# Rumsfeld: "It will be a long, hard slog." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969 "2003-10-22T20:58:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/61 "2003-10-24T20:01:47Z")
Rummy keeps complaining of the agencies not being able to adapt or to change… but part of it is fear. Should any major official in any intelligence agency express negative views of the Iraq adventure they will have “their wives exposed as CIA spies”. Politically its too costly for individuals to speak out… so everyone pretends things are rosy and keep quiet. The CIA and the FBI already have tendencies for being slow and face saving oriented rather than pro-active/innovative… things are only getting worse the way detractors get hit hard. I kind of agree with Rummy that those agencies need some change thou… to much politics and career worried officials. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/62 "2003-10-25T00:01:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\* > Now wait a minute. What is it we’re slogging through? > > Why is it that journalists can tell us that it looks a little bleak and scary in Iraq and Bush supporters don’t believe it? But Rumsfeld can change his tune in sixteen days and it is finally widely accepted? > > **If tomorrow Rumsfeld said that he has been misquoted and misunderstood and that his memo meant that we are _sliding_ through the problems in Iraq…** bolding mine Funny that you said that: Rumsfeld **is** backtracking his “slog” statement, in a very, err… ridiculous way: [http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,216373,00.html](http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,216373,00.html) [QUOTE] Mr Rumsfeld burst into a regular Pentagon briefing on Thursday unannounced, armed with what he said was the dictionary’s preferred definition of the word ‘slog’. Advertisement ‘Slog: to hit or strike hard, to drive with blows, to assail violently,’ he said. ‘And that’s precisely what the US has been doing and intends to continue to do.’ … Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged the word had other meanings when a reporter noted the American Heritage dictionary’s preferred definition of slog: ‘To walk or progress with a slow, heavy pace; plod as in ‘slog across the swamp’.’ [QUOTE] Hilarious. I think this old man is losing it. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/63 "2003-10-25T00:04:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > > Now wait a minute. What is it we’re slogging through? > > Why is it that journalists can tell us that it looks a little bleak and scary in Iraq and Bush supporters don’t believe it? But Rumsfeld can change his tune in sixteen days and it is finally widely accepted? > > **If tomorrow Rumsfeld said that he has been misquoted and misunderstood and that his memo meant that we are _sliding_ through the problems in Iraq…** bolding mine Funny that you said that: Rumsfeld **is** backtracking his “slog” statement, in a very, err… ridiculous way: [http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,216373,00.html](http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,216373,00.html) > [@](#): > > Mr Rumsfeld burst into a regular Pentagon briefing on Thursday unannounced, armed with what he said was the dictionary’s preferred definition of the word ‘slog’. > > ‘Slog: to hit or strike hard, to drive with blows, to assail violently,’ he said. ‘And that’s precisely what the US has been doing and intends to continue to do.’ > … > Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged the word had other meanings when a reporter noted the American Heritage dictionary’s preferred definition of slog: ‘To walk or progress with a slow, heavy pace; plod as in ‘slog across the swamp’.’ Hilarious. I think this old man is losing it. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/64 "2003-10-25T00:12:36Z")
Rummy is forbidden from using words with more than one meaning? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/65 "2003-10-25T00:16:47Z")
Is that for real? Are you sure that’s not an Onion piece? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/66 "2003-10-25T00:35:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*Rummy is forbidden from using words with more than one meaning? \*\* What’s with you lately **Brutus**? Your recent posts aren’t like the ones I remember. Got new RL obs? “It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.” becomes “It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard strike.” OR “It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard drive with blows.” OR “It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard violent assailment.” These all kind of detail the “way or another” we can win in Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly seems like ad hoc spin. But of course, there _is_ ‘plausible deniability.’ **How often can one play the plausible deniability card before it’s no longer plausible?** 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/67 "2003-10-25T19:46:18Z")
Of course it’s a slog. Just killing the terrorists that went through camps in Afghanistan during the 1990s is quite a task. Now al Qaeda is active in Iraq, of course. Usama did mention that. What should we do, follow ANSWER’s idea and pull out leaving a power vacuum for Saddam or the Islamists to fill? What I don’t understand is why Rummy is so set on his pre-war estimates of the numbers of troops needed for the guerilla fighting that he appears to be getting soldiers killed because of it. It’s jihad season in Iraq and Rummy is acting like our path is strewn with rose petals – troop deployment wise. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/68 "2003-10-25T19:54:10Z")
Well, if you have been looking at polls recently people are more concerned by the pricetag than the body count. Presumably for example that 87 billion dollars was 43 billion with a higher body count that would make the Iraq war look better in most people’s eyes. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/69 "2003-10-25T20:01:40Z")
After all, if a soldier dies, he’s made a great sacrifice for his country. If we’re taxed to pay for a war, we’re being robbed by the government. Ergo, we prefer other people to sacrifice their lives to us sacrificing our money. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/70 "2003-10-25T22:17:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ChaosGod \* > \*\*[link](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=456213) > > According to an internal memo addressed to senior Pentagon officials, Rumsfeld thinks that: > > “My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves” :eek: > > and > > “It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.” :rolleyes: > > and, most amazingly: > > “Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror,” he wrote. “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” He added: “Is our current situation such that the harder we work the behinder we get?” :smack: > > So, are they finally beginning to see the (very intense) light? > Why then, is Bush saying that everything is just peachy over there? \*\* Not sure I understand your point? Bush made it clear from day 1, using plain English, that this would be a long hard road. He spoke in terms of years and it would be fought in every corner of the world. It is a different kind of war and it is has to be fought differently. When he declared an end to major battlefield efforts he meant it. The “shock and awe” battle groups have pulled out. What remains is a transitional police force. What I assume Rumsfield wanted was ideas. If you study past wars, you should understand that they are won by adapting to battlefield conditions. WWII was nothing short of a tech war. Victory was the result of cutting edge research into every aspect of warfare, which included: tank, aircraft, ship, rocket, encryption, and surveillance technology. Maybe I interpreted “long hard road” incorrectly but I took it to mean this would not be an easy task. Rumsfield’s memo would certainly indicate this is the case. The murder rate of US soldiers in Iraq is lower than that of a large US city so I’m not sure where the surprise is. This is still a war. B-52’s have been replaced by Humvees and helicopters. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/71 "2003-10-25T23:07:41Z")
Hey, what’s up with Rumsfeld’s pronunciation? He keeps saying “slug” instead of “slog.” Is this some way to emphasize the “to slug; to hit hard” def. over the obvious “to make (one’s way) heavily and with great effort; to plod; to toil” def.? (Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary) “It will be a long, hard (plod)” makes a metric shitload more sense to me than “It will be a long, hard (punch).” Does this, err, human think he can spin _individual words by pronouncing them wrong_? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/72 "2003-10-25T23:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\* > Not sure I understand your point? > \*\* That there’s been an admission that we’re slogging, (implying the the much denied Q word). That there’s been an admission, that we don’t know how we’re doing in the WoT. That there’s been a realization and admission that we’re not paying enough attention to the long term issues. These are my guesses about what **CG** might’ve had for his point. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/73 "2003-10-25T23:56:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 'possum stalker \* > \*\* > Hey, what’s up with Rumsfeld’s pronunciation? He keeps saying “slug” instead of “slog.” > \*\* I think it’s worth noting that he chose the definition of a verb to explain his use of the word as a noun. :smack: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/74 "2003-10-26T00:05:54Z")
As the old saying goes, “Verbing weirds nouns.” ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/75 "2003-10-26T03:50:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\*Not sure I understand your point? Bush made it clear from day 1, using plain English, that this would be a long hard road… > Maybe I interpreted “long hard road” incorrectly but I took it to mean this would not be an easy task. Rumsfield’s memo would certainly indicate this is the case. \*\* Well then, why is he now childishly denying what he said? Does he really think that anyone, including his staunchest follower, will believe that by “slog” he meant “slug”? Is he embarrassed to admit that he contradicted himself? I believe so. You think otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/76 "2003-10-26T08:00:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ChaosGod \* > \*\*Well then, why is he now childishly denying what he said? Does he really think that anyone, including his staunchest follower, will believe that by “slog” he meant “slug”? Is he embarrassed to admit that he contradicted himself? I believe so. You think otherwise? \*\* I missed the denial part but I haven’t seen the news lately. I was under the impression he was royally pissed that his memo was leaked. He, of all people, should know that everything he puts into print should be considered a public document. The ability to restrict information flow has been made exponentially tougher with the Internet. His job is to get things done and it depends entirely on the people who work for him. He needs to recieve usefull information in a timely manner regarding changes in the field. I understand his memo (at least I think I do) but I would have chosen my words as if my worst critic was going to read it. I always read my own emails with that in mind before I hit send. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/77 "2003-10-26T11:06:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\* The “shock and awe” battle groups have pulled out. What remains is a transitional police force. > > What I assume Rumsfield wanted was ideas. If you study past wars, you should understand that they are won by adapting to battlefield conditions. WWII was nothing short of a tech war. Victory was the result of cutting edge research into every aspect of warfare, which included: tank, aircraft, ship, rocket, encryption, and surveillance technology. \*\* ``` What do you mean by a "transitional police force" ? The same troops remain there... and they haven't been trained to be a police force. ``` I agree totally on the adapting to battle… and apparently the US thinks this is a regular “battle” against terrorism. A military conflict. So due to lack of adaptation the US is fighting in Iraq against rebel elements instead of putting an effort of rooting out Al Qaeda where they really were more common or even present. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/78 "2003-10-26T23:34:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*What do you mean by a “transitional police force” ? The same troops remain there… and they haven’t been trained to be a police force. > > I agree totally on the adapting to battle… and apparently the US thinks this is a regular “battle” against terrorism. A military conflict. So due to lack of adaptation the US is fighting in Iraq against rebel elements instead of putting an effort of rooting out Al Qaeda where they really were more common or even present. \*\* You are correct that the ground troops remain. But the ground troops represent only 1 part of the total military team that went in. And it is somewhat misleading of me to refer to ever soldier there as a transitional force. There is still an active war going on which is why, IMO, a blitzkrieg offence was used in the first place. I believe the idea was to capture a group of high ranking military leaders who could effect surrender. Instead of a distinctive end-date to the war, the Iraqi Army simply melted into the background. This is far from a worse case scenario for the war, but it would have been better if there was a surrender. And I agree with you that it would be more productive to attack Al Qaeda where they live but that wasn’t the only reason (again, IMO) that the US went after Saddam. 9/11 occurred because OBL objected to US soldiers on Saudi soil. US troops were there to support the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In order to leave the area it was necessary to end the stalemate that resulted from the 1st war with Iraq. And I would also add that it will become increasingly more difficult to deal with Al Qaueda as they reform in places like Pakistan. It is already a hot-potato item in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/79 "2003-10-27T00:50:46Z")
You know that leaving Saudi Arabia helps and I know it too… but it was never clearly (or never at all ? ) stated as being a reason. Instead the WMD circus and other excuses were cooked up. ``` Diplomacy is for these things... you convince people of the idea that certain things must be done. Now most said that it was the wrong moment and way to take down Saddam. Especially when the big problem is terrorism... not Saddam. Was War the only way to take him down too ? This urgency to take down Saddam before any other options could be presented or relevance of the WMD threat. naturally stank of Oil Interests... ``` As for the “blitzkrieg” style of invasion… what else did you expect them to do ? You have loads of tanks and you want little casualties. Fast and mobile war were tech prevails over numbers. I disagree with you that it was plausible to capture high ranking people by this fast war… Baghdad has a few million people. Way too easy to dissapear no matter how fas you invade. Most Saddam cronies are being given in by informants instead now… As for the surrendering of officers. Consider the common (and correct) notion of the US invasion being illegal … would you surrender to Bush’s troops if you were a Iraqi general ? Afterall if the US isn’t respecting UN charter why would the “bloodlusting and revengeful” americans respect human rights ? Whoa in fact they didn’t… see Guantanamo. Plus the fact that every Iraqi general has a crime or two on his resume. Surrendering to the americans was to be dangerous and humiliating to any fool that accepted it. This was no formal war either in legitimacy or in the balance of power among the opponents. A formal surrender would never have been forthcoming IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969/80 "2003-10-27T14:11:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > I missed the denial part but I haven’t seen the news lately. I was under the impression he was royally pissed that his memo was leaked. He, of all people, should know that everything he puts into print should be considered a public document. [More on Administration leaks](http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/7023679.htm) (there’s a punchline). > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to “stop the leaks” to the media, or else. > > News of Bush’s order leaked almost immediately. > … > **Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he “didn’t want to see any stories” quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-it-will-be-a-long-hard-slog/208969.md?page=5)