I also don't know the intracies of the decisions he has made while he has been Secretary of Defense....which decisions were his, and which ones weren't. Which ones could be deemed failures and which ones can't.
So this post isn't about Rumsfeld's mistakes or failures in reference to the War in Iraq. This is more about what has gone down in the last week or so, with Rumsfeld catching a barrage from criticism for a taped Q&A session he had with the troops while he was in Iraq:
First of all, the media is spinning the event, because that wasn't all Rumsfeld said. Here's all of it:Wilson asked Rumsfeld, “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?” Shouts of approval and applause arose from other soldiers who had assembled in an aircraft hangar to see Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.
“We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,” Wilson, 31, of Nashville, Tenn., concluded after asking again.
“You go to war with the Army you have,” Rumsfeld replied, “not the Army you might want or wish to have.”
So you see, the media is only focusing on one sentence in a pretty lengthy passage, as if Rumsfeld was being insensitive and telling the soldiers to get used to it. He explained that it takes time to produce the weapons and armor needed to fight a war. That makes sense, although I don't know the time span nor do I know if it's taking too long for them to get it.SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.
I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.
The fact is, everyone (well, that actually care about the troops) want to make sure the soldiers have adequate protection every time the leave the base and place themselves in harm's way. Unfortunately that isn't reality. While every measure should be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of our troops, not everything can and will be given to them precisely when they need it. Hence the "go to war with the Army you have" statement. Rhetoric aside, you've got to make do. And the media placing spin on the story and politicans displaying fake outrage isn't going to change that fact.
But let's talk about the politicians for a second, particularly the so-called "maverick" John McCain and the "outcast", Trent Lott. Both have displayed their criticism over this questionnaire over the past week.
You see, I'm going to be a frame of mind one day to deliver a rant with John McCain's name all over it. Knowing me, it'll be sooner than later. As for Lott, his comments are very funny and ironic because 1. He's lucky he even has a Senate seat at all, which will probably change in 06, and 2. He never showed he had a set of cajones while he was Senate Majority Leader.
But here's a good question for those two, along with RINO Susan Collins: what are you doing to make sure the troops get the protection they need?
You see, Rumsfeld isn't an elected official. He only works for one. However, McCain, Lott, and Collins are elected officials. They are the ones that allocate the money into which budget and can pass legislation speeding up the production of weaponry. What have they done?
For the last month or so John McCain has been more concerned with baseball and boxing than he has with the War in Iraq, even to the point of holding up legislation in the Senate through the lame duck session for his boxing bill. Perhaps if McCain were more concerned about things that actually mattered, like the War in Iraq, troops would have more of the things they need. Instead, McCain would rather act as if he is the President of U.S. Sports.
And the last thing that the Democratic Party should ever complain about is troop preparedness, considering they made two men who voted against funds that make troop preparation possible their candidates for President and Vice-President. Their credibility on military and foreign issues is mostly shot, IMO. When they actually start showing some sort of initiative of actually caring about defending this country or adequately funding the military, someone might actually take them seriously.
Rumsfeld had a Q&A session with the troops when no other elected official, senator or representative, would do the same. He gave an honest answer to an honest question. Add to the fact that the question that was causing the controversy was planted by an embedded reporter. When McCain or Lott go to Iraq and get grilled, then they can talk. Until then, they are nothing but talk.