The Rumsfeld Doctrine-Agree/Disagree?


Active member
I’ve been thinking alot about this the past month, because all throughout the War with Iraq my father and I had different feelings on it. My father thought Rumsfeld was too bold, and is generally a cold-hearted guy whose doctrine reflects his handling with the press. I said No Way, like him or not personally, this guy has revolutionized warfare, and probably for the better.

The way I see it, Rumsfeld's vision of a lighter, faster military will help decrease fratricide greatly, for with less units on the battlefield, this is not as much as a problem. In the first Gulf War, with over 200,000 coalition forces surging to Kuwait, this was a real problem, and probably why green on green casualties were so numerous.

Rumsfeld has also killed that God awful Crusader program, which several years ago under the Clinton Administration, I was fortunate enough to visit an civilian army presentation on the system, and although I was only a kid, I didn’t see what good it would do in a military of stealth bombers and cruise missiles. (I had also just been aloud to ride in a Paladin self propelled artillery piece, and in my mind spending billions on the Crusader was irreverent with the Paladin.

All in all, Rumsfeld's attitude is for the betterment of national security in my opinion, for his commitment doesn’t get lost within politics, and for once we’ve had a real warrior at the helm, instead of some politician or arm chair general. :m16:

Ok sound off you Magots, Im just trying to make conversation, whcih we havn't had in a while :roll:
I have never really liked the guy. There is just something about him. Anyways, I think he needs to go. He's definitely ignored the experience of the military generals. General Shinseki said to take Iraq, the military would need around 200,000 troops. Rumsfeld publically critisized Shinseki for saying such a thing and surgested a figure around 60,000 troops. We know today that Shinseki was on to something.

Then we have the Abu Ghraib prison thing. The reports vary, but Rumsfeld knew about the abuse a few months before the scandal hit the press. Somehow, he forgot to tell the President.

That sums up how I feel about him
While there is always room for improvement, I think over all he is doing a great job. I agree that he has reinvented warfare as we know it, and that is a good thing, for all militaries tend to train to fight the last war and not the next one. We need to move away from the Vietnam style warfare concept and embrace the new realities of fighting global terrorism.
That's an interesting point about fraticide. Never thought about it.

I am a strong Bush supporter, but I do feel he needs to go after the election. Too many mistakes to get another shot at it.
Rumsfeld's concepts are sound and he's good enough at his job so long as he doesn't have to interact with the press and public. He has about the same PR charismatic appeal as Boris Karloff, and this makes him a target of the media.
from what i read it looks like sometimes rumsfelds business connections/interests are big factors in the decisions he takes. and he doesnt always seem to follow his military advice.
Airborne Eagle said:
That's an interesting point about fraticide. Never thought about it.

I am a strong Bush supporter, but I do feel he needs to go after the election. Too many mistakes to get another shot at it.

You make a interesting point, perhaps if Bush is re-elected, he might not get a chance to make the best strategic decisions? Like for instance, his administration might be more reluctant to invade another country for fear of strong public disaproval. And I believe, in the end, more invasions will be needed in the near future.
what about the election in Iraq

Did anybody remember few days ago he said "some areas are not allowed to vote in Iraq"?
And the PM from Iraq thanks America. Oh yeah, if US government help me to become president of another country, I am sure will thank US government too!! ---Not mention I might have worked for CIA.!!!! wow, yeah!!
And sure I will ask another favour: "When we have freedom to elect, Uncle sam, please make sure some areas are not allowed".
Interesting, the US is purposely letting parts of Iraq stay unstable to please the Prime Minister's hidden agenda.

I do declare this is quite a revelation! Would you be as so kind to back up your claims with a touch of logic? Perhaps a dash of viable theory? I'm afraid some folks are rather dim here and need realistic ideas to keep a topic going.
Re: what about the election in Iraq

whosewar2000 said:
Did anybody remember few days ago he said "some areas are not allowed to vote in Iraq"?

Yep and I disagree with that 100%. Freedom is all or nothing. It will be a huge mistake to have limited elections. All the voices in Iraq, pro or anti US, must be heard.

The enemies of the United States inside Iraq will have a field day if the limited elections are held. They will say "see...the Americans do not care about our freedoms. They only care about their own interests. The elections are illegal and the Americans are oppressing the will of Iraq. Rise up and defeat the infidels!!!"
I think Rumsfeld may have put just a little too much faith in his Special Operations people.
They don't like big masses of troops and probably told Rumsfeld it was unneccessary... which may have been true for phase 1 of the war. But what about securing an entire country?? I guess they just didn't think of that.

But the trend under Rumsfeld has been that military units have become smaller, more rapidly deployable and yet still remained effective. It's a big and neccessary change from the Army designed to stop massive wave of Soviet tanks running across Europe.