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.
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’.’
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
