He's not gone yet, but the Army is already scrapping the "Rumsfeld doctrine"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Nov 20, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    L.A. Times

    A big step in the right direction...and interesting that they're already making changes, considering Rummy's not even gone yet.
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    The Generals all knew Beelzebub's strategy was crock to begin with. They just knew that to have any influence over the conflict they had to keep their mouths shut.

    Rumsfeld should stand trial for 600,000 counts of manslaughter. His crimes were as severe in terms of loss of life as his old pal Saddam's, and the offhand manner with which he issued his orders knowing how many would die as a result is equivalent to the worst war criminals.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    I think the military has a lot of professionalism that serves to counterbalance the political appointees who, in this administration, just don't seem to get it.

    Articles like this reinforce that impression.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    It always seemed highly inappropriate for the US Army to be borrowing the Blitzkrieg technique from Hitler's Wehrmacht anyway. Good riddance.
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Especially since we haven't fought an army in a long time.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    Why would this be 'inappropriate'? The Blitzkrieg is just a strategy, a use of combined arms with high levels of communication. What would you prefer, Sherman's March to the Sea? Genghis Khan's sacking of cities? Or maybe the Maginot Line?

    The strategy used in the beginning of the Iraq War was very successful, it's just needed to have a larger, slower force following along behind that very sharp spear in order to secure the supply lines and repair the infrastructure we destroyed as well as deploy MPs to keep order as the main fast force continued ahead.
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    If you cant control borders you cant control anything, Bush doesnt understand borders at all, here in the U.S. or over in Iraq with "insurgents" everywhere. He dont get it. I bet if we drafted his kids he'd get it.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    In other words, the "strategy" - if it deserves the name - was a total failure, because it was incomplete. That's exactly what I mean. This criminal adventure was billed as a police action, but in its negligent, inhumane and savage execution destroyed the infrastructure and returned the civilians on whose behalf the action was ostensibly carried out to a state of bare subsistence and total squalour.

    Yes, it was disastrously inappropriate.
     
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    The strategy of a fast-moving armored force backed by a long logistics train and a combination of CAS and aerial assessments worked really well. Our forces cut the Iraq army, such as it was, down to nothing in a very short period of time with relatively few casualties on either side (compared to any previous invasion.)
    The failure was not the blitzkrieg, but the follow-up. I see what you're saying, but I would separate the initial war from the follow-up as a description of strategic doctrine.
    In other words, the first punch was deftly delivered, the rest of the fight that was done poorly.

    It's amazing that common doctrine from World War II was abandoned. In 1942, we knew MPs were necessary.
     
  10. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    I agree with your point Hugulu, but the question is, how often are we going to fight armies? Sure the initial attack went quickly and was a "success," but realistically any invasion strategy used by the US would have been a success. There is no way our well-equipped, well supported forces were going to not be able to move into Iraq and defeat a decimated army that for the most part didn't even fight against us.

    The apparent need for US military capacity is and has been in securing failed states so that humanitarian actions and reconstruction can take place. During this administration, we've seen insufficient progress on this front. Rumsfeld's army is designed for "regime change." That's not what we need.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    I think the two doctrines can exist at the same time, especially because the technology is not mutually exclusive. Primarily, a fast blitzkrieg force uses light to medium infantry backed by CAS and a deep intelligence network, as well as special forces. This force would be able to engage in warfighting with all but the most determined foes, like China and North Korea, who would be engaged by reserve heavy armor and artillery.
    In the case of COTW, the military's term for Conflict Other Than War, the light and fast force could break through a national border and move to the heart of a conflict. Then, we bring in a new force that's made of MPs, Engineers, and others who can help bring order backed by the infantry, special forces, etc.

    The point is Rumsfeld's work in the Pentagon was probably good for the US military, but his strategic and tactical decisions were awful. He should have listened to the generals and stayed in his office fiddling with matrices and killing programs like the Crusader.
    However, the Future Combat Systems, the Stryker, and the use of UAVs have all been boons to military. The Stryker was exactly what we needed in Somalia, when M-1A1s and M-2 Bradleys were too large to be used and yet our troops needed an armored force.
     
  12. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #12
    Caution: risque link.
     

Share This Page