Some of the better points scored by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his speech Monday before the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. See his full speech here.
"What is needed is resolve, not retreat; courage, not concession. Rather than thinking in terms of an exit strategy, we should be focused on a strategy for success.
Quitting is not a strategy. Quitting is an invitation to more attacks and more terrorist violence here at home.
Many reporters in Afghanistan and Iraq have done excellent reporting, and some have lost their lives.
[But] (s)peed, it appears, is often the first goal--not accuracy, not context.
I understand that there may be great pressure on them to tell a dramatic story. And while it is easy to use a bombing or a terrorist attack to support a belief that Iraq is a failure, that is not the accurate picture. And further, it is not good journalism.
Consider this: You couldn't tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 American casualties over about 40 days; or explain the importance of Grant's push to Virginia just by noting the savagery of the battles. So too, in Iraq, it is appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed--and may God bless them and their families--but what they died for--or more accurately, what they lived for.
Further it is worth noting that there are 158,000 Americans in uniform who are sending e-mails back to friends and families, telling them the truth as they see it. And much of it is different than what those in the United States are seeing and reading about every day.
But to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we are all Republicans. We are all Democrats. We are all Americans. We are all in this together. And what we do today will not only impact us, but our children and our grandchildren, and the kind of world they will live in.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Rummy: We are All Americans; Resolve Not Retreat; Courage Not Concession
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Rumsfeld should have been thinking about a "strategy for success" three years ago. Too late now, Rummy! If I screwed up my job as badly as Rumsfeld screwed up his, I'd be fired. His continued employment underscores that President Bush values blind, unflinching loyalty over minimal competence.
No country has ever been attacked because they were strong. It was because they were weak.
If the left was as vocal during WW2 as they are today, Swastikas would still be all over Europe.
WW2 was about as screwed up as anything can be, but by the resolve of America and her Allies, adversities were overcome and brazen tyrants defeated.
"Strategy for Success," "Exit Strategy," and such can be summed in one word, VICTORY!
Please define victory.
For those of us old enough to remember Vietnam and those of us who thought that the same mistakes would not be repeated in our lifetimes, the word “victory” in the context of Iraq rings hollow.
No country has ever been attacked because they were strong. It was because they were weak. We attacked Iraq.
If the right was as apologetic for incompetency during WW2 as they are today, Swastikas would still be all over Europe.
WW2 was certainly not as screwed up as the administration’s handling of Iraq.
"Strategy for Success," "Exit Strategy," and such can be summed in one word, VICTORY! But with the Bush incompetents in charge, we can forget VICTORY.
Well, Anonymous (whichever one you are)some of us are not only old enough to remember Viet Nam, but served there as well.
Victory, although you may feel it is hollow, would be, to me, when we reach the level of minimizing terrorist actions to the point that a struggling democracy could stand up to it with minimal help. Just my view, mind you.
The Military is all volunteer today, no one is forced to serve if they don't wish to. For those of you who do not cherish freedoma and liberty enough to stand up for it, not to worry, the rest of us that do cherish liberty will stand for you too.
As for your feeble attempt to copy my words and change them, I suggest you actually study WW2 and see just how much of a SNAFU most of it was.
Of course, if the left has a better plan to encourage freedom and liberty for Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis, as wll as anyone else who desires it, feel free to enlist and seek OCS and make your plans known.
As Senator Liberman has said, it's about time you all learned that Bush will be the President for 3 more years, like it or not. All your undermining of this Presidency, while we are at war, will just end up aiding and abetting those who are killing people that cherish liberty as well as those who hate Bush.
How about supporting America, for once?
Well put, Lew! Thanks for expressing my view so eloquently. And thanks for your continued support of this great country.
I disagree. Lew doesn't make any sense at all in this thread. The anonymous(s) have simply pointed this out.
For all you brave and courageous anonymous's that feel it's all so worthless, please visit the following site. Maybe this article by a retired Navy Veteran will make sense out of it all for you.
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THEWRONGARMY.HTML
No country has ever been attacked because they were strong. It was because they were weak. We attacked Iraq.
If the right was as apologetic for incompetency during WW2 as they are today, Swastikas would still be all over Europe.
WW2 was certainly not as screwed up as the administration’s handling of Iraq.
"Strategy for Success," "Exit Strategy," and such can be summed in one word, VICTORY! But with the Bush incompetents in charge, we can forget VICTORY.
"We can’t tolerate the kind of division that currently exists in our country,” Lieberman said. "Why are we fighting among those who have the same goals?”
"It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril,” he warned. (Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat, Connecticut, 7 December, 2005)
I acknowledge that Bush is President for 3 more years. That is what scares me. Let's all unite to help him overcome his many Iraq failures with some new ideas. We may want to tone down the democracy argument as a British poll says 80% of the Iraqis want the US to leave. We certainly don't want the Iraqis to vote on that issue when we want to stay.
Please name a war that went perfectly.
As for making mistakes, maybe the anti-war left should look back to Viet Nam and realize just how many lives they cost then.
After the resounding failure of Tet of '68, General Vo Ngyuen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army) was ready to negotiate a surrender, having seen his forces nearly decimated and not seeing the general uprising he expected in the South. He heard about Walter Cronkite declaring he had won the offensive and stating taking note of the anti-war radical left. That was America's Achilles heel and he played to it, changing the strategy to hit and run attacks mostly and actually infiltrating the anti-war movement (former KGB agents have admitted how they accomplished this).
Knowing America had lost the courage to see a war through, as we did in WW2, in spite of mistakes and set backs, he just kept it going until the left got their way and we juat left the South Vietnamese on their own.
While we turned our backs on the South, Russia and China continually reinforced and supported the NOrth until theyf elt strong enough to break the cease fire and invade the South, gambling that America would stay chicken and let the South flounder, which happened, costing millions of Vietnamese lives and Cambodian as well.
Colonel Bui Tin, the North Vietnamese Commander who accepted the surrender of Saigon and later, having become disillusioned with the North Vietnamese Communist government, defected and now lives in Paris, has stated America's anti-war left was "essential" to their victory over the South.
General Ngyuen Duc Huy, another top North Vietnamese Commander admitted that North Vietnamese losses were devastating in the Tet of 68 offensive, but hemmed and hawed about Giap wanting to negotiate the surrender.
The terrorists now in Iraq as well as the remnants of Saddam's Baathist party look back to history and see just what to do to defeat, not the American Military, but the public.
Currently, Top Democrats can't seem to make up their mind what they wish to do over Iraq and the War on Terror. One day it's, "we dcan't win, pull out." The next, it's, "we must win, we can win, but we need to change how it is being done." One even went to so far as to say, "the American Army is broken, existing hand to mouth." That is what you would have lead the War on Terror?
I must also ask, why are there still troubles on Bosnia? Didn't Clark and Clinton's massive bombing campaign end that skirmish? Why are our troops still there 8 years later?
"One needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks," and a better measure of success might be that a vast majority of Iraqis "are on the side of the democratic government....The most important reason for the US invasion of Iraq, he said, was "not only about building democracy," but to defeat "extremists ' aspirations in Iraq" in order to protect "the lives of the American people."
This does indeed fall in-line with what the administration (and yes that does mean Bush, Cheney, and the rest) has been saying since before they started the war. It has always been a "remove the dictator, free the people, spread democracy, and when they're ready to take control, get out (well mostly anyhow).
Wait though, what about the recent "lack of a plan for victory." Well there was a plan, just look at the sentence above. Although, was that a plan for victory or and objective to pursue, figuring out the details as we go along? To me, it's blurry. And seems increasingly so for the rest of the country.
I think where I get confused, is how removing a dictator that "may have had" WMD, that "might" have ties to Al-Queda, that "is" a terrorist state (sponsor), that is "a threat to us on American soil", and that the world will be safer from terrorist attacks without, means that success in Iraq shouldn't be defined by the absence of terrorist attacks. Wasn't this part of the war on terror?
Ok, yes, it's not that simple. Democracy (and freedom) in Iraq (may) help to ensure defeat of (as Rummy said) "extremists' (terrorists?) aspirations in Iraq." But does extremists mean terrorists?
Had they said - "look, this Saddam, he's a real bad guy. His people are oppressed, and need our help. We're gonna send some boys over, take him out, and free them. We may have to stay for a while, spend some money, and sacrifice some of our troops, but It's important and the right thing to do" - there would have been a clear reason to support this war. It would have fallen in line with their objective (or plan for victory if you want to call it that) completely.
But they didn't, and honestly I feel duped. Ok, no WMD. Ok, no real ties to Al-Queda. Ok, terrorists, wait insurgents, wait Iraqi's? fighting us. So, what is victory in Iraq? How do you define it? They are having elections, that's good. No more rule of Saddam, even better. Heck, Saddam is even on trial, for something from way back when, but all the same. They even eluded today that they are planning to withdraw some troops in the near future - some progress is being made! I for one would love more stories of progress in Iraq from the media in all areas, and hope to see more as time goes by.
But how's the war on terror? Do we even know anymore, or are we even supposed to ask since we shouldn't expect that our troops (hard) work in Iraq doesn't mean an end to terrorist attacks.
Should we be so divided as a country, especially during a time of war. No, not in any way, shape, or form. Should we support our troops, to the end and resolution of any conflict they are in, and give them everything they need, both during battle and after, no question. But shouldn't we ask for some clarification about what we are doing and supporting when things have become so blurry, when the objective has been presented but motive defined as something else?
WW2 was fought on many fronts all over the world. The War on Terror is now being waged in Iraq, as the central front. It is naive to believe that terrorists were in every country, prior to the Iraq invasion, except Iraq.
Saddams ties to terrorists have been documented long before Bush ever came into office and reported by the alphabet networks.
Jim Thompson former governor of Illinois and member of the 9-11 Commission: When asked by Soledad O’Brien on CNNs Good Morning America on 18 June 2004: "So we hear from both President Bush and Dick Cheney clearly there was a relationship. Does your report contradict what the White House is saying?"
Thompson answered: Not at all. In fact, the report says that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are correct. It's a little mystifying to me why some elements of the press have tried to stir this up as a big controversy and a big point of contradiction because there is none. We said there's no evidence to support the notion that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated together to produce 9/11. President Bush said that weeks ago. He said it again yesterday. The vice president said it again yesterday. I said it again yesterday in television interviews. What we did I say was there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein, and the president has said there were contacts. The vice president has said there were contacts. They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found, I don't know. That wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11. So there is no controversy; there's no contradiction, and this is not an issue.
Chairman of the 9-11 Commission Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there.”
As for no WMDs found;
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs.
17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
Were they the stockpiles assumed by the entire world? No. But, they were enough to cause a lot of deaths had they been used.
Six months prior to his statement of believing there were no WMDs in iraq, David Kay said: "I've already seen enough [documents of WMDs] to convince me," Kay told then-NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw. "You cannot believe how many cases we have of documents and equipment that are stored in private residences," he added.
These "Documents" and "audio-tapes" mentioned by Kay need to be decassified and released and see just what it was Kay said he found.
We have 20/20 hindsight today. The President did not have it when he confronted Saddam over his terrorism ties and claims of massive stockpiles of WMDs. It would have dereliction of his office to simply ignore the threat of those assumed weapons being given over to terrorists.
War is never the first option, even Iraq. It was 17 UN Resolutions over 12 years ignored by Saddam and the threat of more terrorism that prompted inclusion of Iraq into the War on Terror. Is it going smoothly? No, war never does. That's where it takes resolve and courage to adapt as you go and still win the fight.
If you wish to Support the Troops, then their mission must be supported as well. One goes with the other. Otherwise, we end up leaving a struggling Democracy to fend for itself against a very formidable and well entrenched enemy. Make no mistake about it, these terrorists are well supplied and trained and have no less intention than eventual world domination of their radical and wrong view of Islam.
Right on Eric. While Lew is rewriting the history of the Vietnam War, I cannot allow his last statement to stand about US troops in Bosnia. There are currently less than 250 troops in Bosnia as part of a NATO operation. At least we had broad world support for our activities in Bosnia, unlike Bush’s essentially go it alone strategy in Iraq. Oh, and what is the casualty rate in Bosnia?
The American Army is not broken, although this administration has not adequately provided for its armament or its veterans.
The 911 Commission just gave the administration a failing grade
in the war on terror.
The downward shift in the approval rating for the President did not come from the Democrats, but from moderate Republicans and independents who question his trustworthiness. The President must do something to restore that trust.
Right on Eric. While Lew is rewriting the history of the Vietnam War, I cannot allow his last statement to stand about US troops in Bosnia. There are currently less than 250 troops in Bosnia as part of a NATO operation. At least we had broad world support for our activities in Bosnia, unlike Bush’s essentially go it alone strategy in Iraq. Oh, and what is the casualty rate in Bosnia?
Please explain how quoting the words of 3 top Commanders of the North Vietnamese Army are “rewriting history.” Thirty years from now, will it be top officials of Al Qaeda stating how the anti-war left helped them turn Iraq into the another Taliban style hell hole?
Last I heard, troops in Bosnia were closer to just over 2,000. Still, why are they there? Clinton said they all would be home by June of 1998! Perhaps you can explain why Bosnia was so important and Rwanda wasn’t. I’m still wondering.
As for World Support, why not? We bombed them and Bosnia was absolutely no threat to us in any way at all. That truly was an internal matter that Europe did not want to handle.
And casualties? Want to guess how many civilians were killed and how many in the Chinese Embassy that was bombed? Still, have you not seen reports of just how shakey things are there currently?
The American Army is not broken, although this administration has not adequately provided for its armament or its veterans.
Did you miss it was Democrat Rep. Murtha saying the Army was broken as well as Howard Dean, the head of your party saying the war could not be won, that is until today, when he said it can and must be won. As for who is providing for whom, only in D.C. does a reduction in the amount of a proposed increase become a cut. As a Veteran receiving VA Medical, I really can’t say I’m wanting.
The 911 Commission just gave the administration a failing grade
in the war on terror.
Sorry, the 911 Commission gave failing grades on post 911 preparedness, which doesn’t surprise me. The nation does need to do more to protect us, including adequate border enforcement. That is probably my biggest disappointment with the current administration. It also doesn’t surprise me as long as people like Jaimie Gorelick are seated on the commission instead of being called before it to testify as to her failings that helped lead up to 9-11.
The downward shift in the approval rating for the President did not come from the Democrats, but from moderate Republicans and independents who question his trustworthiness. The President must do something to restore that trust.
Not that I care much for polls, but the latest ones show his approval rising again. Still, given the onslaught of attacks against the administration by the leftstream alphabet media and Democrats, as well as how easy it is to slant or misinterpret polls to ones liking, the results also don’t surprise me. Polls are notoriously unreliable today, as witnessed by the exit polls during the last election. It would appear to me that some cook the results to what they wish in hopes the public falls into line with them. Of course, when they don’t, they cry foul and fixed elections. To them, it’s win/win. I participate regularly in polling myself and the questions are often misleading, as if designed for a given answer. Sort of like, “do you still beat your wife.”
Of course, what Democrats and too many RINOs fail to realize is that simply bashing someone endlessly only impresses those who already dislike the person. Real time ideas are needed if the Democrats wish to regain power, something they are sorely lacking, especially in the area of National Defense.
Lew, you have what looks like a lot of great information here. Let's start with WMD, since I feel compelled that some mis-leading about the severity of the situation did occur.
"Were they the stockpiles assumed by the entire world? No. But, they were enough to cause a lot of deaths had they been used."
I'll disagree that the "entire world" assumed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. Regardless, it (WMD) was not presented as a nominal amount of weapons that could cause a lot of deaths if used.
In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
Ok, so what. Yes, in hindsight, we can see that there was not the WMD assumed to be there, the ones there was "no doubt" that he had. But the President himself has acknowledged that he didn't have them when we attacked.
March 2003 - After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power.
So, we'll allow him a gimme on this one, since earlier in 2002, he was more clear in his argument.
October 2002 - "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
What troubles me, is in 2001, (just over a year before the statement above and before 9/11) those sanctions that weren't working apparently were. And those stockpiles of WMD he was hiding, he didn't even have the capacity to make.
(February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt.) - See the Video
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
It appears in context now we have two possible situations
They were "mis-leading" in 2001 about Iraq and the non-threat and capability of his WMD, OR They were mis-leading in 2002 and beyond. Oh heck, maybe it was just a good year for WMD makers in Iraq (I jest).
So did they find weapons. Oh sure. Were they the WMD that, there was no doubt Iraq had, that this war was about and is about? No. Simply put - no WMD.
In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
To save space, I will spare you the endless quotes of prominent Democrats and world leaders claiming Saddam had the WMDs. If you ever wish to have a good read, may I suggest the Congressional Record of November 9, 1997 by John Kerry titled "We Must Be Firm With Saddam."
Although WMDs became the presses favorite reason for the war, egged on by the adminstration, there were several other reasons given at the time also. Some of them were;
-- He had ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).
-- He had never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire (confirmed by the United Nations).
-- He was engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix).
-- He intended to develop additional WMD programs (confirmed by Duelfer).
-- Saddam’s removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East.
Still, given that so many prominent people felt and believed Saddam had the huge stockpiles of WMDs (apprently including Saddam himself), would it have been prudent to just simply trust Saddam that they would not fall into the hands of terrorists? Is the world simply trusting Iran currently that they are not building a nucler weapon?
We trusted North Korea on that during the Clinton years and what happened?
So, what happened to all of them? One outlet printed the following article, if you care to check it out;
http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml
If you are interested in what former KGB has to say about it, here is another article for you;
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10111
I am a little tired of hearing the Iraq War being compared to the Vietnam War. I am also tired of hearing some Vietnam Vets chiming in. Having suffered the only defeat in American history, I can imagine they are bitter. But please, let us stop re-fighting it.
Anonymous, maybe you are tired of it, but there are several on the left comparing it. If you don't like us Viet Nam Veterans speaking our minds, may I refer you to the US Constitution.
You see my friend, even we have freedom of speech.
Post a Comment