Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
Rumsfeld was attacked because he tried to pass off his own shortcomings with a truism. He is a classic example of the civilian who thinks he knows the military better than the military. The professionals wanted 350,000 troops in Iraq. Rumsfeld argued it could be done with far fewer based on his own assumptions, which turned out to be little more than wishful thinking. He also put the brakes on spending for things we needed: up-armored Hum-Vees and the like. Only after it became obvious that he's have to part with some coin for the troops (as opposed to the contractors) did the tap get turned on properly. While Rumsfeld may be right about the Army one goes to war with, I would point out that you deal with the world as it is, not as you hope it will be.
Webstral
|
I recall some of the trade magazines referring to "Rumsfeld's screwdriver", a euphemism for his unwarranted interference with tactical units (i.e. telling them how to do their jobs), when he should have been concerning himself with telling the generals what he wanted them to achieve and then letting those generals run the war.
People like him should keep their noses out of the jobs that senior NCOs and junior officers are trained to do but I can imagine it's only going to get worse with the latest generation of technology allowing
everyone to see what an individual Section/Squad is doing and even individuals within that unit