Rumsfield stays as Defence Sec.

[Nickatilynx]

Rumsfeld to stay as defence chief

Rumsfeld was one of the chief architects of the Iraq war
Donald Rumsfeld has accepted a request from President George W Bush to stay on as US Defence Secretary, a senior administration official has said.
Mr Rumsfeld was a proven leader in difficult times, the official said.

The defence secretary had faced calls to go, especially over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib and military setbacks in Iraq.

But Mr Bush clearly regards Mr Rumsfeld as a key figure as he overhauls his cabinet, correspondents say.


Mr Bush asked Mr Rumsfeld on Monday to stay in his post and he agreed, said the official.

"Secretary Rumsfeld is a proven leader during challenging times. We're fighting a different kind of war and it's crucial that we win this war," the official said.


If you're not criticised, you're not doing your job

Donald Rumsfeld


Rumsfeld: A political fighter
US increases Iraq troops
Iraq abuse complaint
Mr Rumsfeld's future had been the last big question over the composition of Mr Bush's cabinet.

More than half of its members are leaving as the president prepares to start his second term.

Hawk

Mr Rumsfeld, 72, is both the oldest and the youngest defence secretary, having held the post nearly 30 years ago in Gerald Ford's administration.

One of the "hawks" on the Bush team, Mr Rumsfeld was closely involved in the decision to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and was the chief architect of the Iraq war.

His tough style has won him admirers but also gained him enemies and detractors inside and outside the US defence establishment, says the BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs.

The defence secretary has been criticised for failing to send sufficient troops to stabilise Iraq in the wake of Saddam Hussein's fall.


Rumsfeld aims to complete a reform of the US military
There were loud calls for his resignation earlier this year when the abuse committed by American soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison came to light.

At the time he said he would quit if that would help but not merely to satisfy the administration's political enemies.

And despite his detractors, Mr Rumsfeld still bristles with energy.

He faces numerous challenges, including continuing operations in Afghanistan and to see through his plans to transform the US military into a smaller, lighter and more agile force that makes full use of technology.

But the continuing violence in Iraq, where elections are planned for January, looms as the biggest and most difficult challenge.

The Pentagon announced this week that troop numbers in Iraq were being increased to 150,000, more than actually invaded the country.

[Mike AI]

I am sure Rumsfield has made mistakes.... But I still find him to be one of the more competent forward thinking cabinent members that I can remember.

[JoesHO]

I am not surprised, he is the ultimate insider, he was never going anywhere....

and in the end , mark my words he will swallow the sword ( just like ollie north did)

[buckethead]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Dec 4 2004, 07:26 PM
I am not surprised, he is the ultimate insider, he was never going anywhere....

and in the end , mark my words he will swallow the sword ( just like ollie north did)

Rumsfeld has proven himself to be a very loyal member of this cabinet.
He has done an excellent job in assisting the president in setting our policy course.
He deserves to keep his job in my opinion.

[PornoDoggy]

Bah fucking humbug.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Dec 4 2004, 10:26 PM
I am not surprised, he is the ultimate insider, he was never going anywhere....

and in the end , mark my words he will swallow the sword ( just like ollie north did)

Ollie North should still be rotting in prison in Leavnworth but got a HUGE break that allowed him to get away with everything. And now he has successfully altered many people's view of history through his bullshit propaganda and garner undue sympathy because of it.

[PornoDoggy]

I don't care for Rumsfeld - but not for the reaons that some will assume.

He is right on a whole lot of things that he is trying to do ... but I am personally of the opinion that he may be short-sighted in his "vision for wars of the 21st Century."

I am concerned that his tendency to "think light" will affect a potential need to "fight heavy" at some point in the future. That does not mean I think we need to maintain the same military we had when facing the Soviet Union, but there are lots of mean nastys out there, and not all of them are prone to wearing turbans or go to church on Friday.

I am worried that he is too focused on the ability to fight in sand. I am very concerned about our ability to support a necessary deployment of large numbers of troops to Korea in the very near future (should such a need arise).

With regard to operations currently underway - I do not like the tendency to take the major cities and leave the countryside in the hands of the enemy. It is a strategy that has served us poorly in the past.

[Opti]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 6 2004, 04:22 PM
I am personally of the opinion that he may be short-sighted in his "vision for wars of the 21st Century."

A documentary is screening in Australia tonight (8.30pm Tue SBS) called Rumsfeld's War which sounds like it agrees with your opinion from the promotional clips Ive seen.


http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=876

The danger, they say, is a military incapable of effectively fighting the next major conflict.

Former Centcom Commander-in-Chief General Joseph Hoar (Ret.) says , “Today we find over fifty percent of the United States Army, the regular army, ten divisions [are] committed overseas. It's not sustainable.” Rumsfeld, however, has stood firm in his assessment that US fighting forces are more than capable of handling these or future conflicts

it's on in 25mins for me..

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, I personally suspect there is a rhyme and a reason to Rumsfeld's policies.

Faced with a major confrontation, we have the weapons to defeat an enemy, and have for damn near 60 years.

That we haven't used them since is a matter of some disappointment to many neo-cons, (some, at least) who believe that they would have been apporpriate in both Korea and Vietnam.

I have no guilt about the U.S. having used them - put in Truman's position in '45 I would have done exactly the same thing. I am also of the personal opinion that Truman's decision saved many more Japanese lives than they took, even if you accept some of the more outlandish claims.

I am also not an idiot - I certainly don't suggest we eliminate them from our arsenal. I'm not even all that concerned that we continue to develop them, because there are a lot of others who are doing the same thing.

That being said, they need to remain the weapon of last resort. The strategies of the current administration seem almost designed to make that "last resort" situation one hell of a lot easier to reach.

[Opti]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 7 2004, 06:59 PM
Oh, I personally suspect there is a rhyme and a reason to Rumsfeld's policies.

The pre-show advertising for Rumsfeld's War doco was misleading I think.. promos suggested to me that Rumsfeld knowingly manipulated the 9/11 situation to order strategic changes to support some agenda of his own.

The program just went on ad-nauseum, using with 20/20 hindsight, that they think Rumsfeld has made a mistake.. I agree situation looks shitty.. but they didn't convince me a clear verdict on Rumsfeld's strategy could be made yet.

Didn't watch it to the end though..