[lit-ideas] Re: Rumsfeld

  • From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:58:44 +0900

On 2004/05/13, at 13:09, Scribe1865@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Rumsfeld is the only Secretary of Defense to have truly challenged the
> fat-cat Pentagon weapons industry crowd. For example, weapons 
> corporations and
> lobbyists were trying to ram this mobile howitzer weapon (think it was 
> named,
> unfortunately, The Crusader) into the budget, and Rumsfeld killed it. 
> Because he's
> only Defense Secretary, the lobbyists succeeded in getting it 
> reintroduced
> into legislation, trying to maneuver past Rumsfeld, but Rumsfeld 
> managed to kill
> it again.

This side of Rumsfeld is appealing. No question about it. But as a 
recent piece in the Proceedings of the Naval Institute puts it, what 
the businessman calls efficiency the military sees as lack of depth and 
value measured in dollars translates into more body bags.

Killing Crusader was clearly a good idea--it is not a weapon needed on 
any current battlefield. But the Rumsfeld Wolfowitz strategy in Iraq 
and the blowing off General Shinseki's assessment that a 300,000 man 
force was required for sufficient boots on the ground recall Bob 
MacNamara and the Ford whiz-kids he brought with him to the Pentagon 
and their calculations (based on the very best operations analysis 
principles) of how many tons of bombs would suffice to bring the North 
Vietnamese to their knees.

This is not the first time in history that smart people have been 
blindsided by the narrowness of their vision and should, in all 
fairness, pay the price of their incompetence.

Give the man a rifle and put him on patrol in Fallujah.

John L. McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd.
55-13-202 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku
Yokohama, Japan 220-0006

Tel 81-45-314-9324
Email mccreery@xxxxxxx

"Making Symbols is Our Business"

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: