+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Memo to Rumsfeld's successor

  1. #1
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,528
    Country: India

    Memo to Rumsfeld's successor

    Memo to Rumsfeld's successor

    Advice from a former Pentagon insider for the incoming Defense secretary, who inherits two tough wars and low morale.

    By Dov S. Zakheim, DOV S. ZAKHEIM was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer from 2001-2004.
    November 14, 2006

    TO: Incoming Secretary of Defense

    RE: Coming to Grips With DOD



    OVER THE YEARS, the Pentagon has welcomed all sorts of outsiders as secretary of Defense — lawyers and industrialists, congressmen and senators. But you are a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and, as such, your background may be viewed with some suspicion by many in the Department of Defense who view the CIA as a bitter rival for operational control and budgetary dollars.

    On the other hand, you also come with a reputation as a realist.
    This should appeal to the many military officers and career officials who did not join the so-called revolt of the generals against Donald Rumsfeld but who shared many of their views. Morale has dropped precipitously in the DOD; your immediate task is to shore it up.

    We are already enmeshed in two wars, with enough additional crises elsewhere. You cannot and should not try to develop Iraq policy on your own. The nation cannot afford to have the DOD at war with the State Department or any other branch of the government.

    You should work with the military to develop a strategy to complement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission) with which, as an outgoing member of the group, you are no doubt familiar. Focus on preserving stability in the region rather than on more elusive (and illusionary) goals relating to governance in Iraq. Recognize that Iraq is in the midst of a bloody civil war that the U.S. cannot bring to an end. Propose that instead of pouring more American blood and treasure into embattled Baghdad and Anbar provinces, we instead reposition our forces to Kurdistan to prevent a conflagration between Turks and Kurds; to the Shiite south and the Iranian border to limit Tehran's influence; and to the West to limit Syrian meddling and help protect the Jordanian border. Commit greater resources to equip and train the Iraqi military and make it responsible for restoring order in Anbar and Baghdad, however long that might take.

    Some variant of such a strategy will prevent Iraq from regionalizing its civil war and prevent neighbors from carving up that unhappy country. It will also enable our forces to be reduced significantly, thereby easing the pressure of troop rotations on both the reserve and active military and reducing U.S. casualties. There are too many ruined lives lying in our military hospital beds.


    Finally, it is important that you sustain the transformational changes that your predecessor initiated. Rumsfeld is being vilified for our fate in Iraq. He does not get enough credit for dragging the DOD, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. He modernized our command structure beyond recognition: a new Northern Command to address threats to the United States; a new Joint Forces Command to combine tactics, training and experimentation with our most modern technical wizardry; a revitalized Special Operations Command that was the key to our rapid initial success in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld restructured our 40-year-old budget process to focus on how money was spent, not just on how we planned to spend it. He laid special emphasis on key weapons such as unmanned aerial vehicles, which had been stifled by the services for decades. And he initiated the forced merger of thousands of Defense business systems to bring coherence to a chaotic and wasteful enterprise.

    The job of sorting out the management mess at the Pentagon is still far from complete. But in Gordon England you have a deputy who is probably the most capable chief operating officer the Pentagon has seen since the 1960s. He is not a policy wonk; he is a true manager. He overhauled the Navy's management processes and is doing the same for the department as a whole. Persuade him to stay on the job.

    Coming into an administration in its last two years is not easy. Managing the conduct of two bloody and costly wars is a far cry from the halls of academe that you have frequented most recently. You have a military and a civilian staff that is ready, willing and able to help you, and a country that prays for your success. Good luck and Godspeed.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail
    This indicates the road ahead for the new Secretary of Defence.

    Do you think that the prescription is in tune with the realities of the situation or has it looked at the issue by oversimplification?

    He has also given a tribute to Rumsfeld which many WABbers seem to have overlooked in their zeal to find a scapegoat. Surely, none can deny the good that Rumsfeld did.

    He was a man of vision and too far ahead of his time and so most could not understand him.

    Any views?


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  2. #2
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,528
    Country: India
    Now read this:


    Looking for the exit ramp
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Tuesday, November 14, 2006
    Send an email to Patrick J. Buchanan

    It appears the Beltway bombing halt agreed upon at the Bush-Pelosi summit is over.

    The incoming chairmen of the Senate's armed services and foreign affairs committees, Carl Levin and Joe Biden -- and Majority Leader Harry Reid -- say a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq will be their first priority. Troop redeployment, says Reid, "should start within the next few months."

    White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton counters: "I don't think we're going to be receptive to the notion there's a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out because that would be a true disaster for the Iraqi people."

    John McCain says we need more troops to crush the Mahdi Army and militias, and achieve victory. If we set a deadline for withdrawal, said McCain, we risk a Saigon ending, with Americans being helicoptered off the roof of the U.S. embassy. McCain appears to be adopting the George Wallace stance of 1968 -- "Win, or Get Out!"

    And so we come to the endgame in a war into which we were plunged by Bush Republicans and those neoconservatives now scurrying back to their think tanks, and the Clinton-Kerry-Edwards-Biden-Reid-Daschle Democrats, who voted Bush a blank check in October 2002 to get the war issue "out of the way" before the elections.

    America has been horribly served by both parties. And as the Democrats have now captured Congress, they assume co-responsibility for the retreat from Mesopotamia. Which is as it should be.

    While our leaders never thought through the probable result of invading an Arab nation that had not attacked us, we had best think through the probable results of a pullout in 2007.

    We are being told that by giving the Iraqis a deadline, after which we start to withdraw, we will stiffen their spines to take up greater responsibility for their own country. But there is as great or greater a likelihood that a U.S. pullout will break their morale and spirit, that the Iraqi government and army, seeing Americans heading for the exit ramp, will collapse before an energized enemy, and Shias, Sunnis and Kurds will scramble for security and survival among their own.

    Arabs are not ignorant of history. They know that when we pulled out of South Vietnam, a Democratic Congress cut off aid to the Saigon regime, and every Cambodian and Vietnamese who had cast his lot with us wound up dead, in a "re-education camp" or among the boat people in the South China Sea whose wives and children were routinely assaulted by Thai pirates.

    In that first year of "peace" in Southeast Asia, 20 times as many Cambodians perished as all the Americans who died in 10 years of war.

    In Iraq, a collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States -- emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world -- is a real possibility.

    Yet what Edmund Burke said remains true: "(N)o war can be long carried on against the will of the people." And the American people are losing, if they have not lost, the will to continue this war. They are weary of the daily killing and dying, and of the endless talk of "progress" when all they see is death. They believe the war was a mistake, and they want to come home.

    Our hawkish elites bemoan the fact that Americans seem ready to give up on Iraq when U.S. casualties are not 10 percent of those we took in the Korean War. That is because they do not understand the nation.


    House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., left, Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., right, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, celebrate with fellow Democrats during the ection-night rally in Washington in this Nov. 7, 2006 file photo. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

    Americans are not driven by some ideological vocation to reform mankind. We do not have the patience or perseverance of great imperial peoples. If an issue is not seen as vital to our own liberty and security, we will not fight long for some abstraction like democracy, self-determination or human rights.

    It is a myth that we went to war to save the world from fascism. We went to war in 1941 because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. That Hitler had overrun France, booted the British off the continent and invaded Stalin's empire was not a reason to send American boys across the ocean to die.

    In 1990, Americans were not persuaded to throw Iraq out of Kuwait until Bush 1 got to talking about Saddam's nuclear weapons. Even after 9-11, Americans were skeptical of marching to Baghdad until we were told Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and probably intended to use them on us. Americans have often had to be lied into war.

    Democrats are probably reading the country right. Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.

    But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.

    Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .

    http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/P..._the_exit_ramp
    Quite an indictment!

    The man seems real angry and frustrated!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Blair hails heavyweight successor
    By Ironduke in forum International Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 16 Nov 06,, 20:19
  2. Secret Cabinet memo admits Iraq is fuelling UK terror
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30 Oct 06,, 06:01
  3. Down with the Downing Street Memo
    By Major_Armstrong in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20 Jun 05,, 18:02
  4. Memo gate act II?
    By Bill in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24 Mar 05,, 20:44
  5. Congressional memo to future generations: You're screwed
    By nickshepAK in forum International Economy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Dec 04,, 01:34

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts