Some hard questions from liberals

[Guest jpclemmons]

October 16, 2003

 

TO: Gen. Richard Myers

Paul Wolfowitz

Gen. Pete Pace

Doug Feith

 

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

 

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

 

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

 

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

 

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

 

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

 

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

 

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

 

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

 

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

 

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

 

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

 

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

 

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

 

Do we need a new organization?

 

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

 

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

 

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

 

Does CIA need a new finding?

 

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

 

What else should we be considering?

 

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

 

Thanks.

[Justice 0]

... That's from Donald Rumsfeld, is it not?

 

Psst... I'll let you in on a secret.

 

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Donald Rumsfeld isn't a liberal.

[Guest jpclemmons]

... That's from Donald Rumsfeld, is it not?

 

Psst... I'll let you in on a secret.

 

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Donald Rumsfeld isn't a liberal.

I know he's not. I'm just showing that not only liberals are criticizing(spl?) the way the war on terror is operated.

[Justice 0]

... That's from Donald Rumsfeld, is it not?

 

Psst... I'll let you in on a secret.

 

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Donald Rumsfeld isn't a liberal.

I know he's not. I'm just showing that not only liberals are criticizing(spl?) the way the war on terror is operated.

First off, then your title is completely wrong, nimrod. No liberal is asking a question here, so why the hell is it in the title? You sure fooled me.

 

Secondly, he's not critizing the War on Terror. These are questions he's giving his staff on how he can they improve on their current operations. While they've gone decent to good so far, they certainly could be doing better and he's challenging his staff to come up with new ideas for them, asking them what they need to do to become more efficient and a better terror-fighting force. There aren't any actual critizisms there, just questions on what needs to be done now.

 

So nice try, but no cigar.

[Guest MikeSC]

I know he's not. I'm just showing that not only liberals are criticizing(spl?) the way the war on terror is operated.

Of course, if he was HAPPY about how things were going, you'd be bitching.

 

If he said nothing was wrong, you'd be bitching.

 

If he says some things might need to be fixed, you'd be bitching.

 

This is about as big a non-story as there is --- but hey, hold on to whatever little reeds you wish.

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Asking these questions is what leaders are SUPPOSED to do.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OMG -- there's strife within the administration...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I thought they all agreed on the "Create an occupation force in every country around the world and then institute a Christian theocracy based on religious dogma" plan?!?!

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

That's sarcasm.

[Guest jpclemmons]

here's some more info, spin it and weep

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld canceled a news conference Thursday in part to avoid questions about whether the White House recently reduced his role in Iraq's reconstruction, Pentagon and NATO officials said.

 

The White House said Monday it is creating an Iraq Stabilization Group to be headed by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. The group will be responsible for handling the day-to-day administration of Iraq, a task previously handled by the Pentagon.

 

Rumsfeld was scheduled to brief reporters at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Colorado. He was questioned at Wednesday's NATO press briefing about his relationship with Rice, a memo she circulated establishing the new Iraq Stabilization Group, and whether he was "in the loop."

 

The defense secretary has "said everything he has to say about it," Pentagon officials said.

 

The change in the oversight of reorganization efforts inside Iraq stemmed from numerous discussions on the topic among Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rumsfeld and President Bush, a White House official said.

 

A report in Thursday's New York Times quoted several administration officials who said Rice discussed the issue with Rumsfeld and other members of the National Security Council last week.

 

Earlier this week, Rumsfeld said he did not remember discussing the topic with Rice. He said he was informed of the creation of the group by way of a memo sent to an undersecretary of defense.

 

Referring to the flap about the memorandum, a NATO official said they were told Rumsfeld canceled the news conference because he didn't want to answer any more questions on the topic.

 

But Rumsfeld's chief spokesman said the news conference was canceled so he would have time to meet from representatives of several countries at meetings that were not on his original schedule.

 

"I would say that is the reason" Rumsfeld canceled, Rumsfeld spokesman Larry Di Rita said

 

 

face it, Rumsfeld and his cronies at the pentagon are hardheaded idiots who can't see anything past their ideology . and Bush gave the job of handling reconstruction to more capable people.

[MrRant 0]

If it's not on FOX News... it doesn't matter.

[sfaJack 0]

 

October 16, 2003

 

TO: Gen. Richard Myers

Paul Wolfowitz

Gen. Pete Pace

Doug Feith

 

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

 

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

 

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

 

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

 

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

 

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

 

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

 

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

 

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

 

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

 

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

 

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

 

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

 

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

 

Do we need a new organization?

 

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

 

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

 

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

 

Does CIA need a new finding?

 

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

 

What else should we be considering?

 

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

 

Thanks.

I thought you were leaving this folder since we're all "ignorant" and "can't acknowledge facts." That sure didn't last long....

[Vyce 0]

Yeah? Well I can spoiler text too.

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

I'm sure some of the rest of you find the irony of clemmons calling us "ignorant" as delicious as I do.

[Guest MikeSC]

face it, Rumsfeld and his cronies at the pentagon are hardheaded idiots who can't see anything past their ideology . and Bush gave the job of handling reconstruction to more capable people.

Hmm, since we're all ignorant here, can you explain how the heck you came up with your asinine --- oops, I mean brilliant --- deductions from the column?

 

Sounds like Rumsfeld doesn't feel like having to defend ASKING QUESTIONS (you know, like a COMPETENT leader would) to a bunch of lazy reporters.

 

But, hey, we're too ignorant to figure it out, so please, enlighten us.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

...wtf?

 

The title threw me like fucking crazy.

 

I need to take another break from this folder.

[Firestarter 0]

Sounds like Rumsfeld doesn't feel like having to defend ASKING QUESTIONS (you know, like a COMPETENT leader would) to a bunch of lazy reporters.

The second "story" jpclemmons posted predates the first "story" by several weeks.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Quit being ignorant (I think we've found the next phrase to mercilessly beat into the ground)...