1. SpecLosesAgain  

    The article on "Politically Correct Science" is pretty much entirely cribbed from this longer, more informative article:

  2. Inaccuracy  

    The Wilkes column defending Rumsfeld ignores the fact that Rumsfeld was instrumental in shaping the operations decisions of the generals in charge of Iraq. While they nominally had the "freedom" to decide on higher troop levels, etc. themselves, they also recognized political realities which prevented that. Rumsfeld wanted low troop levels and that's what he got. To blame it on Central Command is as fallacious as arguing that the "Bush tax cuts" are entirely the fault of Congress and not the administration.

  3. wirc  

    The Rumsfefeld article completely ignored the record on what happened and the pressures on the generals in CENTCOM, on the ground, and even in the military side of the Pentagon. Suggesting that the combatant commanders were to blame is silly since in America, civilians control soldiers, and Rumsfeld ignoredpretty much all the advice on strategy and troop numbers. Yes he did leave tactical operations to commanders, but that means little since his strategies for occupation were written on the back of a cocktail napkin.

    And the whole Transformation thing - that's just his application of strategies that the US and other powers have been looking at since 1991. Cheney actually started a lot of that way back when he was DoD secretary. During the Clinton presidency, most of those ideas were implemented, and starting with the Kosovo conflict, applied. Moreover, these new strategies that call for minimal infantry and armor are one of the reasons that there were so few troops on the ground in the first place. Jeez.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.