New US Secretary of Defence: Impacts on Major Projects and Future Acquistions

[radiosilence]

If anyone ever decides to use a WMD on American soil I can GAURANTEE you Geneva 2 is out the window and a full burning of the Middle East is in order. The reason the American people initially supported Iraq was not because of WMD claims and what not... they wanted revenge for 9-11 b/c Afghanistan was not enough. Now that we have not been attacked for so long people are healing and are not so angry. All it takes is one more mass attack to bring the GWOT to a war against ALL of Islam.

the reason the american people supported the iraq war at first was because we were lied to about iraq's wmd program and iraq was connected to to Al Qaeda. god forbid, we get attacked with wmd and it was done by home grown terrorist. are we still going to bring the gwot to a war against "all of islam" as you put it? the notion of war against "all of islam" is favored by some right wing fundalmentalists.

 

[Big-E]

the reason the american people supported the iraq war at first was because we were lied to about iraq's wmd program and iraq was connected to to Al Qaeda. god forbid, we get attacked with wmd and it was done by home grown terrorist. are we still going to bring the gwot to a war against "all of islam" as you put it? the notion of war against "all of islam" is favored by some right wing fundalmentalists.

I certainly hope not but the new Congress is going to make an attack on the US ever more likely. Al-Queda is just dancing up a storm right now with the resignation of Rumsfeld and serious talk on withdrawal from Iraq. They will be emoboldened to use that "dirty bomb" they have been developing for all those years now. I just saw a new threat issued by Al-Queda not 5 minutes ago!!! It has already begun. If they successfully attack us Osama will get his total war of West vs Islam... there is only gong to be one left standing and it's not him.

 

[radiosilence]

which muslim countries are supporting/aiding osama bin laden and al qaeda to justify war against all islamic countries? we shouldn't remove rumsfeld because al qaeda is gloating about his removal? this rational doesn't hold water. rumsfeld was the problem. he didn't want to change tactics even thought the current policy is not working. most americans are happy to see him removed including our troops. as far as a dirty bombs goes, if any country aid/shelter/help deliver(choose one) al qaeda or any other terrorist group to set one off on US soil, they will dealt with accordingly.

 

[Big-E]

which muslim countries are supporting/aiding osama bin laden and al qaeda to justify war against all islamic countries? we shouldn't remove rumsfeld because al qaeda is gloating about his removal? this rational doesn't hold water. rumsfeld was the problem. he didn't want to change tactics even thought the current policy is not working. most americans are happy to see him removed including our troops. as far as a dirty bombs goes, if any country aid/shelter/help deliver(choose one) al qaeda or any other terrorist group set one off on US soil, they will dealt with accordingly.

Rumsfeld did not dictate policy... that is the presidents job. He was a sacrificial lamb. If you think Bob Gates is a magic cure-all think again. Until the administration changes there will not be a drastic change in policy. While the Democrats hold the purse strings to actually use them would be political suicide by cutting off the troops. Bush is still CINC and until a new CINC is elected you will not get a policy change.

If you think troops everwhere are rejoicing at the fire of Rumsfeld with the replacement of Gates think again. All Gates does is try to politicize everything. That is one thing Rumsfeld never did. His strategy on Iraq might have been flawed but his first priority was to the men at arms. Gates will throw us to the wolves just like he did his CIA analyists. When he went through conformation hearings he blamed people like Carolyn Ekedahl for his re-writes of Soviet reports to alter US policy when in fact he did it himself! Rumsfeld takes responsibilty for his actions, Gates does not. If you want accountability in a SECDEF then pray he does not pass confirmation.

 

[radiosilence]

Rumsfeld did not dictate policy... that is the presidents job. He was a sacrificial lamb. If you think Bob Gates is a magic cure-all think again. Until the administration changes there will not be a drastic change in policy. While the Democrats hold the purse strings to actually use them would be political suicide by cutting off the troops. Bush is still CINC and until a new CINC is elected you will not get a policy change.

If you think troops everwhere are rejoicing at the fire of Rumsfeld with the replacement of Gates think again. All Gates does is try to politicize everything. That is one thing Rumsfeld never did. His strategy on Iraq might have been flawed but his first priority was to the men at arms. Gates will throw us to the wolves just like he did his CIA analyists. When he went through conformation hearings he blamed people like Carolyn Ekedahl for his re-writes of Soviet reports to alter US policy when in fact he did it himself! Rumsfeld takes responsibilty for his actions, Gates does not. If you want accountability in a SECDEF then pray he does not pass confirmation.

i said rumsfeld didn't want to change tactics not policy. as far gates goes, i said my personal choice would have been chuck hagel. i can't judge gates yet becuase he hasn't been confirmed. as far troops supports for rumsfeld, check out the army, navy, airforce times calling for his removal. we are a democracy and the american people express their veiws on the war on election day. the president got the message and replaced rumsfeld.

 

[radiosilence]

Editorial
Time for Rumsfeld to go




Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld —

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”


That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.


But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go

airforce times

link

 

[Sea Toby]

I'm of the opinion the US and her allies blew the occupation of Iraq. We still haven't declared martial law, we have not taken the guns away from the people, and we should have kept their armed forces in place with perhaps a few changes at the top.

What we have done has allowed an insurrection of uncompromising warlords. Once we had set a government in place, not necessarily a democracy, we should have left it to the new government to bring law and order to the country. With a national standing army they could have accomplished this easily.

I still am of the opinion the above still needs to be done. The sooner we let the Iraqis set up their own government under these conditions, the sooner we will be able to leave. Unfortunately, we have not built a national army in Iraq, the forces are divided now into either all Kurds, Sunnis, or Shites units. No wonder we are now worried about a civil war, we have in our policies encouraged it.

Armies do not prop up an unpopular government. Governments are propped up by the people. This should have been a lesson learned from Vietnam.

Until the Iraqi army is intergrated, I do not see a successful conclusion. Its time we started moving in the right direction or get out as fast as possible and let them fight their civil war. As far as I am concerned we have wasted five to six years staying the wrong course.

 

[Big-E]

i said rumsfeld didn't want to change tactics not policy. as far gates goes, i said my personal choice would have been chuck hagel. i can't judge gates yet becuase he hasn't been confirmed. as far troops supports for rumsfeld, check out the army, navy, airforce times calling for his removal. we are a democracy and the american people express their veiws on the war on election day. the president got the message and replaced rumsfeld.

As you may or may not know the Airforce times does not speak for the military. They are a corporate publication and if you noticed it was an editorial... nothing more than a single writers opinion. They're has been no official military publication denouncing Rumsfeld. Retired generals that complain about him have every right to do so but there is not one CO I have ever met that the underlings have not bitched and moaned about. None of the Gannett publishing group's magazines speak on behalf of active duty personell. I can tell you from personell on the ground that Rumsfeld was rather well liked by the common man but despised by those that worked in Washington. This does not reflect American public opinion but most of America is not in the military and do not have any idea the contribution Rumsfeld has brought to the DoD and military in general. While he might have been preocuppied with transformation too much and spent more time on the GWOT his legacy will be felt by all servicemembers well into this century. Whoever is confirmed by the Senate better have transformation in mind... this is not Gates the "Cold Warrior".


The president had already decided to replace Rumsfeld before the election. He didn't want to politicize the war by announcing it before hand.

 

[radiosilence]

As you may or may not know the Airforce times does not speak for the military. They are a corporate publication and if you noticed it was an editorial... nothing more than a single writers opinion. They're has been no official military publication denouncing Rumsfeld. Retired generals that complain about him have every right to do so but there is not one CO I have ever met that the underlings have not bitched and moaned about. None of the Gannett publishing group's magazines speak on behalf of active duty personell. I can tell you from personell on the ground that Rumsfeld was rather well liked by the common man but despised by those that worked in Washington. This does not reflect American public opinion but most of America is not in the military and do not have any idea the contribution Rumsfeld has brought to the DoD and military in general. While he might have been preocuppied with transformation too much and spent more time on the GWOT his legacy will be felt by all servicemembers well into this century. Whoever is confirmed by the Senate better have transformation in mind... this is not Gates the "Cold Warrior".


The president had already decided to replace Rumsfeld before the election. He didn't want to politicize the war by announcing it before hand.

your last statement made my point, the president realized that rumsfeld was the problem and replaced him. rumsfeld refused to change tactics as the situation on the ground changed. when the insurgency began he fail to acknowledge it instead he called the insurgents "a few dead enders".

 

[icelord]

The idea of a man who has been trained his whole life to keep secrets is worrying more for the outside world, would he turn around the whole DOD observing the net approach, Big-E might not need to be so worried anymore if he did, but, he'll probabley increase it.
I'm a little worried on something, after the wall collapsed(the CIA saw that one coming!) the Agency moved out alot of its Human Intel in turn for more Signal Intel, which set everyone back 10 years when 9/11 rolled around. I take it Gates would have overseen this(although i have no full evidence your honour, this is just hearsay and analysis). Would gates make any new mistakes, or has he learned from the past?
Also, how can gates do all this with Vista coming out in Jan...I'm sorry, i had too.

All it takes is one more mass attack to bring the GWOT to a war against ALL of Islam.

You know how to give comfort to people, do you do kids parties?

I don't think the JSF will get the heeve hoe, as there are way too many other countries tied down in it now, the main focus would be on completing the project. If it was axed, we're out of pocket $300+ mil, and no ones gunna be happy here, and the RAAF never forgets getting screwed over, as they'll have no new toys to play with.

Umm, i know right now hes bush's fav person and all, but would the next bloke(Post Bush) be Zinni, he comes across as an ok sort of guy, with sh*t load of Experience in that sort of role.

 

[Big-E]

your last statement made my point, the president realized that rumsfeld was the problem and replaced him. rumsfeld refused to change tactics as the situation on the ground changed. when the insurgency began he fail to acknowledge it instead he called the insurgents "a few dead enders".

I had already seen your point and acknowledged it. Never did I say Rumsfeld did a good job in Iraq. My point to you is Rumsfeld is not directly responsible for the chaos and was telling you the positive realities of his tenure. The responsibility falls to the CINC, SECDEF serves at the leisure of the president. We all knew we had problems years ago... why didn't he get rid of him then? CINC is responsible for the actions of his appointees or lack thereof and the nations anger should be directed there, not at Rumsfeld. This is all I want you to see.

 

[atilla]

well rumsfeld ıs gone and some one new come what wıll hapen ın ın ıraq ıs now gettıng strange because no one knows ı guess

what was the projected achıvment ın IRAQ ??

controlıng the 4\2 of mıd east oıl thıs seems most realıstıc reason to me
but thıs also lead jump ın the oıl prıces so gave a lot of advantage to İRAN

Separatıng Iraq ın to 3 regıons could ıt be new agenda ????

then closer relatıons ın USA IRAN ?? wıll thıs surprıse???

 

[eckherl]

well rumsfeld ıs gone and some one new come what wıll hapen ın ın ıraq ıs now gettıng strange because no one knows ı guess

what was the projected achıvment ın IRAQ ??

controlıng the 4\2 of mıd east oıl thıs seems most realıstıc reason to me
but thıs also lead jump ın the oıl prıces so gave a lot of advantage to İRAN

Separatıng Iraq ın to 3 regıons could ıt be new agenda ????

then closer relatıons ın USA IRAN ?? wıll thıs surprıse???

I would like to ask the question what would be the reasoning behind splitting Iraq into three regoins, also do you really think that we would have closer relations with Iran when we are really close to having to take matters into our own hands because of their desire to have Nukes, the United Nations will not do anything but give Iran lip service. For the sake of Isreal we will have to resolve this issue. The achievement for Iraq was to overthrow a evil tyrant and spread democracy in the Middle East Region, for that we will achieve nothing, My government should of did it`s homework on the Middle Eastern people and the rules that they live by. Russia,Britian and France are some of the countries that has tried to have a influence in the past and they ended up high tailing it out of there. This really puts the U.S in a bind because if we leave the Irainians will just move right in really off setting the power over there, so at this point what do we do to correct our mistake the people of America are all ears for suggestions.

 

[icelord]

The most obvious advantage of 3 regions is that they get split up into Religious Sects, rather then one big one. This allows each to have power for their own, rather then trying to share. But the disadvantages out weigh it. Iran could take an even bigger role, as 3 regions would allow for say 2 to demand US withdrawl.
Plus it kinda counters the whole point of the Iraq war by splitting up the country, a last ditch effort really

 

[knightrider4]

What to do???

Well I,m certainly no expert but the first thing I'd be doing is detaining Mr Al Sadr and his ilk & disarming the militias as the Iraqi Army must be the only entity to bear arms and should be a non-political organisation. It sends a very mixed message when there is so many armed groups all claiming some right to both military-political and religous power.

 

[icelord]

Thats all well and good, and i support what you say, but, you can't just go to his front door smack him in the face and say "give up"....or can u....no no, bad idea, anyway the point is, he is so well connected, that any Iraqi Govt. official would tip him off that US are coming, all of a sudden the city is blanketed with armed milita, and the shit hits the fan. There is no doubt Al Sadr does cause a lot of trouble for the US, but he has the most discilpined Militia running, and any that step out of line are dealt with quickly, compared to others hes the best around, and for him to be on side is important for many. The US media may not like him, but thats because his views don't click with them.
Sadly hes the best anyones got

 

[contedicavour]

Sadly separating Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds into 3 federal autonomous entities is easier said than done. In the north oil-rich Kirkuk is half Sunni half Kurd, Baghdad has several districts which are mixed, etc.

The only suggestion I have is that the UN should be handed back the mess, or even better, the Arab League. The Iraqi govt would thus be able to call in help from other Arab (or at least Muslim) countries and most guerrilla warfare would end once we're out of there and replaced by (for example) Egyptian, Saudi and Jordanian troops. Bad news is that of course we'd have to finance the whole thing and keep a few divisions of elite troops in case of localized revolt (airborne, paratroopers, mobile military police).

Another potential problem with my suggestion is that Saudis would probably be welcome only in Sunni areas, and that Turkey can't help because it would be instantly identified as hostile by the Kurds. Iran might want to help, but of course the West won't ever accept their help until they overtly defy us with their nuclear programme...

cheers

 

[icelord]

i like your idea conte, but to add further to the list, the Saudis would be seen as puppets of America, Egypt would do ok, as would jordan, but their Security Services get involved the old days of dark would return, Syria would offer but be refuted by many for its close to ties to insurgents, and all of a sudden the list of countries that can send troops dwindles, without even politics of each nation involved and any offer. The whole thing is a big shit fight, but its gotta be done.

 

[eckherl]

i like your idea conte, but to add further to the list, the Saudis would be seen as puppets of America, Egypt would do ok, as would jordan, but their Security Services get involved the old days of dark would return, Syria would offer but be refuted by many for its close to ties to insurgents, and all of a sudden the list of countries that can send troops dwindles, without even politics of each nation involved and any offer. The whole thing is a big shit fight, but its gotta be done.

Agreed - that is why we will end up having to stay the course.

 

[atilla]

ı realy cant say but can project from past maybe

I m lıvıng ın ISTANBUL aromaxly 3000 km far away from IRANS nukes ıf there ıs any I lıved 3000 km far from russın nukes Russıans.they dıdnt use can ıran use ???????? thıs ıs what ı thınk about IRANS nuke project

and there was many crashes ın mıd east before turks such as PERSIANS vs arabs Or asurıans VS ısraelıes or darıes vs ALEXANder lıst goes too long D

ın 16 th centry and the era of seljuk weaknens tımes and post seljuk tımes such as memeluk abbası kıngdoms there was a strong crash between arabs and PERSIAns that ıs why some kıngdoms of mıd east had to conquer ıraq to protect from ırans danger thıs happened ın past ın some tıme

Sİa regıon was always agaınst who ever conquerd ıraq u name ıt saddam before sadam general kasım or englısh or ottoman or seljuk hıstorıcly sıa regıon depends on IRAN thıs ıs realıty but ıf gowerment of ıraq or USA acceps 3 regıons sıa regıon wıll be more ruled type of IRAN and molllas wıll hold the power ın that part ın SUNNI regıon ın map comes to mıddle araound bagdat lets say maınly they are use to secular gowerments and due to bassk party pan arabızım ıs ımportant so they wont accep sıa regıons oıl controls maybe??

and sunnıs were always ın rullıng sınce seljuk kıngdom D ın IRAQ only after seljuks ,era of MONGOLS and PERSIANS Iraq was out of control of sunıs

regıon 3 kurds kurds was never ın power and has never played a vıtal role tıll 1950 sss cold war era to days barzanıes father fırst supported by IRAN then russıa runed away to russıa for to save hıs lıfe and now hıs son ıs supported by USA but there was strong tıes between englısh and some kurdısh trıbes ın 1920 s also expecıally ın north ıraq

but we all have to consıder north ıraq wasnt kurdısh land TURKS was lıvıng there before WW1 and after collapse of ottoman some moved ın todays borders and realy few left due to some known thıngs

and also after WW1 ottoman emporer was the owner of most north ıraq kerkuk and mosul also DD he bought that land actually but after war due to some specıal agreements he had rıght to take persentage of ıraqs oıl productıon from north ıt means north of IRAQ

In the era of ATATURK had rıght to take KERKUK but he dıdnt lıke today electıons was made ın 1930ss and ın kerkuk and most of north ıraq answer of electıons was unıtatıon to TURKEY but turkey dıdnt accep and most turkes agaın moved ın to todays borders

so what ı see today ıs dıvıdıng ıraq ıs goıng to happen because many wants ın EU and USA thıs wıll make IRAN happy too ,wıll be close to Saudıe arabıa and posıbbly wıll try to control saudıe arabıa too

so ıt ıs lıke tıme machıne we go back actualy ın maps D persıan era ıs goıng to start ın muslım world maybe??

when ıt comes to sunnı regıon they wıll be lıke chesse D between 2 regıons

and kurds wıll expand to north syrıa easly so syrıa wıll also drop after thıs move so ısrael wıll be actualy safe because IRAN wıll be focusıng more on arabs as always dıd D then maybe another move could come from north of IRAN too?? there ıs AZERI and kurdısh populatıon there too BUt stıll ıf thıs could happen WORLD super powers wıll need a strong hold lıke north of IRAQ and ısrael and cyprus to control egypt and south cost of TURKEY

because of new kurdısh movement ın IRAN ???worlds super powers can have an dırect accses to HAZER oıl platforms then new pıpe lıne crosıng from north of ıraq trough syrıa and connects mersın whıch ıs ın turkey now

and KURDS could have start theır own power strugle also ??

SO basıcly ıf there ıs a power whıch wants to change maps ın mıdeast or whıch wants to start regıon wars or start sunnı sıa wars arab kurdısh wars all thıs can be done by one small move even ıf we accep tommorrows energy sourses ıs ın central asıa so north of ıran north of ırag connects to syrıan north here you have an new pıpe lıne and road to central asıa

IN all thıs posıbılıtes IRAN and ISRAEL also USA ıs gettıng strong and gettıng more control so ın future why not new gorbochows ın IRAN ????