# Rumsfeld Godwinizes the Anti-War Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 19, 2006, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992 "2006-03-19T12:38:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/1 "2006-03-19T12:38:34Z")
[Rumsfeld: leaving Iraq like giving Nazis Germany](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060319/ts_nm/iraq_rumsfeld_dc) > [@](#): > > Leaving Iraq now would be like handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. > > “Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis,” he wrote in an essay in The Washington Post. The admistration has lost the debate, as well as the hearts and minds of the American voter. What we are witnessing now is desperate flailing, saying anything to justify remaining in the middle of the Iraq Civil War. It won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/2 "2006-03-19T12:44:17Z")
He’s such a goddam Nazi. Yes! I’m in first! Ha! Oh, that’s made my day. Sigh, yes I am bored. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/3 "2006-03-19T13:56:21Z")
> [@](#): > > **Rumsfeld:** > Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. 100 X 300 = 30,000. We were over 150,000 last year. What hapeened to them, were they all killed? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/4 "2006-03-19T14:02:37Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > 100 X 300 = 30,000. > We were over 150,000 last year. > What hapeened to them, were they all killed? “no one could have anticipated the American public to remember numbers we’ve given before.” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/5 "2006-03-19T14:07:56Z")
> [@wring](#): > > “no one could have anticipated the American public to remember numbers we’ve given before.” This post captures so much, with so little. Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/6 "2006-03-19T14:10:47Z")
> [@linked article](#): > > Rumsfeld’s view was that the Iraqi insurgency was failing. \ Well, y’know…when dick – um, I mean Dick – said _last throes_, he was speaking on a _geologic_ time scale, bless his heart… \ ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/7 "2006-03-19T14:13:46Z")
Far out. Not only are we helping the terroritst, we are helping the Nazis. What utter bullshit. To hell with Rummy. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/8 "2006-03-19T15:07:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > 100 X 300 = 30,000. > We were over 150,000 last year. > What hapeened to them, were they all killed? I thought battalions were more like 600-800 troops. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/9 "2006-03-19T15:12:39Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I thought battalions were more like 600-800 troops. That would be closer to a regiment. A battalion is normally defined as being three companies. 300-400 people is closer to the truth. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/10 "2006-03-19T15:25:05Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > 100 X 300 = 30,000. > We were over 150,000 last year. > What hapeened to them, were they all killed? > **[Iraq Now Has No Units Able to Stand Alone](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-25-fg-iraqarmy25-story.html)** > > The number of Iraqi army battalions judged capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. help has slipped from one to zero since September, Pentagon officials said Friday. > [@](#): > > The total number of Iraqi security forces is now about 232,000, said Peter Rodman, an assistant secretary of Defense who briefed reporters with Renuart. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/11 "2006-03-19T16:03:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That would be closer to a regiment. A battalion is normally defined as being three companies. 300-400 people is closer to the truth. In the US Army, maybe. The battalions I’m familiar with (which, I believe, are based on the British model) have four combat companies + HQ, and regiments don’t exist at all - the next level up is the brigade. 500-700 men at full stregth is perfectly believable, depending on the size of the individual companies. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/12 "2006-03-19T16:07:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That would be closer to a regiment. A battalion is normally defined as being three companies. 300-400 people is closer to the truth. Its been a long time but I remember my company had 4 squads of 12 men each plus a platoon leader and a platoon sargeant. Thats 50 per platoon. Times 3 regular platoons is 150. Plus a 30 man weapons platoon (M-60 and 60 mm mortars) brings it up to 180. Plus headquarters weenies made it about 190. So 3 companies is 570 swinging dicks. Then you add in a support company another 100 men. Plus all the G sections and attachments for Battalion HQ brings a full strength Battallion to about 800 men and pogues. Don’t forget to include Scouts and other special units and you can round a battallion to about a thousand. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/13 "2006-03-19T16:08:15Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] 100 X 300 = 30,000. We were over 150,000 last year. What hapeened to them, were they all killed?[/ a pretty good ratioQUOTE]This is one problem with merely giving total numbers of troops. Out of a total army of 150,000 a total of 50,000 actual combat troops would be a little on the skimpy side for support strength. The committment of 30,000 of the combat forces to a single battle would be a maximum effort because you have to hold back some for contingencies. Combat units need to be supported by Engineers, Signal Corps, Transportation, Supply, Quartermaster, Medical, Ordnace, and on and on. A ratio of 50,000 combat out of 150,000 total would be bad news for our Reserve and National Guard units who are the logistical support for our army in Iraq. If the Iraq army has insufficient numbers of support forces guess who will make up the deficiency. And it isn’t good news for our combat troops either. Does anyone think that we will leave large numbers of support forces is Iraq with their only protection being the Iraqi army? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/14 "2006-03-19T16:11:58Z")
[Structure of the US Army](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_army) > [@](#): > > ``` > 1. Field Army: Usually commanded by a General (GEN; note that abbreviations of military rank within the U.S. Army are given in all capital letters without a period or other punctuation). > 2. Corps: Consists of two or more divisions and organic support brigades. The commander is most often a Lieutenant General (LTG). > 3. Division: Usually commanded by a Major General (MG). > 4. Brigade (or group): Composed of typically three or more battalions, and commanded by a Colonel (COL) or Brigadier General (BG). (See Regiment for combat arms units.) > 5. Battalion (or squadron): **A Battalion usually consists of two to six companies and roughly 300 to 1000 soldiers.** Most units are organized into battalions. Cavalry units are formed into squadrons. A battalion-sized unit is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), supported by a Command Sergeant Major/E-9 (CSM). This unit consists of a Battalion Commander (CO, LTC), a Battalion Executive Officer (XO,MAJ), a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) and headquarters, 3-5 Company Commanders (CPT), 3-5 Company Executive Officers (1LT), 3-5 First Sergeants (1SG) and headquarters, 6 or more Platoon Leaders (2LT/1LT), 6 or more Platoon sergeants (SFC),and 12 or more Squad Leaders (any NCO). > 6. Company (or artillery battery/troop): A company usually consists of three to four platoons and roughly 100 to 130 soldiers. Artillery units are formed into batteries. Cavalry units are formed into troops. A company-sized unit is usually led by a Company Commander usually the rank of Captain/O-3 (CPT) supported by a First Sergeant/E-8 (1SG). This unit consists of a Company Commander (CO, CPT), a Company Executive Officer (XO,1LT), A First Sergeant(1SG) and a headquarters, Two or more Platoon Leaders (2LT/1LT), two or more Platoon Sergeants (SFC), and four or more Squad Leaders (any NCO). > 7. Platoon: Usually led by a lieutenant supported by a Sergeant First Class/E-7 (SFC). This unit consists of a Platoon Leader (2LT/1LT), a Platoon Sergeant (SFC), and two or more Squad Leaders (any NCO). > 8. Section (military unit): Usually directed by Staff Sergeants/E-6 (SSG) who supply guidance for junior NCO Squad leaders. Often used in conjunction with platoons at the company level. > 9. Squad: Squad leaders are often Staff Sergeants/E-6 (SSG), Sergeants/E-5 (SGT), or Corporals/E-4 (CPL). This unit consists of eight to ten Soldiers. > 10. Fire team: Usually consists of four Soldiers: a fire team leader, a grenadier, and two riflemen. Fire team leaders are often Corporals/E-4 (CPL). > > ``` Empahsis added. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/15 "2006-03-19T16:14:22Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That would be closer to a regiment. A battalion is normally defined as being three companies. 300-400 people is closer to the truth. A battalion is whatever is necessary to accomplish the mission. When I was in the military, the official Seabee battalion size was listed as 762 personnel. We rarely would be that flush except in wartime. Of course, our battalions were made up of construction people, so perhaps we were larger than a combat battalion. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/16 "2006-03-19T16:17:39Z")
I think we need to step back a bit and remember that the whole “no Nazi comparisons” thing is an internet geek prohibition not shared by the public at large. Comparing anything to Nazis is always fraught, since they are the nadir of recent evil, but in this case I can see where Rummy is coming from, even though I disagree with him, and even though the rest of his speech as reported appears to be full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/17 "2006-03-19T16:22:56Z")
> [@Abbie Normal](#): > > [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqarmy25feb25,0,2476879.story?coll=la-home-headlines](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqarmy25feb25,0,2476879.story?coll=la-home-headlines) From the bottom of the same article: > [@](#): > > The size of an Iraqi battalion varies according to its type but most number several hundred troops. I’d interpret “several hundred” as 300-400, but that may be incorrect. I don’t think there’s enough information to know exactly where the discrepancy can be found… ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/18 "2006-03-19T16:24:27Z")
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi says Iraq is already engaged in Civil War; he is obviously misinformed. We have to be patient; we’re winning the war on terror. We’ve turned the corner in Iraq. The insurgents are on their last legs. The terrorists are viewing the conflict in Iraq with fear. And other lies too numerous to mention. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/19 "2006-03-19T16:47:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Empahsis added. > > We now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing. Er, that would be Rummy bashing. Bush’ll get his later. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992/20 "2006-03-19T17:03:33Z")
I can cite one Iraqi battalion with [between 700 and 800 troops](http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/index.html): > [@](#): > > The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military. As a substitute for a number, ‘several’ is, IME, an extremely vague term, with usage varying widely from one person to the next. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) says: > [@](#): > > 1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away. > \ > > pron. (used with a pl. verb) > > An indefinite but small number; some or a few: Several of the workers went home sick. IOW, I wouldn’t make estimates based on someone’s use of the word ‘several’ unless I knew what they meant by it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-godwinizes-the-anti-war-debate/348992.md?page=2)