Re: News Release

"Rod Engelsman" <rod.engelsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qHD0g.61$bm.32801@news.sisna.com...
> Cliff wrote:
>
>>
>> Many many reports.
>> Any of the older generals that were considered "the cold warrior" have a
>> different mindset than Rumsfeld. they have fought with him all the way.
>> Rumsfeld believes in a light, fast army with good use of special forces
>> instead of battalions fighting it out in open warfare. The "old guard"
>> believes in a massive miltary and overwhelming superiority of numbers
>> which just does not fit into todays scenarios.
>
> It depends on the scenario, doesn't it? Sometimes you need a hammer,
> sometimes a drill. Light and fast worked fine for defeating Saddam's
> forces; I agree that the shooting part of the war went very well with
> minimal casualties on both sides. That's not at issue in my mind.
>
> I just think they were overly optimistic about the conditions we would be
> facing in the subsequent occupation. Occupation by it's very nature is a
> tiring, grinding, and often demoralizing affair. It would be *really* nice
> to be getting more help from our allies in this task, which is one reason
> it would behoove us to be a bit more sensitive to their concerns.
>
> What we're trying to do there is laudable, but it looks to me like we're
> just stretched too thin.

And I think that is a decision of the field commanders and I certianly am
not capable of second guessing them.

>> Oh boy another navy vet.......one thing you find out about navy vets is
>> that most of them are full of shit :) I bet you were a chief to
>> boot....the worst of the worst :)
>
> Got out as an E-6, one step below chief. Of course I'm full of shit, just
> ask my wife :)

I figured as much :) you were close enough to a chief for it to affect you
:) (Really just kidding here, being a Navy brat with a dad who was a chief
in the old navy.....well need I say more.)

> But I hope you realize that we're ultimately on the same side in this war.
> We just disagree on the details.

Agreed.

>>> It's 3 am and the Captain is in his bunk. The ship hits an obstacle.
>>> Guess who gets the ultimate responsibility and pays for the mistake.
>>
>> Seeing how the captain is a commissioned officer in charge of a ship he
>> would take the blame. But in the same respect did the captain of the ship
>> that the two sailors were on that raped the two Guamanian girls a while
>> back take any blame for their rape? Not one bit. He was not complicit in
>> their rape. Same goes for those in charge of the soldiers at abu
>> gharaib......
>
> I think the Abu Ghraib thing is more reminiscent of the first situation
> than the second. The soldiers at AG were acting in their military
> capacities; the rapists were not. I'm not saying that Rummy should be held
> personally responsible, but at least their immediate superior officer (in
> the Navy it would be a Division Officer) should be held accountable.
> He/She should have known what they were up to. Either he was complicit or
> he was inadequately supervising his troops.

I would have thought that the immediate command would have been culpable but
to stretch that as far as Rumsfeld is a wild stretch.
Received on Mon May 1 01:07:50 2006