IT WAS PROPER FOR GI TO QUESTION RUMSFELD

It took guts for the GI to ask the question (wether or not he thought of the question) and given the curcumstances, YES, it was quite appropriate and proper.

I can only imagine the fustration the GI's have given the fact that they can not do what they were trained to do (kill people and break things) and keep getting killed by ill-equiped HUMVEES.

The answer Runsfeld gave was most innappropriate. He basicly acknowledged that the GI's lack the proper equipment when he said "YOU GO TO WAR WITH THE ARMY YOU HAVE".


That is a disgraceful answer and in my view, Rumsfeld should resign as a result.

Obviously in combat an order is not a basis for negotiation or a topic for debate. But in the context in which that soldier asked the question it was both correct and proper. A system in which information passes only downward is a broken system. Rumsfeld needed to hear that question. It told (or should have told) him something about conditions on the ground from the infantrymans' point of view (we're dangerously short of critical material).

Woiyo...

...I have disagreed with you strongly so many times, I want to take this opportunity to agree with you...and to commend you for speaking forthcomingly on this.

We may have very different political and philosophical views...but we are certainly in agreement that the young marine showed guts and intelligence in asking his question...and that Rumsfeld came up mind-numbingly short in his reply.

Here in the UK, we heard about the question and answer.

Has it caused so much fuss in the USA? The criticism of their political masters by the armed forces in this country has been careful but clear and direct for some years now.

It is interesting to read between the lines that any criticism of the administration by soldiers on the ground is considered to be out of place.

If you could refer me to anywhere that this is explicity stated, I should be grateful.

KP

I agree. But I think that this may be part of the problem. I think that Rumsfeld gave that idiotic answer, because he was floored that a soldier would confront him like this. He probably never expected to encounter that sort of question.

IMO, I think that the top brass need to listen to the soldiers in the field. I would like to see a meeting, like Rumsfeld had with the soldiers, on a regular basis.

Guts yes, but the question was given to him on a 3x5 card from a reporter. I doubt he would have come up with it on his own.

There is no doubt that the concern over the armor question is a good one, but Rummy was right. You should study why Gen. McLelland failed during the Civil war...

There are a whole bunch of things Rumsfeld is...but "right" in this particular instance, is not one of them.

Most historians argee that McLelland failed because he refused to use the Army of the Patomac as it was. But he was not invading a foreign country under false premises.

The question indeed was a good one...and it doesn't much matter how it came into existence.

The answer sucked!

Good to see agreement here that the GI acted responsibly.

The only point of contention seems to be whether Rumsfeld's response was responsive.

I thought the question apt under the circumstances. I didn't see it as being critical so much, as seeking information. rumsfeld's response, it seemed to me, was also reasonable, though it might have been a bit more responsive. The Defense Department is aware that there is a need for more and better armored vehicles, and other bits of equipment. The military is moving to correct deficiencies, but it will take time and there will always be some order of deficiencies.

The McClellan analogy isn't bad. Little Mac commanded vast numbers of well-equipped and trained troops (AoP), but he repeatedly failed to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) which was relatively small with poor logistics.

Why was that? First, Little Mac believed in a defensive reactive strategy, and was never comfortable with mounting a serious offensive. He was a worrier, who always believed that his opponent had more troops and better positions. McClellan had trained the AoP, equipped them, and loved them so much that he could hardly bring himself to take any casualties whatsoever, so his caution always softened his actions. McClellan saw himself as the Savior of the Nation, and always blamed the Administration for his own failures and shortcomings.

Second, the AoP did indeed have serious shortcomings. Though the Administration did the best it could, and called up more men than were actually needed, the AoP was far from the peak efficiency and effectiveness needed to defeat Lee and his little army. The AoP had too many political generals, and poorly trained draftees. Often the equipment was shoddy and inappropriate. For instance shoes were identical for both feet, and so poorly constructed that they often fell apart before completely crippling the soldier who wore them. Medical support was sadly lacking. More men died of disease and lack of sanitation than from battle. Small wounds often resulted in amputation, and death. Tactics had changed little since the Mexican War, and thousands were needlessly killed by the more efficient rifles and artillery available in the 1860's. Everyone at the time believed AoP went to war so well prepared that the war would last a few weeks at most. War revealed the weaknesses in the army, and the deficiencies were corrected, but it took years. Deficiencies in todays military are not unexpected, after all wars often reveal weaknesses that are overlooked in peacetime.

BTW, that McClellan was fighting to put down Secessionist forces instead of Iraqi Insurgents is immaterial. From the point of view of the Confederacy, the Yankees were invaders of their homeland who had violated the Constitution by obstructing their Right to dissolve the Union. The Blue-coated devils burned the farms of peaceful women after stealing the food from their tables. The AoP went out of its way to humiliate and kill Southerners without regard to their age, sex, or non-combatant status. They reduced the productive farmland into barren plots of smoking ground while families starved. Of course, the Cause didn't have armed outsiders swarming in from Mexico, or England, planting bombs to kill Virginians along with Yankee privates.

Rumsfeld's plans for Iraq has had mixed results. He was right that the number of troops needed to defeat Saddam was far less than that advocated by many Generals and high-ranking strategists. The new army is much more lethal and efficient than any previous organization. Rumsfeld was wrong in his estimation of how determined the radical Islamic Movement would be in trying to hold onto Iraq, and how many troops it would take to occupy and rebuild. He, we, did not foresee the need to deploy so many National Guard and Reserve troops, nor how long they would be deployed. Military budgets have always shortchanged the training and equipment issued to the Reserves and National Guard. The result is evident today, and it is clear that Congress should not have slashed military spending so much as they did.

It is wholly and totally improper to ask such questions of tyrants and despots.
BUT... in a DEMOCRACY... the question was entirely appropriate.

The ANSWER to the question is where the problem lies.

I can not agree that Rumsfeld was right with "smart-alek" response. The US was in no "rush" to enter into Iraq when we did. We could have waited a few months and we SHOULD HAVE anticipated the reaction and provided proper equipment. Even if we can give the military leadership the benefit of doubt that they could not have anticipated the problem, once we got in and REALIZED the oversight, why thne was a correction not made immediately. It has been almost 2 years and the problem still exists. That tell me someone is negligent and Rumsfeld is the leader and should take responsibility.

Even if the question was given to the individual soldier,

It's not as if it was a difficult question, or one that soldiers don't want to know the answer to.

Rumsfeld should have had a better answer, but he couldn't say the truth: that we're trying to fight this war on the cheap.

Cycloptichorn

Well, well.

The worm seems to be turning.

Even William Kristol says Rumsfailed needs to go:



Washington Post

I'm pretty certain that Rumsfailed and Falwell are on the same page...

McClellan was not, as I mentioned up above, invading a foreign country under false premises.

The response by Rumsfeld to the soldiers question ranks with the likes of "Well...let them eat cake!"

And the American citizens who are so blinded by loyalty to ideology that they cannot see that...and could not see that George Bush and company should not be leading this country...fully deserve what they are going to get...what, unfortunately, we are all going to get because of this fiasco.

I smell bullshit. I don't believe they are encouraged to question authority at all. Maybe this one combat instructor said this, but I get the feeling from people I know who have been in the armed forces that the reality is that you are encouraged to shut up and follow orders.

What branch did you serve in?

I served 20+ years and we were always encouraged, and I encouraged my subordinates, to question anything other than lawful orders.

None. Just my opinion based on talking to others who served. My cousin was (is) a marine.

My 20+ years of military as enlisted and commissioned officer differs with your opinion...which is a commonly held misperception of the reality of the military. In every thing but combat situations which require unquestioning obedience to lawful orders.