[lit-ideas] Re: Rumsfeld

  • From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:55:17 +0900

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 

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

Other related posts: