Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,
I can only ask, what kind of moron puts a dinning hall, in a tent that size, in a war zone? We are just inviting this kind of violence against us.
How can we be so naive? Or arrogant?
This is just one more in a string of egregious mistakes made by our military leaders. Those that are calling this war won have their heads where the sun doesn’t shine.
It ain’ over till it’s over, and this war is far from won.

Rocky
“what kind of moron puts a dinning hall, in a tent that size, in a war zone?”
- A liberal. I’m just kidding Rocky. With xmas and finally agreeing with you on something, I feel alittle festive. LOL!!!
Seriously though, I couldn’t agree with you more about that. From experience, I could only answer that it was probably a junior officer who made a serious mistake. He more than likely went for convinence instead of safety.

“Those that are calling this war won have their heads where the sun doesn’t shine.”
- This is just more double speak from Bush and co.
Technically, the war is over and we won, so they aren’t really lying. This is the aftermath phase that we are dealing with.
Yea, whatever. US soldiers are dying in a foreign land while in armed combat. Your right, its not over until its really over. When the last man comes home.

Alejo?

Rocky -
If you don’t eat in a tent, where else are you going to eat? There have probably been a million mealtimes in tents in Iraq since 2003, and this is the first to be bombed. One thing the American public has to accept sooner or later is that in war, as in life, there is an acceptable level of risk.

Driving a car, flying in a plane, and even living in a house with electricity all come with a level of risk that we all accept and most of us understand. Fighting a war involves much higher levels of risk and both the G.I.’s and their commanders understand this. If Rumsfeld is sacked, it should be because he made mistakes that another man wouldn’t have made, not just because things are going poorly. If he’s truly incompetant, get rid of him. If it’s really Bush/Cheney’s fault, and Rumsfeld is doing a reasonably good job under the circumstances, then the Democrats should have said so and beaten them in November.

However, regardless of who is in the Pentagon, we the public need to accept losses as part of combat. We need to understand that we’re killing thousands of Iraqis and they are killing hundreds of our boys. This is war, albeit not full-scale. Those who volunteered for combat knew that death was a real possibility, and we should weep for their families, but not dishonor their conscious sacrifice. All American servicemen and women made a sacrifice of personal safety and took on a level of risk by volunteering, and we should honor their deaths as noble, not deride them as mistakes. At the same time, those in command do need to do what is reasonable to protect the soldiers, which is another way of honoring their sacrifice.

Oh, and to follow up on the tent thing: if it had been in a building it would have been worse. It was a suicide bomber, not an outside missile attack. They need to check ID’s at the door, not change the venue.

Yo Chops, Lets put up a tent the size of a football field and use it for a dinning hall. Give me a break. You might as well paint a great big target on it.
That’s arrogance, or complete stupidity. It doesn’t matter that the bomb happened from inside or outside. Lets think World Trade Center. Lets put too damn many people in one spot.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.

You would think that any one intrested in security would maybe put up a few smaller tents, maybe spread out.
Gee you think that would be less of a security risk?

I don’t particularly like Rumsfeld and it may be politically necessary for him to resign now that he is attacked on both the left and the right.

I did, however, see a good article about why he SHOULD NOT go by the military historian Victor Davis Hanson. This is the link - http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200412230821.asp. It is a well reasoned counter to the nearly unanimous media verdict on Donald Rumsfeld.

David,

I happen to be of the mindset that Rumsfeld’s days are numbered - it is only a matter of that moment when his scapegoating will be of it’s most politically usefulness to the White House.

We are just one more embarrassing revelation away from why Ashcroft was shown the door. We are just one more Auto Pen story away from Def Con Kerik. I think Karl Rove’s plan is that the more he waits to pull the plug on Rummy - and the more the chorus grows louder for his ouster, the better - the timing is the White House’s best chance at weathering a disastrous outcome to the January elections in Iraq.

There have probably been a million mealtimes in tents in Iraq since 2003

And given Halliburton’s record so far, about four times more meals were charged to the American tax-payer than were actually served.

Apparently, Halliburton ran the mess hall. I suspect security checks were eating into their profit margin.

In other words, while he has a lot to answer for, it’s hard to come down on Rumsfeld for this. Though he was the prime motivator for privatizing things like security and food services for the military. Hmm…

The scary answer out there that evryone is avoiding is the draft. Increasing troop strength is the only logical answer to resolving the stability issue in Iraq.

Bush wants to avoid the draft, but it’s either that or pull out and go home. I am afraid even with troop strengthening that America has already lost the edge to the insurgents, who understand that America will not long bear this ever increasing econimic burden and the loss of lives. Welcome to Vietnam II.

Chops said If Rumsfeld is sacked, it should be because he made mistakes that another man wouldn’t have made, not just because things are going poorly.

And history has taught that there have been better men for the job. But, also, if things are going poorly, it is Rumsfeld’s, the DoD, and the Pentagon’s fault. No question. It is not like we are facing an enemy of overwhelming numbers, or an enemy that has us outgunned, or, even, and enemy that is very creative and innovative. Simple fact is, we don’t have enough troops on the ground to secure the country. And since before the war, I and thousands upon thousands of critics have been warning that we don’t have a sufficient force to accomplish the task - we demanded a UN multnational force, or at least a very much larger NATO contingent, we also warned from the earliest days of Viet Nam and the lessons learned there about guerilla warfare and civil war and an enemy that both blends into the general population as well as exploits that population.

The plain truth is, Rumsfeld planned for none of this. He is grossly incompetent, and shares the responsibility for the war going badly along with the President, and the Pentagon. Though as we have learned, some in the Pentagon tried to throw up red flags, as did Powell, but, to no avail.

Jack, I read Hanson’s article. Thanks for the link. It reads like a littany of excuses and blame redirection. Its underlying premise is that in war, no one should be held responsible or accountable for the progress or outcome. That is sheer nonsense. If the war is going badly, replace the leadership with someone more likely to get the job done or at least significantly improve job performance.

However, that is Bush’s responsiblity. They both like making decisions, and both refuse to be responsible for them if the results are not what was expected. So, the war will drag on, badly… How very, very sad for our GI’s and their families, and our ever growing national debt, monetary and otherwise. It can, and could, be otherwise, which Hanson is unwilling to admit.

Bert, thanks for the input. I am not so confident Rumsfeld will be replaced: his replacement would be an admission by Bush of a failed Iraq policy and strategy. However, if I am wrong, you raise a very important consideration. How to turn his replacement into a political gain - timing is a crucial factor in that equation.

As you say, if the elections are viewed world wide as a sham bringing Iraq no closer to the autonomous democracy and peace, replacing Rumsfeld might be turned to advantage. However, as we have seen by his appointments, Bush values loyalty above almost all else: making for long odds on his being replaced.

Greg, the window of opportunity for pulling out and declaring our job done, while telling the regional nations near Iraq, and NATO, and the EU, it is their turn to step up to the plate, is closing.

On the day Bush declared the Mission Accomplished, the US could have put the world on notice, that our objective in removing Saddam Hussein from power had been accomplished. We then should have said to the world it is up to the other nations to insure another Saddam is not restored to power, giving them 6 months notice to prepare for stepping in. That would have been the prudent and sound strategy. I called for this a long time ago.

It is still not too late. But, it soon will be. This President however, has committed himself and our soldiers and taxpayers to vindicating his dream of a democratic domino effect in the Middle East for which he can lay historical claim. So, that window of opportunity will, I fear, never even be seen as one.

Guys, frankly it doesn’t matter to me whether Rummy gets sacked or not. What bothers me is that two guts, Rumsfeld and Cheney, could run a brilliant stratagy in Kuwait, and then run the Chineese fire drill we are witnessing here.
Can Bush even spell strateagerey?

Why a tent?

It’s actually true that real walls wouldn’t have stopped the suicide bomber, but it was recognized as a security issue. Here’s a little tidbit of news on that:

A sturdier structure designed to replace the mess is being built at the base, but the work has been plagued by delays. Hastings said workers from KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, were supposed to have completed it by Christmas.

I guess when we’re done blaming Rummy, we should move on to Dick. Personally, I think we should blame W for sending US troops there in the first place after those non-existent WMD.

I think the preservation of the self esteem of any elected or appointed individual is the lowest priority of all in democratic government. They are there to do a job, not be admired. Admiration will come to them and stay with them if they do a good job, otherwise we have no reason to flatter their egos.

Do your job, secretary, Mr. President, and you’ll get your admiration. Try to short circuit that feedback, fellows, and you’ll reap the whirlwind.

Guys, I would like to make one more point here. This may or may not be relevent to the thread.

An army base, especialy an army base in a forward area, is supposed to be one of the most “secure” places on earth.
So, while I have to endure a cavity search in order to get on an airplane, in my own country, we can’t seem to keep our most secure areas secure?
I don’t get it.
I could understand a rocket or a mortar taking out a dinning hall, I have allready commented how silly I thought that was, but to allow someone to smuggle a device into a “secure” area, the mind boggles.

Jack,

One other failing of the Victor Davis Hanson apologeia. Whereas the other wars he cites were forced responses to attacks on the US or its allies, this was an elective war, so one we should have been fully prepared for. We chose the time and place. We should have been ready.