Are inaccurate complaints undermining the war effort?

Great Debates
21

Just as an aside, I’ve mostly been watching CNN and MSNBC, and I have seen numerous reports from commanders in the field criticizing the lack of “feet on the ground”. But that’s beside my point.

In terms of the Rumsfeld/Myers press conference, I am disturbed by the vehement tone and reaction from them both. First off, the question from the reporter asking for Rumsfeld’s reaction to criticism of the initial war plan was entirely predictable. That Myers stepped in to defend Rumsfeld appeared rehearsed to me, and that indicates a bigger problem.

As I have noted in another thread, I don’t want Rumsfeld admitting to critical mistakes at this point, publicly, even if he made one/some. But I do want him to step up to the level of accountability.

As any good manager will tell you, you have to step up and accept responsibility to the errors of your subordinates. In private, you can rip your subs a new asshole. But in the press conference, I would have wanted to Rumsfeld to say, “I am responsible for this war plan. Although I did not generate all the details, I reviewed, agreed with it, and authorized it. Any failure of the plan is my responsibility, and I should be held accountable. It is too early to assess the general success or failure of the initial plan, but I believe that it has been a stunning success, and will be viewed so when looked back in review once all the facts are known. The plan has changed, to reflect changing conditions on the ground, and that is all I’m going to say about it.”

His passing off responsibility for the plan to Tommy Franks is cowardly - even if it were totally Tommy’s plan. From my perspective, the emotive response from Rumsfeld/Myers reinforces for me the idea that there has been real dissention among the higher ranks - opposite of what their actual words were intended to impress.

22

Right, General Wallace is the one (and I believe only) officer to make such complaints on the record.

Incidentally, the New York Times lead editorial today disagrees with these criticisms.

Imagine the New York Times defending Rumsfeld!

23

Sure, but how many more points does he lose for admitting that he’s gonna try the same ungrounded smear, albeit from a slightly different direction?

I mean, this is, what, the third such “Are <insert criticism of George W. Bush’s war drive> undermining the war effort?” thread he’s started in the last week, ainnit? Is there a point to any of them, other than his ideological “you anti-war people are endangering the troops, so shut up!” viewpoint?

24

—BTW one can make a case that since the war will only end when the Coalition has total victory, a rapid Coalition victory will be better for Iraqi civilians.—

Yes, but that case works both ways. If the criticism of Rumsfeld’s misjudged methods and overly rushed timetable for beginning is valid, then HE is the one responsible for extra soldier and civilian deaths. Not war protestors. Not the Iraqis for engaging in predictable (and predicted!) perfidy. Not his critics. Him. So, of course he has an interest in telling people to shut up and stop criticizing.

No. Liberal scientific method. No one gets the final say, and no one has special authority. Even if words hurt or offend people. Rumsfeld doesn’t buy that method: he wants to be arbiter of truth and debate. But in this world, trying to do that just makes one a big pathetic loser. We don’t live in Plato’s Republic, and Rumsfeld is no philosopher-king anyway.

This administration needs to stop blaming all their troubles on “dissent.” It’s ridiculous. They’ve paint themselves into corners where they can never, even in theory, be wrong (there’s a spin for every eventuality), and everything is someone else’s fault. It’s unconvincing and childish. They’re the ones in charge: they make the decisions, and they have to make them KNOWING that there will be critics.

25

december,

Perhaps we can shorten this process by you simply putting forth who exactly you feel is both qualified and justified to judge the war effort. Obviously the anti-war left (I think you referred to them as the Anti-America Left in another thread) is right out. The media is obviously out, as seen in your BBC thread. The legislature obviously cannot, since that would simply be partisan bickering.

My questions to you:

  1. Who, pray tell, is allowed in your world to actually (horror of horrors) debate foreign policy and military decisions?
  2. Is our situation in Iraq so militarily tenuous that people commenting on things on CNN can drastically, or even noticably, have any effect on the day-to-day war effort? God help us if that is truly the case.
26

Should the thread title be “Are fantasies and utter bullshit undermining the true peace and security effort?” But the thread would be pretty short then.

27

Anyone at all. We enjoy Freedom of speech.

That’s a good question. Today’s good news suggests that the criticism was way off base, but it also suggests that the bogus criticism didn’t really hurt the war effort.

28

IIRC, the only upper enchelon politico who voiced moderation was Secretary of State Powell. Well, what the hell does he know about military matters and war plans anyway? Our government is set up to have civilian control of the military. So it is right and just that people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield: the civilian authorities who never have heard a shot fired in anger be the ones to determine what the generals need to carry out the mission assigned to them. And what right do current or former military general officers have to question any decisions/policies/plans made by our leadership? What the hell do these armchair (or out there in the field fighting) generals know about military matters?

As for the troops, I don’t think they give a damn about what some talking head on FOX says. I’m pretty sure a solid 10 hours of sleep on a real mattress, a meal of real food and not canned or dehydrated crap, and enough ammo, fuel, batteries, etc… so they can get their job done and get the hell back home is all they’re interested in.

The troops might be interested in the newspapers though. Not to read them, but as I remember, we never got enough toilet paper with our C rations. I don’t suppose the MREs come with any vast improvement.

29

Wonderful. So I guess that until some proof can be offered of a direct link between public and/or military quesitoning of policy and increased American or Iraqi casualties, we can put an end to this particular line of OPs, right? Or is there something actually to debate?

30

Since America’s two top military leaders endorsed the OP, it’s a valid debate, even if I don’t fully agree with them.

31

Welll, actually, if someone offered a “direct link”" there would be no debate. The debate is precisely because there is a level of subjectivity to the effect such criticisms of the war plan may have.

32

Oops.

Read through this:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/06/vietnam.vs.kosovo/

seems like there’s a rather familiar guy in there criticizing the war a war is being conducted. And that’s just a small part of the start of it. In fact, Rumsfeld later made quite a habit for himself of shuttling around the news networks casting doubts about the wisdom of Clinton’s approach in Kosovo, while troops were on the ground. He even made sure to note that he supported our troops even while criticizing their operation.

Oops!

Also, consider the possibility maybe Rumsfeld is worried not so much about criticism about demoralizing our troops: but losing control over the President’s ear.
That is: people are obviously not simply speaking to the press, but trying to speak to the President directly about reconsidering the wisdom of the strategy Rumsfeld sold him on. This is a direct threat to Rumsfeld’s gasp on power.

33

Well, I’ve been reading a lot of war threads, but have been reluctant to add my thoughts as I’ve been sitting on the fence regarding this conflict. But to answer the OP, I’ll make a few coments in regards to the plan, more specifically troop deployment and logistical support.

In another thread, a couple of posters provided links detailing the criticism. I was especially interested in the Sy Hersh article. What caught my attention was the following (I’ve included some of the relevant material from the article):

(snip)

“The critical moment, one planner said, came last fall, during the buildup for the war, when Rumsfeld decided that he would no longer be guided by the Pentagon’s most sophisticated war-planning document, the TPFDL—time-phased forces-deployment list—which is known to planning officers as the tip-fiddle (tip-fid, for short). A TPFDL is a voluminous document describing the inventory of forces that are to be sent into battle, the sequence of their deployment, and the deployment of logistical support.”

(snip)

“Rumsfeld further stunned the Joint Staff by insisting that he would control the timing and flow of Army and Marine troops to the combat zone. Such decisions are known in the military as R.F.F.s—requests for forces. He, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when and where.”

(snip)

“…Rumsfeld simply failed to anticipate the consequences of protracted warfare. He put Army and Marine units in the field with few reserves and an insufficient number of tanks and other armored vehicles. (The military men say that the vehicles that they do have have been pushed too far and are malfunctioning.) Supply lines—inevitably, they say—have become overextended and vulnerable to attack, creating shortages of fuel, water, and ammunition.”

When I read the entire article, particularly those items I’ve included above, my jaw dropped. Having served in the Air Force during Desert Shield/Desert Storm as a Logistics Plans Officer (more specifically - I was responsible at the base level for helping coordinate the deployment of people/equipment from the base to the final destinations), I am well acquainted with the Time Phased Force Deployment List (TPFDL) and the level of planning and detail that goes into creating the document.

Once a plan is initiated to go to war, the TPFDL allows those at the base level know which units, people, and equipment are to be deployed, when to deploy, and where. From that document, information flows down the chain of command to the base level so that the logistics planners can help mobilize the required people and equipment.

Now, a war plan (and TPFDL) can be tailored depending on a host of factors. For example, there are numerous standard packages for deploying F-16 fighters to a given location. That is, if one wants to deploy, say eight F-16’s to location X, then one also has to include the deployment of the necessary support personnel and equipment for those eight F-16’s in the plan. You can’t arbitrarily decide to cut the support (Actually, you can, but then you are seriously degrading the operational capability of that eight F-16 fighter package). And if I were a squadron commander of that eight F-16 fighter package and I did not have the full complement of support personnel and equipment necessary to do the job required, I would be extremely pissed.

What really got to me was the second snippet above. It’s as if Rumsfeld has no idea how complicated and difficult it is to coordinate the movement of thousands of troops and equipment (or if he does then it appears that he doesn’t care). There’s certain sequences in the deployment of troops and equipment that need to be followed. If you bypass or override that sequence, then you’re effectively making it that much more difficult for the troops do to their required jobs.

It’s one thing to criticize Rumsfeld on how many combat troops are required to fight the war (a political decision). It’s an entirely different matter when you don’t provide the necessary support troops/equipment to allow the combat troops to complete their assigned mission in an effective manner (a military decision). If it’s the former, then I can see understand why Rumsfeld, Myers, et al are upset. If it’s the latter, then the criticism is, in my opinion, justified.

34

Well, I’ve been reading a lot of war threads, but have been reluctant to add my thoughts as I’ve been sitting on the fence regarding this conflict. But to answer the OP, I’ll make a few coments in regards to the plan, more specifically troop deployment and logistical support.

In another thread, a couple of posters provided links detailing the criticism. I was especially interested in the Sy Hersh article. What caught my attention was the following (I’ve included some of the relevant material from the article):

(snip)

“The critical moment, one planner said, came last fall, during the buildup for the war, when Rumsfeld decided that he would no longer be guided by the Pentagon’s most sophisticated war-planning document, the TPFDL—time-phased forces-deployment list—which is known to planning officers as the tip-fiddle (tip-fid, for short). A TPFDL is a voluminous document describing the inventory of forces that are to be sent into battle, the sequence of their deployment, and the deployment of logistical support.”

(snip)

“Rumsfeld further stunned the Joint Staff by insisting that he would control the timing and flow of Army and Marine troops to the combat zone. Such decisions are known in the military as R.F.F.s—requests for forces. He, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when and where.”

(snip)

“…Rumsfeld simply failed to anticipate the consequences of protracted warfare. He put Army and Marine units in the field with few reserves and an insufficient number of tanks and other armored vehicles. (The military men say that the vehicles that they do have have been pushed too far and are malfunctioning.) Supply lines—inevitably, they say—have become overextended and vulnerable to attack, creating shortages of fuel, water, and ammunition.”

When I read the entire article, particularly those items I’ve included above, my jaw dropped. Having served in the Air Force during Desert Shield/Desert Storm as a Logistics Plans Officer (more specifically - I was responsible at the base level for helping coordinate the deployment of people/equipment from the base to the final destinations), I am well acquainted with the Time Phased Force Deployment List (TPFDL) and the level of planning and detail that goes into creating the document.

Once a plan is initiated to go to war, the TPFDL allows those at the base level know which units, people, and equipment are to be deployed, when to deploy, and where. From that document, information flows down the chain of command to the base level so that the logistics planners can help mobilize the required people and equipment.

Now, a war plan (and TPFDL) can be tailored depending on a host of factors. For example, there are numerous standard packages for deploying F-16 fighters to a given location. That is, if one wants to deploy, say eight F-16’s to location X, then one also has to include the deployment of the necessary support personnel and equipment for those eight F-16’s in the plan. You can’t arbitrarily decide to cut the support (Actually, you can, but then you are seriously degrading the operational capability of that eight F-16 fighter package). And if I were a squadron commander of that eight F-16 fighter package and I did not have the full complement of support personnel and equipment necessary to do the job required, I would be extremely pissed.

What really got to me was the second snippet above. It’s as if Rumsfeld has no idea how complicated and difficult it is to coordinate the movement of thousands of troops and equipment (or if he does then it appears that he doesn’t care). There are certain sequences in the deployment of troops and equipment that need to be followed. If you bypass or override those sequences, then you’re effectively making it that much more difficult for the troops do to their required jobs.

It’s one thing to criticize Rumsfeld on how many combat troops are required to fight the war (a political decision). It’s an entirely different matter when you don’t provide the necessary support troops/equipment to allow the combat troops to complete their assigned mission in an effective manner (a military decision). If it’s the former, then I can see understand why Rumsfeld, Myers, et al are upset. If it’s the latter, then the criticism is, in my opinion, justified.

35

This statement has already been criticized…But, just to add to the pile on to note how utterly poor an analogy it is. What you are doing here in this thread (and what Rumsfeld did even moreso) isn’t simply not wanting to listen to certain things you don’t want to hear but rather are questioning whether it is even appropriate that they be said!!

I have never ever ever heard even the most extreme anti-war protester suggest that it is inappropriate for the news media to report the atrocities which have occurred under Saddam’s regime. In fact, I believe groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which if anything are probably more closely associated with folks toward the left end of the political spectrum, have played a key role in reporting them. The only complaints have been to reporting as fact claims (i.e., the case of the babies pulled off incubators in Kuwait back when Iraq invaded Kuwait) which have long been shown to be completely unsubstantiated and, as near as can be determined, most likely untrue.

36

Amnesty International has reported on Iraqi atrocities in the past. Nevertheless, they are being criticized by some for lack of balance in their current reporting of Iraq and the US. E.g.,

But, that’s just an aside. My point is that the war in Iraq is clearly doing considerable harm to Iraqi citizens, but it will likely benefit them in the long run. My hyperbolic statement mimicked the wording I was responding to, in order to make the point that one should evlauate the benefits as well as the costs of the war.

37

As many as he likes if he honestly and bravely admits defeat in the same way. As much as I disagree with his politics, would that all of us here were so noble.

It seems we are all fishing around for some complaints and criticism to debate the accuracy of. december’s OP said

Might I ask, to which specific criticism does this refer, quoting the words and the speaker?

beagle

Are we talking about Fox news again?

38

How about the Iraqis? Oh, I forgot. They already tried, only to be backstabbed by their liberator wannabees, who laughed all the way as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were butchered.

39

Except that you don’t do either. You make up benefits that may or (more likely) may not happen, and consider slaughtering villages wholesale and destabilizing large parts of the world, along with driving thousands into the arms of the fanatics a small price to pay.

I guess the Empire State Building will have to come down before you start thinking more in terms of cause and effect rather than just expecting intentions to realize themselves out of thin air.

40

Are you missing the bitter irony in my words, fuelled by what I’d just read?