Re: is it true that Rumsfeld has tried to teach generals...

 :

4/5/2003 1:28 PM

Michael Tousek

Re: is it true that Rumsfeld has tried to teach generals... My, what a quagmire of gloom that article was, courtesy of the Observer (kid brother of the famously left-leaning Guardian). Six days old and it already feels dated. That sort of relentless negativism is so...last week.     Here's a recent piece that I thought was especially good:     http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson040403.asp     MT

 

4/5/2003 5:01 PM

Dai Hirokawa

Interesting article but more as an opinion of what some American thinkers perceive things than something well grounded in facts. He seems to have the idea that the U.S. isn't appreciated enough and that the U.S. might be better off if it were less involved, but I doubt that that is true. He brings up Japan for instance, and AFAIK Japan pays for the U.S. presence with even some extras for housing, golf courses, etc. And military members who are arrested get bigger meals, bit better treatment (with the idea that they keep up their physical strength when they're back out)--seems to be a bit of a relic from the past though. Big presence in Okinawa, strategic location close to the Korean peninsula, taiwan. Guess the idea is forward deployment, closer to potential areas of unrest. See giant fuel tanks around the base, for example. So that must make it easier for the military to do things (rather than mid-air refueling). They employ lots of people too, providing jobs (cooks, bands, construction, retaurants, clubs, bakery, etc.), so not everyone is opposed to their presence. Also helps reassure nations invaded by Japan in WWII (keep the "genie in the bottle"). Keep the region stable, better for economic development, people can make longer term plans. Market for U.S. goods, services, markets for capital (I think Japan buys lots of U.S. government bonds). I'm no expert, but the article and whole site seem a lot more ideological (in other words, biased) than the Observer article: quote: ""save 20% to 30% on hot conservative titles"" for instance). And I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "gloom and doom". Was something like this a fabrication?     quote: "Colonel Ben Hodges, commander of the 101st Airborne's 1st Brigade, said: 'Everybody's frame of reference is changing. The enemy always gets a vote. You fight the enemy and not the plan. I personally underestimated the willingness of the Fedayeen to fight, or maybe overestimated the willingness of the Shia to rise up'. "     Maybe some honest self-criticism? And that's a bad thing? Surely you don't expect everyone to be cheerleaders? Personally I kind of hope that the U.S. is successful because maybe that will help convince the North Koreans to follow a more sensible course rather than if it becomes a case study for U.S. failure.     The article closes with:     quote: "Given their strength in numbers and technological advantages, it still seems certain that the coalition will win the war. What is at issue now is: at what cost to innocent civilians and their own soldiers? The US remains confident of victory, but what price the spoils of war?"     And it seems that that is basically going to be the outcome (military victory for the U.S.). But the question is what kind of costs will there have been during and in total. I don't find that to be a ridiculous question. And the critics could be wrong, but things are still on-going, so it seems too early to predict total failure or success right now.     (It was not really my intent to defend the article or present it as the whole complete biblical truth or whatever but as just like I said, interesting.)     Dai

 

<<First Page

<Prev

Page 2 of 2