Rumsfeld predicts: Victory will come as in Cold War

But Mr. Rumsfeld still has his admirers. On Saturday he delivered the keynote address to the annual Claremont Institute dinner in honor of Winston Churchill. He was the recipient of the institute's 2007 award for statesmanship.

His address Saturday focused on how he saw an agile enemy utilizing asymmetric warfare against a lumbering superpower in America. "Their decentralized networks have been able to effectively employ the tools of the Information Age, while the U.S. government remains ponderous, muscle-bound, and unable to respond in real time to the deceits of these enemies," he said.

The theme is a familiar one for close watchers of Mr. Rumsfeld. USA Today published a 2003 "snowflake" memo from the former defense secretary complaining that America lacked the metrics to measure success or failure in the war on terror, and complaining that attacks from terrorist groups were far less costly than the measures the country should take to stop them.

In the interview on Saturday, Mr. Rumsfeld expanded on this idea. He noted that the budget process for the defense department typically took three years from the authorization to the appropriation and finally the spending of money for programs to combat the enemy. Another example of the new challenge is the predicament in Pakistan. "If you have enemies in countries you are not at war with, how does one fight against an enemy in a country you are not at war with?" Mr. Rumsfeld asked. He answered the question himself and said it was important to work with the Pakistani government to fight Al Qaeda in the federally administered tribal areas on the Afghan border. He did not, however, venture an opinion on whether his old boss, Mr. Bush, should pressure General Musharraf to step down from the presidency in Islamabad.

He also sounded support for a plan favored this election cycle by Mayor Giuliani, that NATO could possibly be expanded to meet security threats that the United Nations was not up to meeting. "A global alliance of free and responsible nations could better focus collective action against the growing threats to the nation-state system," he said in his speech.

Mr. Rumsfeld said he is not advising any Republican candidates for this election cycle. He is in the process now of establishing a new foundation to fund fellowships in foreign policy, micro-enterprise projects in the third world and bringing journalists and political leaders from Central Asia and the former Soviet Union to meet their American counterparts.

god bless us!

Does anyone remember how long the hostilities went on with the Native American tribes in the 19th century? O.K., the U.S. has patience. That's all I can say, the U.S. has patience. (Forget the analogy to Vietnam. They are not analagous.)

Foofie wrote:

Does anyone remember how long the hostilities went on with the Native American tribes in the 19th century? O.K., the U.S. has patience. That's all I can say, the U.S. has patience. (Forget the analogy to Vietnam. They are not analagous.)

You didn't understand what tinygiraffe said? A pity.

Well, let's try to spell it out for you, and have a look at your analogy. The "war" against the Native Americans was "won" by nearly extinguishing them. It benefited solely the settlers. The Native Americans were driven off their own land, often resettled by force. They were located to reservations, separated from traditional life and pushed into American society. Native American children were forbidden to speak their native languages and taught Christianity instead of their religions.


It would seem odd to propagate the nigh extinction and quasi-genocide of a whole population as a role model for America's course in Iraq.

No; I am not looking at the result of that history with Native American tribes; I am only pointing out the PATIENCE that the U.S. has historically in dealing with some effort that may include military involvment.

I never equated the history with Native American tribes as a role model. You brought that thought to the thread. I only brought the thought of the great PATIENCE that the U.S. has historically had.

Foofie wrote:

No; I am not looking at the result of that history with Native American tribes; I am only pointing out the PATIENCE that the U.S. has historically in dealing with some effort that may include military involvment.

Interesting.

So you're saying that patience in all things military is a noble thing, notwithstanding the results.

Consequentially - if it's the patience that matters and not the result - you should be quite proud to point out the extraordinary patience America had in its military effort in Vietnam.

Foofie wrote:

I never equated the history with Native American tribes as a role model. You brought that thought to the thread. I only brought the thought of the great PATIENCE that the U.S. has historically had.

True. Just looking at the "great PATIENCE" America showed in the Indian Wars, the nigh extinction of the Native Americans was an admirable accomplishment.

It appears that America didn't have that much patience with Japan. Or Nazi Germany, for that matter.

Vietnam, now, that was better. Lots of patience there. Good job.

Stop "assigning" additional/adjunct meanings to what I said.

Some people have patience, some don't, regardless of the outcome; whether that outcome is good, bad, admirable, or not admirable.

Don't make inferences from the one trait I pointed out: patience.

True. Just looking at the "great PATIENCE" America showed in the Indian Wars, the nigh extinction of the Native Americans was an admirable accomplishment.

It appears that America didn't have that much patience with Japan. Or Nazi Germany, for that matter.

Vietnam, now, that was better. Lots of patience there. Good job.

Prussia was certainly "patient" in achieving its rule in Poland, Saxony and even Hanover - and finally its domination of a newly formed Germany in 1871. On what basis do we exclude that from the metaphorical mud-slinging?

The roots of the wars with Nazi Germany and Japan go back to the events of 1914 - 1919.

Foofie wrote:

Stop "assigning" additional/adjunct meanings to what I said.

You brought up the war against the Native Americans. I didn't assign any meaning to that. It has a meaning, and nothing I said was terribly far fetched.

I'd bet that when you ask people about what connotation they have concerning the war against the Native Americans, it's far more likely that people will mention "near extinction of Native Americans" than "admirable patience of US military."

Foofie wrote:

Some people have patience, some don't, regardless of the outcome; whether that outcome is good, bad, admirable, or not admirable.

That's all you wanted to say? Some people have patience, some don't?

Great.

In that case, it was certainly a valuable contribution.

Foofie wrote:

Don't make inferences from the one trait I pointed out: patience.

Not what you said.

You didn't say "Hey, patience is an admirable character trait" or something to that avail. It was more along the lines of "Hey, remember the hostilities with the Native Americans? Now, there the US showed some patience."

You provided the context. A very specific context.

Now you're trying to blame other people when they criticise you for that context.

Sad.

The only reason that Frederich William ceded his provinces in "Congress Poland" was that Alexander wanted them and occupied them with Russian Armies, and that he (Frederich) trusted Alexander to get him Saxony at Vienna.

BTW - how is Schroeder doing at Gazprom?

I'd thought, the "exchange" was more focused on the Rhineland and especially Westphalia (= doubled thus their population and got the Ruhr district).

Those parts of Saxony which Prussia got were and are actually .... well, not the best of Saxony.