On 2004/05/13, at 14:39, Scribe1865@xxxxxxx wrote: > How do we know Rumsfeld blew off General Shinseki's troop assessment? > I > always thought the strategic scope of the war was between Myers, > Franks, Bush, and > Cheney--with Rumsfeld acting more as expedititor-manager than as > huckster of > battle plans. Is there evidence that he and Wolfowitz are a cabal? > What's the > dirt on Rummy? > This is old news. Been all over the Net for months. It was Rumsfeld who insisted on keeping the force deployed at around 135,000 troops, in defiance of advice from Shinseki and other Army generals who urged a force size of 300,000 or more. Iraq was supposed to be a demonstration of the new Rumsfeld doctrine of dependence on small, highly mobile forces with enhanced lethality based on use of high technology. Worked brilliantly against Saddam's regular forces, but, as predicted, has turned out to be a disaster in the "post major combat" phase of operations. Re Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz: The former is Secretary of Defense, the latter his immediate deputy. Both have long been associated with the Neocon/PNAC group that includes Cheney, Perle, etc. Both embody the messianic belief that if tyrants are deposed and free market principles introduced all will be well. Liberated peoples will dance in the streets and shower their liberators with flowers and oil contracts. Both repeatedly exhibited disdain for cautionary advice from both military and area studies experts who warned that things would not be so simple. 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