Rumsfelt and Mcain...........

[red indian]

......I have watched Donald Rumsfelt on TV over the last couple of years, and have enjoyed his biting wit and sarcasm when he steps up to the plate at press conferences, and when he is interviewed by TV journalists. He never misses a chance to squash some poor sap who asks a stupid question, or is not properly in command of the subject he has chosen to interrogate Rumsfelt on. God help anyone who tries to get clever or aggressive with him, Rumsfelt always comes out on top, and makes sure we all know it.


He seems to relish the opportunity to grind his inquisitor in to the dirt and its very entertaining. However, having made a name for himself with this type of combative, sneering, contemptous repartee, he has also been the architect of his own impending doom.

His more recent appearances on TV at the congressional hearings, have been rather different to the Rumsfelt we all know and love, due to the fact that he is giving stupid answers to clever questions put to him by people who have demonstrated that in this instance he was not in command of the subject he was beng interrogated on.

Its was very interesting to see the tables turned on him, and to see how he coped when he was on the defensive. He was, of course, forced to drop the usual style in very drammatic fashion. This to my mind exposed him as a very short sighted and unsophisticated politician. It is of course great fun to treat your questioner with complete contempt while the political picture is favourable, and you do not have any awkward questions to answer, but having gone out on a limb in this fashion so publically and with such relish, it becomes all the more obvious when you are forced to drop the whole act because the political wind has changed.

This leads those who observe the sudden change in style to the conclusion that the sudden change in attitude indicates a corresponding change in the validity of his arguments.



I listened to Senator John Mcain on TV yesterday and he said something to the effect that "America is the only country in the world that has been prepared to put lives on the line for the sake of Iraqi freedom.....er.....and.....er well, maybe the British"......EXCUSE ME???!!!!! "maybe the British"????....its nice to know how much the republican party appreciate our efforts on behalf of the U.S.

 

[The Sean Man]

McCain gets a little TOO caught up in his patriotism, as it evident by some of the things that come out of his mouth🙂 C'mon Edwin, the U.S. isn't the only country willing to help people.

The Sean Man

 

[Neutron]

McCain Has

More raw courage than any man alive. In my book he can say pretty much what he wants.

Although, Hats off to the Brits!

Tron

 

[Strelnikov]

A mixed bag...

I give Mr. Rumsfelt high marks for the following:
1. The war plan - sending special-ops troops to prepare the battlefield, then heavy armored formations with precision air support. Straight out of the Guderian playbook - that's exactly how the Battle of France played out in 1940.
2. Disbanding the old Iraqui Army - problematic in the short term, but essential if Iraq is to have an army with civilian control. The function of Arab armies is to protect the State - the guns are pointed inward, at the citizens. The only cure for that habit of thought is to start from scratch and rebuild along the American and British model.

I give him low marks for the following:
1. He didn't finish reading Guderian's playbook. Heavy armored formations can gain ground, but they can't hold it. You need infantry for that. We don't have enough, but Mr. R resists all attempts to restore the Clinton cuts (8 divisions) that would correct the problem, and even wants to cut the Army more.
2. Rumors abound that he's about to attempt the same with the USN submarine force. We have 56 fast-attack nuclear subs - there's talk of cutting about 20 of them, or about the same amount as the British and French have in total.
3. He's arrogant and abrasive, and so has alienated serving senior officers. They don't like or trust him. They'll follow orders, but they'll be happy to see him come to grief on the political front. Obviously, that's not a desireable situation.

Should he stay on? Mixed feelings. The man won't admit to or learn from his mistakes. OTOH, the people who are gunning for him are mostly engaged in election year politics, and I'd be reluctant to give them the satisfaction. If Mr. Kerry gets elected this fall, everything we've done so far will be for nothing - we'll go back to doing drive-by shootings from submarines, using multi-million $$ missiles to blow up empty $5 tents. On balance, we're probably better off with Mr. R than anyone Mr. K would appoint, but unfortunately not by much.

Strelnikov

 

[red indian]

Hey Strell............

......dont go giving Guderian all the credit for Blitskrieg.A large portion of it should go to, rather ironically, a French born Englishman called Liddel Hart.Its a pity only the German high command of the inter war years bothered to read his radical new ideas about mobile offensive warfare. Guderian employed a translator to have all Harts work converted to German.

The Army of the inter war years almost non exsistant untill the rearmamant programme in the mid thirties. This left the german high command with lots of time to think about new ideas without the burden of a massive beaurocratic machine, vested interests, or natural conservatism and complancency that can become a fatal desease in a large, idle, standing army.


The French and the British suffered from this problem and as a consequence Harts ideas were not welcomed by many powerfull people in the armed forces. Rather pathetically, the British cavalry regiments steadfastly refused to be parted from their horses to the extent that mounted forces still exsisted well in to WW2.

The unfortunate result of this philistine attitude was of course the complete thrashing of French and British forces in the battle for France, leading to the dunkirk evacuation.

 

[asutickler]

Not to be the resident spelling Nazi or anything... but its "Rumsfeld," y'all. 😛

 

[Neutron]

Guderians

Mode of warfare was obsolete by 1943, as soon as air craft were available to control movement during the day and night.

Guderian was HIGHLY overrated after 1943 and he knew it.

Rumsfeld is totally on about Army Divisions. His problem isn't that he didn't restore Clintons cuts. His problem is he has to rely on Marines because the Army is still too god damn fat.

The 20 subs he's scrapping are obsolete, mostly thin skin 688s.

Tron

 

[red indian]

Not sure thats the whole picture Tronny.....

.....did the Russians have that kind of facillity regarding day/night aircraft ground attack in 1943? no doubt that use of air power was usefull, but it was not the key to defeating Blitzkrieg. The way to counter Blitzkreig was to stay put, hold your positions, weather the storm from the air attack, let the tanks run through your position and cut them off from the infantry and logistical support following up behind them. In short, Blitzkreig only works if the defender obliges by moving back.

Hart often refers to the "expanding torrent" as a way of describing this style of attack, punching through the enemies weakest point and making sure to capitalise on your gain as soon as possible, but if the enemy is prepared for this kind of attack then it is possible to move round either side of the attack and nip it off.

Being able to controll the enemies ground movements by day and night is of course a valuable tool in ant kind of warfare but I dont think the Russians had the neccesary level of air supremecy to counter a blitzkreig attack in 1943, but I think they had started to learn the learn the techniques I describe.

 

[Neutron]

It Doesn't Matter Whether..

The Russians had the ability or not. They had about 30 million people to sacrifice and the advantage of being able to trade space.

I said the mode of warfare was obsolete by 1943 at the latest. The Russians were only modernizing their modes in 1943. Blitzkrieg tacts would not have worked against the US and most likely even Japan even prior to 1943. When it came to combined arms tactics the Japanese were far superior to the Germans and proved it by not just conducting warfare on one or two continents, the Japanese were doing it worldwide.

The US had a better dive bomber then the Germans (the SBD), 4 engine bombers, better logistics, night radar, rockets, and a better overall ability to coordinate tactics.

Guderians tactics only worked PROVIDED the eenemy wasn't able to match him in any one area. He modified some WW1 tactics, and avoided the initial mistakes of his WW1 counterparts, BUT as soon as he encountered stiff resistance and was at least equaled in technology note how the Germans suffered.

Put a US force on the Eastern Front in 1943 and later, replacing the Russian forces and the Germans would have been slaughtered on a monumental scale. Not that the Russians were all that slack about destroying the fighting power of Germany. The US and Britain could have done it more efficiently, with less casualties.

Guderian was fine in his day, but most of his success was against poorly armed countries who were trying to conduct war in a more civilized manner.

Tron