today because we've been fighting the heavy Fulda Gap style war for a long time.

He also couldn't win in appeasing both sides of that argument, but ultimately is boss was our civilian world, not Franks, Abizaid and Co.
 
#120
#120
BigPapaVol said:
but the brass will always ask for more troops and he was trying to foster a new mindset for our military. He might not have gotten it done, but he's right for the future of our services. Smaller forces, rapidly maneuverable but with enormous combat power is what he's after. We don't have that capability today because we've been fighting the heavy Fulda Gap style war for a long time.

He also couldn't win in appeasing both sides of that argument, but ultimately is boss was our civilian world, not Franks, Abizaid and Co.
Click to expand...

The problem is... he didn't allow a change in strategic implementation to cope with a painfully different conflict.

If you watch the UFC it's like a stand-up fighter with no ground skills. We failed to develop ground skills fast enough and we paid the price for it.

With that said, it isn't a bad thing that he was pushing a smaller military with higher technological capabilities, but there is a time and a place for it... and Iraq was not it. Our commanders knew it and Rumsfeld refused to hear it.
 
Last edited:
#121
#121
BigPapaVol said:
but the brass will always ask for more troops and he was trying to foster a new mindset for our military. He might not have gotten it done, but he's right for the future of our services. Smaller forces, rapidly maneuverable but with enormous combat power is what he's after. We don't have that capability today because we've been fighting the heavy Fulda Gap style war for a long time.

He also couldn't win in appeasing both sides of that argument, but ultimately is boss was our civilian world, not Franks, Abizaid and Co.
Click to expand...

That fly's right into the face of his feelings with BRAC.
 
#125
#125
BigPapaVol said:
I don't know a lot of the reasoning, but I'm convinced that he knows just a tad about defense.
Click to expand...

I got your joke, but what has he done to make you think so? Everything he has done is offensive oriented. His BRAC rejuvenation plan is bad no matter how you try and frame it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top