Do Ya Think?

[Bubblehead]

Secretary Rumsfeld has apparently made a startling admission:

"Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is," Rumsfeld told CNN...

Actually, I seem to remember Gen. Shinseki anticipated what was needed pretty well. I admit, I'm not a big Rumsfeld fan; as a CENTCOM staff weenie in 2003-'04, I didn't work directly with the Secretary, but I worked with people whose bosses got taskers directly from the SecDef in meetings, and none of them liked him very much either.

The Submarine Force had a similar personality in Admiral Rickover; quite a few people hold that while he was indispensible in the '50s and '60s, but had outlived his usefulness by the '70s. Likewise, I think history will judge that Rumsfeld was the right man for Afghanistan, but the wrong one for Iraq. (Of course, I recently finished reading Cobra II and Fiasco, so those books might have warped my fragile little mind.)

Standing by for incoming...

Re: Clausevitz

[ArmyLawyer]

Anybody with so many alternate spellings can't be right.

al Qaeda, al Qeda, al Qada?

Clausewitz, Clausowitz, Clausevitz?

Coincidence?

Things Not to Do When Deployed

[ArmyLawyer]

Take Nudie Pictures

The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that women in a Kentucky National Guard unit posed nude for pictures with their M-16s and other military equipment, and if so, whether they should be sanctioned for bringing discredit to the military, officials said.
...
"This is not the kind of activity condoned by the command leadership of the Kentucky National Guard," he said.

The newspaper had been independently provided with a compact disc containing 232 photos of at least a half-dozen nude and seminude women in various poses, including kissing one another, posing suggestively with military rifles, and covering their breasts with American flag decals. An accompanying e-mail said the women photographed were from the Kentucky Guard.

Go Guard!

Cliff Dwelling at the Times

[Dadmanly]

The Editors at The New York Times write an over-the-top, emotional and dishonest critique of the pending Antiterrorism Bill.

The Editors say a cynical (and by implication, criminal) Bush Administration is driving Congress “over a cliff,” and by fear-mongering and intimidation, forcing them to pass “a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.”

This is a war we fight, not that that’s at all assumed or accepted by the NY Times. Yet, to the Editors, this is entirely about extending complete judicial, constitutional, and Geneva Conventions rights and obligations upon a class of detainees that don’t even fit criteria for legitimate Prisoners of War, let alone prisoners of US law enforcement entities.

It’s all “mindless politics,” with an evil Administration forcing “ghastly ideas about antiterrorism” upon an “irresponsible Congress.”

Dear Lord, what adjectives will the NY Times have left come their dreaded but much anticipated American Kristalnacht? (Or did that happen with the defeat of John Kerry in 2004, I might have missed it with all the public mourning.)

The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

According to the Times, we will make American Troops less safe – they’ll be without all that super strong, respected by Tyrants and Dictators Everywhere Geneva Conventions Bullet and Bomb Proof Armor. The Times laments that the Bill will do lasting damage to our nation of laws – despite that the Bush Administration has done far less in fighting this war than did FDR or Truman during WWII, Hoover or FDR during the Depression, and certainly, Lincoln during the Civil War. (I guess Lincoln’s suspension of Habeus Corpus did lasting damage too, but doesn’t lasting mean it doesn’t heal or correct itself after the war is won?)

If we had to fight WWII (or any prior war) by the rules demanded by the NY Times, and the Democratic Party and ACLU allies, we’d have lost. There would be no Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (there’d be no Jews left), and the sun would have set on Democracy and liberty and Western Civilization. The elites of Hyannis and Beacon Hill and Beverly Hills would no doubt be able to concentrate their love of humanity on non fossil fuels, solar and wind power, and the prevailing wages of the working classes, without messy concerns of National Security. Come to think on it, you can understand their sympathy for the 7th Century Jihadis. (“Finishing the job Hitler started.”)

(Much more commentary over at Dadmanly.)

RE: Clausewitz

[John Noonan]

Sheesh Grim, why can't you just make fun of his appearance like everyone else?