General discussion


Is Rumsfeld the right leader for the Department of Defense?

By Aldanatech ·
Do you consider that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is doing a good job for the Department of Defense? Some people, even longtime supporters, have begun to recognize that he is not. According to Mississippi's Republican Sen. Trent Lott, Rumsfeld doesn't listen enough to his uniformed officers. Lott says that the United States needs more troops to help with the war and a plan to leave Iraq once elections take place in late January, but he doesn't think Rumsfeld is the person to carry out that plan. "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so," Lott said. "I'm not calling for his resignation, but I think we do need a change at some point." Rumsfeld has also been under heavy criticism since a soldier asked him last week why the combat vehicles used in the war in Iraq don't have the proper armor.

On Monday, Republican Sen. of Arizona John McCain said he has "no confidence" in Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops. McCain also said that his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that Bush "can have the team that he wants around him." He said he had also expressed lack of confidence in Rumsfeld when fielding a similar question a couple of weeks ago. Loren Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a defense think-tank long supportive of the secretary, said on Monday that Rumsfeld won't face reality: "He knows what the situation is, but he has been unready to change his plans."

Rumsfeld has been most reluctant to change his plans about the size of U.S. land forces, and the Army in particular. It was, perhaps, a good idea to "go early and go ugly," as senior generals put it, to war in Iraq; waiting longer to build up forces in the spring of 2003 was not a risk-free proposition, and most of those now bemoaning the size of the invasion force are at heart still bemoaning the invasion itself. But the experience of the past 18 months must count for something in reconsidering the overall size of the Army.

In agreeing to stay on as Defense secretary in the second Bush term, Rumsfeld has made it known that he wants to "complete the job of transformation" he has started. Do think he's on the right track, or would it be better if he dedicates himself on winning the war he helped begin?


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

What can I say?

by jardinier In reply to Is Rumsfeld the right lea ...

The way I see it is that Rumsfeld is primarily responsible for every facet of the balls-up in Iraq -- the war that should never have started in the first place and which, thanks to Rumsfeld ignoring the advice of senior service personnel -- commenced with insufficient troop numbers.

I consider it a tragedy that the moderate Colin Powell has resigned.

I consider it terrifying that Bush was re-elected, and that he has now surrounded himself in the top administrative positions with people who agree with him.

It would be OK to agree with him if he had half a clue of what he is doing.

I am SICKENED when he gives his usual silly grin when referring to grave matters like the loss of lives in Iraq.

The US has started a fracas in Iraq which it can neither win nor withdraw from with honour.

Collapse -

Well the only thing I've heard about him recently

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Is Rumsfeld the right lea ...

Is the fact that he has broken with tradition and is or was using a machine to add his signature to letters to the dead military personal families.

From what was shown over here in AU it seems to have upset quite a few people but in all honestly I can not see why.


Collapse -

I think it says a lot, Col ....

by jardinier In reply to Well the only thing I've ...

To me it shows complete lack of sympathy for the soldiers who die and their families.

It only strengthens my opinion as expressed above that he has some personal agenda for the war in Iraq and doesn't give a damn about the cost in terms of loss of lives.

To me it is a very callous gesture to be too lazy and indifferent to show a tiny bit of respect for the families whose sons and daughters he has sent to give their lives for HIS ambitions.

Collapse -

More on this...

by Aldanatech In reply to Well the only thing I've ...

Here is an article I found about this, and about why some people are upset. Who can blame them. It is the least that we could expect of the secretary of defense:

This next article talks about how more and more Americans want Rumsfeld out:

Collapse -

And Bush doesn't seem to mind

by Aldanatech In reply to More on this...

By the way, Bush doesn't seem to mind. He defended Rumsfeld on Monday, saying the Pentagon chief was doing "a really fine job." When asked about Rumsfeld's practice, Bush did not directly offer his opinion. He said "I have heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way. And he's a good, decent man. He's a caring fellow."

Collapse -

Just deserts......

by Iis In reply to Is Rumsfeld the right lea ...

Rumsfeld has shown his desire and passion to shove his self centered viewpoint on others by his actions as Searle, Inc CEO. He knowingly shoved Aspartame on the American public via his control of a newly appointed FDA head that ramed a drug that had been banned for 15 (by FDA scientist) from FDA approval because of its extreme danger to human health.
Now, Rumsfeld holds back essential needs of fighting men who are risking their lives because of his self centered elitest attitude about "controlling costs". He is a "cost" we can't afford. "Leaders" like him should be dosed down with their own edicts. He should be fed aspartame as HIS sweetener until he fully experiencs its effects. At that point, he may get the point. Or he should be sent out in a humvee without armour into Iraq to demostrate his "special qualities" to lead.

Related Discussions

Related Forums