you guys still want to support the troops, correct? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2446536,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World -- Troops fear Rumsfeld's exit will end their Iraq mission From Martin Fletcher in Baghdad Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq. Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died. Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished. Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war. Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: “It’s a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. It’s going to be hard to fill his shoes.” But one US army colonel, who did not want to be named, said that such positive views were uncommon in the higher ranks of the US military. “We are the ones closer to the problem. We are the ones who have the broader picture,” he said. The colonel criticised Mr Rumsfeld for sending too few troops to Iraq, and for refusing to listen to the advice of his generals. He noted that General Eric Shinseki, the former US Army Chief of Staff, was dismissed for demanding more troops, while General John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command, was the sole general to have differed publicly with Mr Rumsfeld and survived. Certainly the rank-and-file are trained not to question the decisions of their superiors. “We don’t question why we’re sent here. Our job is to do what we’re told and we do it with pride,” said Sergeant Jason Gomez, a military policeman. When pressed, some also admitted that to question Mr Rumsfeld’s execution of the war would raise doubts about the value of their mission and of their comrades’ deaths. “I try to keep positive. That’s what keeps you going,” said Sergeant Daniel Allen, of the 101st, who has lost three friends during his two tours in Iraq. “When you lose someone close to you, it’s hard to say whether [their deaths] were worthwhile or not. I like to believe so, especially for their families’ sake.” But these men are also some of the last believers — people who are still convinced that Iraq can survive its present violence to become a stable democracy. “We’re losing a lot of people over here, but they’re not dying in vain,” Sergeant Gomez insisted. Sergeant Ron Carter, of the 101st, said: “It’s a bad situation. It's a tough situation. But I think [Rumsfeld] probably did the right thing for the right reasons. Maybe it could have been a bit better planned, but helping people who were suffering — that’s a good reason.” Major Mike Jason, who has been advising an Iraqi battalion for the past year, said that it remained to be seen how Mr Rumsfeld would be judged. “I hope history will judge that we did something good and stuck with it and saw it through, because it’s already been pretty damn costly.”
Yeah, That is what the guys on the ground are taught to do, follow orders no matter how dumb they are......now the Generals they do the thinking, and there is much rejoicing about Rumsfeld leaving. Rumsfeld was a HORRIBLE Sec of Defense, and the Bush Presidency will go down as the worst presidency in US history. DD
This is not true. There were interviews earlier in the week where troops had the opposite reaction and hoped for new ideas to help them accomplish their mission. You know an article is biased when it has to make up incorrect facts.
I don't know what my nephew who returned from serving with the Marines in Iraq a few weeks ago, thinks about Rumsfeld. I do know that he would be very happy if the mission in Iraq ended before he has to head back there. The first part of his tour wasn't in the most dangerous of areas, and outside of a few mortar attacks they did alright. But things got worse, and as the unrest and insurgency grew their attacks were more frequent. Finally the last month he was there was nightmarish, he said. It changed his life forever. His friend was killed and his unit had to go back into the combat area and recover the heliocopter and casualities, one of which was his friend. There were bullets whizzing at him the whole time, and they were returning fire, and he has said he would never be the same. But he did his duty, and returned fire, and did what he had to do. He was very happy to get out of there. Its just too bad that he has to go back again for another tour. For his sake and the sake of all the troops I am very glad that Rumsfeld is gone.
I’ve also seen interviews with men on the front line who said openly that Rumsfeld made mistakes and that they were happy with the change. But when has Basso ever told the truth? Concepts like truth, justice and freedom are just rhetorical tools for him that at heart he pretty clearly has nothing but contempt for. I think Basso is entirely beholden to the Republican party and that in his mind anything he can say or do to try to defend them is justified in his mind, anything. Some things he says are completely mind boggling, though. Why do you hate the troops sooo much Basso? How even now do you try to defend the butcher who sent so many of them to their needless deaths for the sake of his own political ambitions? Even US generals agree that this war is radicalizing even more people and making the problem of terrorism worse, and yet you have such little regard for the troops and their families, and even for the citizens of the US whose safety Rumsfeld has further jeopardised, that you would still openly defend him. You are certainly the most ghoulish member of this board. At least you’ve never claimed to be a patriot, not that I’ve seen anyway.
Having two family members up there pretty high in the military and both have had several deployments in Iraq, would disagree with you wholeheartly. One of which I just talked with the other day, after Rumsfield's departure.
I thought everything is wrong in that sentense, which makes Rumsfeld very wrong as a leader. Or if it came from a frontline soldier, everything becomes right?
Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. Yeah Sarge, but he was wrong. When people make bad decisions with negative consequences at their jobs, they get fired. Well it was technically it was a Civil Service job and that's not really true for Civil Service jobs.
So some of the troops don't want to accept the truth that Iraq currently is unwinnable and the U.S. isn't willing to supply the troop levels necessary, never have from the beginning, to quell the violence. Nobody likes being on the losing side, but if peace and democracy are the necessary objects for winning the war in Iraq, then victory is no where on the horizon.
Since when "moral authority" equals "correctness" in English? I was asking whether the statement was right or wrong, not about his moral authority, wasn't I? BTW, what if another frontline officer with absolute moral authority, who happens to stay in the frontline longer than this one in quote, welcomed the replacement of Rumsfeld? How do you judge right or wrong, by comparing the same ABSOLUTE moral authority?
I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request. (I disagree.) This is easy to say now... and without a review of history past.
How would you feel if you are risking you life out there and then someone tell you what you are doing is totally pointless? I would bet many people would be pissed at the person who tell them that even if the other person is correct.
So do you get mad at the person stating the correct information, or would you be pissed at the moron who was responsible for the debacle? Rummy didn't listen to his generals. If they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, he replaced them. My former brother-in-law, is in his second tour of duty. Chalk up one more marriage destroyed by the Iraq war.
Not saying I agree with that, just point out why many soldiers would feel that way. I felt Rumsfeld should have stepped down long time ago. It is easy to get 1000 soldiers, it is very hard to get a capable general to take charge of things, he is obviously not a capable leader.
