Rummy isn't seeing roses anymore

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-22 10:06pm

After grim Rumsfeld memo, White House supports him
By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Australia, reacted by voicing support for Rumsfeld. "That's exactly what a strong and capable secretary of defense like Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing," said McClellan.

"The president has always said it will require thinking differently. It's a different type of war," McClellan said.

Three members of Congress who met with Rumsfeld Wednesday morning said the defense secretary gave them copies of the memo and discussed it with them.

"He's asking the tough questions we all need to be asking," said Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas.

Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says that "it is not possible" to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a "new institution" might be necessary to do that. (Related item: Rumsfeld's memo)

The memo, which diverges sharply from Rumsfeld's mostly positive public comments, offers one of the most candid and sobering assessments to date of how top administration officials view the 2-year-old war on terrorism. It suggests that significant work remains and raises a number of probing questions but few detailed proposals.

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, which goes on to cite "mixed results" against al-Qaeda, "reasonable progress" tracking down top Iraqis and "somewhat slower progress" in apprehending Taliban leaders. "Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'? " he wrote.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita declined to comment specifically on the memo, but he said Rumsfeld's style is to "ask penetrating questions" to provoke candid discussion. "He's trying to keep a sense of urgency alive."

Among Rumsfeld's observations in the two-page memo:

• The United States is "just getting started" in fighting the Iraq-based terror group Ansar Al-Islam.

• The war is hugely expensive. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."

• Postwar stabilization efforts are very difficult. "It is pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."

The memo was sent to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy.

Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United States should create a private foundation to entice radical Islamic schools to a "more moderate course." Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them.

The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.

In public, the Bush administration has been upbeat in describing the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft has noted that two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership has been captured or killed.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-23 09:23am

It is no secret that the US is losing the war on terror. More people hate the US today than ever. The war on terror has earned the US more enemies than friends. No one buys the official propaganda coming out of Pentagon People all over the world are convinced that the US goverment is an imperialist that seeks world domination.

Even in Iraq US forces are taking causulties every day. Iraq was supposed to be a liberated country but the Iraqis have a different idea about the Americans. They are doing whatever they can to inflict maximum damage on the US forces. The US may have superior weapons systems and technology on it's side but it is still losing the war in Iraq.

Untill Bush and his rightwing administration realize that they can not defeat terrorism by force alone there is no hope for a US victory against terrorism. Earning the wraith of the entire world is hardly a good way to win a war.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-23 01:23pm

evilcat4000 wrote:It is no secret that the US is losing the war on terror. More people hate the US today than ever. The war on terror has earned the US more enemies than friends. No one buys the official propaganda coming out of Pentagon People all over the world are convinced that the US goverment is an imperialist that seeks world domination.

Having difficulty and asking hard questions is not loosing. Breaking out the term quagmire and loosing the war with a casualty list of 211 or so is asinign.

And having people upset at you doesn't make them terrorists nor enemies either. Many people dislike the French and we're not at war with them.

Even in Iraq US forces are taking causulties every day. Iraq was supposed to be a liberated country but the Iraqis have a different idea about the Americans. They are doing whatever they can to inflict maximum damage on the US forces. The US may have superior weapons systems and technology on it's side but it is still losing the war in Iraq.

I a country of roughly 25 million, if what you sugest was correct and the Iraqi people as a whole did not want us there, we'd be dead and running. It would apear that a small segment of the population seems to not want us there, unless you think that millions of people would use stand off tactics against a numericaly inferior force.

Untill Bush and his rightwing administration realize that they can not defeat terrorism by force alone there is no hope for a US victory against terrorism. Earning the wraith of the entire world is hardly a good way to win a war

Yes, diplomacy works so well against terrorists.

You may not like the policy and you would have valid reason not too, but disliking the issue does not automaticly make it a loosing war. Incramental steps in improving Iraq are in progress. Joint operations between US and Iraqi forces are turning up more and more insurgents. In fact, I heard a news report this morning on the radio about a US commander started pulling back the US presence in his area and turning over control to the Iraqi authorities.

Will try to find a on-line article and post a link when I find it.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-10-23 03:16pm

Knife wrote: I a country of roughly 25 million, if what you sugest was correct and the Iraqi people as a whole did not want us there, we'd be dead and running.

you´re not saying that the irakis get rid of the rulers they don´t want by themselves, are you?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-23 03:26pm

Even in Iraq US forces are taking causulties every day. Iraq was supposed to be a liberated country but the Iraqis have a different idea about the Americans. They are doing whatever they can to inflict maximum damage on the US forces.

Are you insane? Casualties would be a helluva lot higher than they are now if that was the case.

The US may have superior weapons systems and technology on it's side but it is still losing the war in Iraq.

Except for the minor success of completely and utterly destroying the Iraqi army.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-10-23 04:24pm

The US had COMPLETE approval for the war on terror and the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Even the FRENCH were on our side then. The Iraq war, which has nothing to do with the war on terror except for the fact that the WoT was what softened americans up for an invasion of Iraq, is what has made global opinion of the US dip to all time lows.
The US was going after countries harboring terrorists, however when they declared rogue states such as Iraq Iran and NKorea, which where NOT in the process of militarisation at the time, they started militarising. Now we've spent $100 billion on a unilateral war in the middle east, a bad situation in the far east that Bush ignored for several months while he invaded Iraq, and a global approval rating lower than that of Linda Tripp!
The war on terror wasn't going too badly, we'd begun antiterrorist work in Indonesia, had Osama(remember him) and the Taliban on the run or in custody, and were not generally disliked by the whole planet. But conducting numerous military operations accross the globe has stretched the military's resources and lost the focus of our hunt for Al Queda.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-23 05:47pm

Durran Korr wrote:
The US may have superior weapons systems and technology on it's side but it is still losing the war in Iraq.
Except for the minor success of completely and utterly destroying the Iraqi army.

Which was not a stated objective of the war. The stated objectives were to find and neutralize Saddam Hussein (may have occurred, may not...without custody or a body, no determination may be made), and to find and neutralize Iraq's WMDs (thus far a failed objective). Additionally, the army was apparently not destroyed, since US Army officials have refused to allow ex-Hussein Iraqi units to re-form as the Army of the Republic of Iraq. If they had been destroyed, they would not be capable of reforming as complete units (unless you are using "completely and utterly destroying" in a different way than I am understanding it). I will say, however, that we most likely have conquered Iraq, with many parallels between the Republic of Iraq and Vichy France, down to the rebels using guerilla tactics condemned as unlawful war to strike at occupiers and collaborators.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-23 06:16pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote: The US was going after countries harboring terrorists, however when they declared rogue states such as Iraq Iran and NKorea, which where NOT in the process of militarisation at the time, they started militarising.

What crack are you smoking?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-24 04:19am

The only thing that annoys me about this memo is the crap questions about yet another bureaucratic reshuffle. Is that this administration's only response to any problems!?