Home > The war WITHOUT Rumsfeld?
Wars and conflicts Governments USA
Everyone wants Rummy to go and I fully support that. His arrogance and faulty planning have cost the US and Iraq many problems that might have been ameliorated had recommended better planning been heeded and implemented.
But we are where we are. Of course we were wrong to begin with, and have no business invading and "liberating" a country which proposed no real threat to us. The question now is, would we have had more success if we had gone in with twice the troop force initially? and would the people of Iraq cooperated with a larger, controlling military presence? I think probably not.
It is possible that if J.Paul Bremer hadn’forcefully disbanded the Bathist Army go things might have worked out better, but there can be no doubt that insurgents would still be a frightening prospect no matter what, and foreign fighters,jihadists, terrorists and rebels...not to mention those young men who hate our guts for wiping out, imprisoning or torturing their family members, would be with us just as now.
So if we had a larger force, what would we do with it at this juncture? Surround towns, hold hands and march in, killing everything that moves (a la Fallujah?). That won’t work no matter how many troops are deployed.
Sure, a larger number of boots could better occupy and hold a given town, but the insurgency would never quit. The plain fact is that in the history of warfare few if any insurgencies have been defeated. Sometimes,after a decade or more of effort and violence,insurgents will back off, but when foreigners occupy a country uninvited, sooner or later they must and will be ejected.
So Rumsfeld or not, we won’t have the ’victory’ Bush desires...and he surely realizes that. Too bad he won’t just come out and admit it to the American public.
Iraq has little use for Western democracy. Bush knows it, Rumsfeld knows it, and our Congress knows it. But we’re knuckleheads on both sides of the aisle, and we don’t have the wisdom or humility to just call it a day and leave.
Forum posts
15 April 2006, 21:35
Bush has told us, the USA citizens, that he has broken the FISA act, he is breaking the FISA Act, and he will continue to break the lawful Fisa Act. Throw in Bush’s complete disregard of the articlles of the Consitution of the United States of America, and Bush should be, must be impeached - NOW!.
It’s up to us - We, the People.
16 April 2006, 06:17
I agree Rumsfeld should go but i doubt he will. He is too involved with the Bush adminstration and i can’t see them letting him go without a fight.
As for the impeachment of bush in the reply post. I aggree wholeheartedly with this. The American people have been lied to for far to long. I am from England but like America but not your government that at present has imaged itself on facsist idealogy. It has more in common with Fascist Germany from the 1933 than a modern day world leader. Retake your country and regain your honour in the world rather then keeping up this war against an alledged terrorist who ironically lives in the white house so you never catch him.
Danny from England
ps when you have impeached Bush and got your country back and your rights. Do me a favour and take Blair and Brown away from England we need them in Englnad like we need a second hole in our ####.
18 April 2006, 04:48
Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Israeli/NeoCons, are all members of the Israeli/PNAC group who lied us into this war. They do not want peace ever. They want to break up the OPEC cartel, smash Iran, and grab the new "Arabistan". Then create and maintain chaos on top of all that oil for as long as possible hence the name the new "Long War". Our troops want something that looks like victory. Which to them means a stable peaceful Iraq with a new democratic government so they can come home. Getting rid of Rumsfeld would send a message that Bush and US military are on same wave length and I don’t think the Israeli/NeoCons want that.