With all due respect to my brilliant co-bloggers, whose collective grasp on the subtleties of constitutional law are sincerely quite impressive, this thread is for non-legalese discussions on politics.
One suggested topic, William Kristol’s savaging of Donald Rumsfeld in the Washington Post today. In short he argues:
[S]urely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.
Now that the election is over, can the country PLEASE unify in agreeing it’s time for Rummy to go?
Now that the election is over, can the country PLEASE unify in agreeing it’s time for Rummy to go?
Why? Would Bush appoint someone more competent and less arrogant?
Do you have anyone specific in mind, Edward? Even a set of alternatives would be good.
Part of Kristol’s piece was odd. Rumsfeld is not Secretary of the Army, he’s Secretary of Defense. “We”, when referring to the Army, would be a slight to the other armed services.
Slart, from reading the MSM it seems that missile defense has had a few embarrassing setbacks lately – any comment?
I’m a little out of touch; can you throw me a link?
Check out the 1st link on the NYT home page, for example. I haven’t been keeping track since they agreed with my prejudices, but I think I’ve seen a rash of negative articles the last month or so.
While I’m waiting for specifics, the embarrassing setback is part of nearly all weapons system testing. It’s nearly guaranteed if the preflight assembly and testing has been neglected for budgetary reasons. It’s probably more prevalent now than a couple of decades ago, because of the near-religious belief that one can do things faster, better and cheaper. Somehow, we’ve still not got this one figured out.
My personal belief is that it’s all a game. DoD sells concepts to Congress for funding based on wildly optimistic schedule and budget, and the program either survives, or it doesn’t. I guess the mindset is it’s better to win a program and suffer through the nearly inevitable loss of credibility that goes along with serial test failures than it is to go without altogether.
Slart: also, check here. Excerpt:
“An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defense system in nearly two years.
The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.”
About Rumsfeld: it’s not just Kristol. From this article:
“Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. “I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,” McCain said.”
““I don’t like the way he has done some things. I think they have been irresponsible,” Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Sunday on CNN after returning from Iraq. “I don’t like the way we went into Iraq. We didn’t go into Iraq with enough troops.””
““I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.”
Please, oh please let justice prevail, and the single member of the cabinet who has presided over more ungodly and inexplicable mistakes than any other be fired.
And Slart: the problem with missile defense, it seems to me, is that it has been all embarrassing setbacks and no successes. That plus the fact that we don’t really face a serious missile threat that isn’t much better deterred by MAD, that the missile defense program is incredibly destabilizing, that it does nothing about the many easier ways to detonate a nuclear weapon in this country (shipping one over in a cargo container, for instance), and that it costs a lot of money we don’t have.
Ok, got to the article.
It’s basically a no-test. They lost a target, which is bad, but losing the interceptor would have been much worse. Generally an interceptor is a piece of hardware into which a whole lot of hours of assembly and test have gone, and it’s a much bigger hit to schedule and cost to have the interceptor shut down at, say, stage separation than it is to just have it sit on the pad.
They always say something like that. Mostly it’s true to one extent or other, except when you have a complete failure and the PM claims 90% of the objectives have been met.
Re: Rumsfeld, looks like a pile-on. McCain might have some sort of political angle, but when guys like Schwartzkopf come out with some specific, personal statements maybe there’s something to it. I have no reference for why what he said was an insult (as I noted; I’d think it would be at least as insulting to the other services, any other way, but again: I have no reference), but it’s clear he stepped on some toes. If he’s clueless enough to have done so without making up afterward, then maybe he deserves the Goodbye Look.
As for the no-armor question, I think some of the milbloggers have fielded that one. Some of them were even there. Go read what Blackfive has to say, and then Mudville Gazette. There may be some valid points to be made, but you can’t say the military is uniformly (so to speak) pissed off by the armor thing.
Hilzoy, the notion that missile defense hasn’t had any (or even many) successes is just wrong. This particular program may have more than its fair share of problems, but missile defense in general usually doesn’t get programs to any point of maturity so test successes get to be more the rule than the exception. Except PAC-3, which has pretty much rocked.
But PAC-3 is lower-tier theater defense, so it’s not quite as visible as the NMD programs. Which, it’s got to be said, are far less mature. PAC-3 is old enough that I cut my engineering teeth on its baby brother over two decades ago.
Why Rumsfeld Stays: A Simple, But Elegant Theory: which can be summarised as “They can’t get anyone else to take the job.”
Dick Cheney called this clown “the best Secretary of Defense we’ve ever had.”
Is Cheney, or Cheney’s Office, still responsible for picking and vetting Cabinet Secretaries?
I don’t see Rummy leaving. I don’t think anyone else has his apple-polishing skills.
But, if he does get shown the door, and Cheney gets to pick his replacement, I anticipate great entertainment.
Let’s see.
There might be people capable of cleaning up the Iraq mess – but I can’t imagine the WH being willing to give them the authority they’d need to do so.
There are certainly people from the corporate world, who’ll have no problem being a sunny side up brown-nose as they funnel more contracts their company’s way. That won’t help the sitch in Iraq, but it’ll keep the Pentagon quiet.
And then there are true believer types who will keep on telling us all is well in Iraq, but who might have enough of a nodding acquaintence with reality to realize more soldiers are desperately needed. Young, able-bodied soldiers, that is; not the amputees and retirees the Pentagon has been hauling back into active duty.
So: our choices are:
The truly competent and committed Which just ain’t a-gonna happen.
The cheerfully incompetent and corrupt Which has certainly been a winning combination to get into Bush’s Cabinet so far.
The educable and minimally corrupt Nope; they might say the word “draft,” at which point the GOP can kiss its permanent One Party control of the government goodbye.
OK. My money’s on “cheerfully incompetent and corrupt.”
How about you?
Hilzoy: Please, oh please let justice prevail, and the single member of the cabinet who has presided over more ungodly and inexplicable mistakes than any other be fired.
You’re jumping the gun, Hilzoy. Since the Bush administration have not yet given any truthful explanation why they invaded Iraq, it’s possible that their real motivation (whatever that might be) is best achieved by Rumsfeld’s methods. Hard to imagine, but that’s the problem with an administration that firmly believes if they speak the truth about their policies, no one would vote for them.
CaseyL, my money’s on Rumsfeld stays. If he didn’t get sacked for the catastrophe that’s been Iraq so far, or for the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, Bagram Airbase, and Guantanamo Bay, or for driving the US military so near collapse, then odds are he never will be.
Maybe Kristol real issue is that Rumsfeld doesn’t want to invade Syria.
In current conditions, Cabinet Secretaries are the President’s decision, and the President’s responsibility. To me the phrases “Rumsfeld screwed up” and “Bush screwed up” are inseparable in policy matters.
Talking about Rumsfeld just seems to give Bush a level of deniability.
Not completely sure of my history, but strikes me that the Cabinets are Congressional creations, and the Secretaries are confirmed, and in theorey the President does not have to have direct control over either. We are in deep argument here in Dallas over strong mayor or council/city manager organization. I would prefer a strong Congress/weak President, but that got settled about Andrew Johnson’s term, I think.
Go with the city manager. It’s the only way to keep the fire and police unions from destroying your city’s budget. Here in Pittsburgh, we have a big fat bankruptcy issue, but the Mayor can’t buck the unions because their endorsement almost guarantees a victory in the Democratic primary.
Oh, and Slartsville, is fraud just part of the plan, too?
As for the no-armor question, I think some of the milbloggers have fielded that one.
Ummmm, no. When you have deployed troops making field mods (“hillbilly armor”) and using sand bagged gravel trucks as ordnance locators, it’s a sure sign there’s a problem.
BTW, PAC-3 is to NMD as a firecracker is to a hydrogen bomb. That is to say, PAC-3 isn’t really in the same species as NMD. IIRC, PAC-3 also didn’t have that great of a test record.
Wasn’t Rumsfeld Cheney’s mentor back in the day? I’ve always thought that since those two stepped on too many toes to get elected themselves, they came up with a good front man. Oh, I have no doubt they believe in Bush, so please don’t flame me. But the specific power dynamics of this administration have been obscure since day one, and so I feel free to have my own opinions/speculations on this matter.
My guess is that we have four presidents: a front man with convictions (Bush), a clever PR guy for domestic policy (Rove), and on foreign policy, Cheney with his PNAC and Rumsfeld with his reconceptualized military. Rumsfeld and Cheney are the indivisible architects of foreign policy. The media and political speculation about Cheney’s retirement had the same function as the current speculation and calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation: it’s a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the current foreign policy. Bush can’t admit any change of course; it won’t happen.
hey, let’s not forget, W ordered that the missile defense system be deployed in 2004. this is part of the reason they haven’t even done a test in two years – they were busy trying to deploy the thing.
They’re deploying a defense system that doesn’t work.
They declared a war they don’t know how to fight.
They’re using currency devaluation (the dropping dollar) to solve a problem they deny is a problem (the deficit).
They’ve announced a crisis that doesn’t exist in order to destroy a federal program they don’t like (SocSec).
You gotta love that faith-based government stuff.
Casey, but you’ve got it all wrong. Bush thinks he has a strong-dollar policy.
Inaccurate, but it’s the thought that counts. Still, I didn’t claim PAC-3 was comparable to NMD, just that it was an example of a successful missile defense program.
The PAC-3 Missile has a perfect flight test record.
Of course, that was in 2001. There were a few failures in subsequent testing.
Well, damn, that doesn’t look good, does it? I have no idea how the Pentagon could do such a thing, aside from confiscating all the materials. MITLL still would have need to know and clearance, which are the two things you’d need to be able to discuss the problem. Now, Postol’s not exactly a guy who double-checks his sighting before firing the big guns, so this might be nothing, or it could be something awful. Everyone else I’ve dealt with at MITLL has been, well, nearly without peer in the community. Unfortunately, I’m not involved in that sort of work anymore, so I can’t just drop the question at a working group.
And…it seems to me that the initial allegations of fraud were made by an MIT scientist other than Postol. I’ll have to consider that for a bit. I could be confusing it with some other outfit, like Raytheon.
As for the rest of the comments on NMD, I do agree that it’s a mistake to field this thing before it’s been properly validated in flight testing.
Aside from allegations of fraud, I love the idea of testing the missile defense system on a missile that has a homing beacon in its cone. So very realistic.
Re the beacon – depends what you’re testing. Maybe you want to check that the missile flies right given the right path – and you want to see what it calculates as the right path on its own. If this is convenient for selling the program to non-engineers by headline, then all to the good…
Homing beacon?
Praktike – That article you linked to? Is the funniest damn thing the Onion has run in a long —
What? It’s not parody?
Damn. I sure picked the wrong decade to stop dropping acid.
Slart: I don’t know, actually, whether the missile had a homing beacon this time, but they have in past tests of the system. From the Boston Globe (2002) (link via Common Dreams, all I could find online):
“In the past five years, three of five antimissile tests have hit their targets, according to the Pentagon. Critics note, however, that the tests have been radically altered to increase the probability of success. Only a single decoy missile has been deployed, rather than the scores expected in an actual attack, and the target missile has been equipped with a homing beacon to guide the interceptor.
Despite the questions, Rumsfeld announced in January that the program would be subject to less internal oversight, and critics say it would get less independent monitoring of its tests.”
And Salon (2001):
“Precisely according to plan, the target was instantly vaporized on impact — and along with it, or so the Pentagon’s uniformed salesmen hoped, the perennial concern that missile defense won’t work. With the cooperation of major news organizations and conservative pundits, that test provided an enormous propaganda boost to the Bush proposal, which conveniently enough had been brought up to Capitol Hill by Defense Department officials just two days earlier.
There was only one thing that all the happy salesmen forgot to mention about their latest test drive. The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged.”
(Note that although the articles are a couple of years old, there haven’t been tests since about two years ago, so these tests are not in what, for these purposes, counts as the distant past.)
Oh. Guess everyone went to bed. I’m interested in hearing more about the homing beacon thing, though.
The minor comedy of close time-stamps…
Ah, that. Well, here’s what I have to say about that, and it’s probably not going to convince you without a whole lot of background. But I’m going to make the attempt anyway.
Any weapon systems testing program is going to consist of a progression of successively more difficult test objectives that are supposed to (at least) end up with some number of tests that mimic conditions that a deployed system would see. If it helps you to think of it as akin to aircraft testing, that’s not a bad analogy. Any aircraft is going to have a great deal of ground testing, including static loads, stationary engine tests, actuator tests, and I think I’ve reached the limit of what I know about aircraft testing. Then you do taxi tests. Eventually you actually get the airplane off the ground. After you’ve flown it around for a while, you might consider retracting the gear. Do I need to go on? Weapons testing is a lot like that.
Now, as I recall, this particular test was done without the operational surveillance (radar) asset, and I’m guessing that that meant they had to track the target in another way, which meant C-band beacon. I don’t know the exact role of the GPS, but I’m going to guess that it was there to cue the C-band radar to look in the right place.
Now, I can’t recall exactly how the beacons work, but I seem to remember that what you get is angle track only, and not very accurate angle track at that. The operational system radar is going to give you range, doppler and very accurate angle track, which translates to position and velocity of the target. The radar consequently fulfills two functions: fire control and midcourse guidance update. Fire control means the radar projects the course of the target forward in time, and figures out a good place to attempt an intercept. A launch time and some trajectory shaping parameters are then given to the fire control system, which launches the missile using them.
Midcourse update means that the radar continues tracking the target, and provides periodically updated trajectory data to the interceptor in flight, prior to acquisition. This function serves to greatly reduce the acquisition range and maneuverability required of the interceptor, as compared with a fully autonomous interceptor.
I’m guessing that absent the radar, something had to provide data to allow the fire control function to take place, and also to compute in-course updates for the target trajectory. That something was GPS. The C-band beacon is likely backup, but more likely is there for reasons of range safety and (and this is important) impact verification.
Again, all of this is a guess, but it’s somewhat based on my memory of what people in the defense community were discussing at the time. The long and short of it is, there’s so much government oversight of these tests that there’s no way that the government was unaware of what was happening. And that oversight is so broad and open that there’s no way that interested parties (and I’m assuming Postol was one of those) didn’t know about it beforehand. I’ve been part of that government oversight on THAAD, and if the test in question had anything resembling the scrutiny that THAAD underwent, there’s not a chance in hell that any of this was a surprise to anyone involved.
Which makes Postol’s outrage a real headscratcher.
Oh, I nearly forgot the real clincher. What I learned from reading your links is that the GPS data was used to acquire the target. Unsaid (but it’s obvious to anyone who’s been around this stuff) is that it wasn’t used to actually hit the target. And what’s really, really unsaid is that GPS (at least at the time) is neither accurate enough nor updates quickly enough to help out in intercepting a target. Recall that this was 1997, and at that time a GPS translator (and that’s what this was, as I understand it) would give you position data with an accuracy of something like five or six meters, at best. For a radar, that would be uncomfortably close to truth data. But it’s not going to be good enough to get you to hard kill the target. What they ought to have done in order to avoid the ensuing brouhaha was added some random or bias errors on top of the GPS coordinates to give it error characteristics more representative of the operational radar.
Oh, and I promise this is the last thing I’ve got to say about this: what you hear in the MSM is almost always wrong, when it comes to technical details. Even Tom Clancy, who at least attempts to do some research, got some things wrong about a missile interceptor in Cardinal of the Kremlin. That interceptor was, it turned out, the baby brother of PAC-3 that I worked on. Even so, a little time spent with Aviation Week might have fixed up any misunderstanding.
And now I’m going to bed, at least after I move everything back into the playroom. Just finished painting it; the drywall work I did isn’t perfect, but it’s good enough. If I’d put on texture to match the other walls, there wouldn’t be any visible flaws. But we’re going to put built-in bookshelves and cabinets there, so it’d be a waste.
Goodnight everyone.
Isn’t the news about the missile test failure good.
When we look to the mainstream media… it says…
Afghanistan is a disaster… just had elections
Iraq is a disaster… about to have elections.
Kerry is their favorite… Bush won.
These guys and gals are wrong so often. Missile test failure from the MSM sounds like good news to me.
You sound rather like wwc, abc. Cousin? Brother? Or just good friends?
Denial: it’s not just a river in Egypt anymore.
Recall that this was 1997, and at that time a GPS translator (and that’s what this was, as I understand it) would give you position data with an accuracy of something like five or six meters, at best.
I thought that inaccuracy was by design and only for non-US-military use, while the military had access to much more precise measurements.
Anyway, the problem as I see it is not with the test design but with the marketing. Not sure who exactly is responsible, but these incremental successes, however often they occur, tend to get trumpeted as some sort of validation of the entire program. Of course, critics tend to paint every failure as proof that the system will never work, so I guess it’s all just typical politics.
I’ve mixed feelings about the call for Rummy’s resignation. On the one hand, relief, otoh, dread at the possible replacement. Has there been any new 2nd term cabinet appointment that is more moderate than the person replaced? Ashcroft -> Gonzales. Powell -> Rice. Ridge -> Kerik –>???
While I’m not pro-missile defence shield or anything, tests are often to see if anything fails, which is why they’re called tests. And if parts need to be tested that rely on other parts that aren’t ready (for example, flight systems need to be tested but the targetting system isn’t ready), then relying on things like GPS systems or beacons isn’t fraud, it’s simply a way to test things that need testing.
Tests are not demonstrations.
Which makes me wonder why they’re being treated as demonstrations. Shouldn’t this stuff be kept quiet? What’s with all the publicity? The Russians are doing the same thing too.
Oh, and I just re-read stuff above, and noted that Slarti did a good job of explaining this stuff. I still have to wonder about the publicity though.
C/A code was supposed to be a lot worse than P-code, but most of the difference is due to the uncertainty of SA being present. Older commercial receivers were truly awful, mostly because they could only sample one satellite at a time, and because the constellation was still sparse. Commercial vendors have figured out how to make the C/A code recievers (which means they don’t have the classified key) so close in accuracy to the military P-code receivers that they’re effectively equivalent. I think the commercial receivers still get the 30m hit when SA is turned on, but my GPS knowledge base hasn’t been refreshed in a while. This is going to change soon, with the new job assignment.
A lot of this is going to change in the next GPS blocks, though. And exactly how it’s going to change is both classified and still a work in progress. Oh, and it probably goes without saying that this was a military receiver, not a commercial one. Also, approved foreign military receivers have access to the P-code SA immunity. How this is done securely is pretty boring and also not something I want to get into.
And you thought legalese was bad. Hah!
That’s been my beef, too. Demonstrations, to my way of thinking, are there to validate that a design is reliable and meets spec. The reason for testing is multifold (this could spark another large post, but I anticipate eyes glazing over, again), but you can boil it down to a couple of things: firstly, you’re testing the hardware and interfaces under conditions that eventually approach those you’d see in deployment. Second, you’re gathering data to validate your simulation models. This latter doesn’t sound like an activity worthy of throwing a lot of money at, but given that system performance predictions are arrived at with those same simulations, validating them is extremely important. You can’t establish 95% Pkill, for instance, through demonstration. Not with much confidence, anyway.
Sometimes you find things in flight test that result in changes to simulation models. Wind tunnel aero data, for instance, might not tell you everything you need to know about flight conditions. I recall that SRHIT (or, as it was later called, FLAGE) changed some simulation models as a result of anomalous flight behaviors caused by hot guidance squib gases passing over the fins, changing the lift characteristic of that particular fin. Then again, sometimes a fin just snaps off at Mach 2, and it’s game over, in which case you didn’t get much useful data.
Jeez, forgot to get to the point. The reasons tests turn into demonstrations are many, but high up on the list is impressing Congress (or at least, not depressing Congress overly) so they don’t axe your program, and giving the head of the project office some material for his resume. These are also reasons why the success of a particular test is often exaggerated. I think the Congress bit is probably right at the top. And given Congress’ cancel early, cancel often approach to this sort of effort, I can see how it got to this point.
This is not to say that I endorse this sort of thing. In fact, it’s probably safe to say this kind of approach to testing is what got me out of that kind of work.
…caused by hot guidance squib gases passing over the fins..
Slarti, you have no idea how hard it is to not make a joke about that particular line. I’m actually in physical pain.
I used to have a sign that originally went beside some sort of hot-gas exhaust vent. It had the same effect on me, because of the warnings about unpredictable expulsion of noxious gases, possibly accompanied by particulates.
The hot-exhaust gas over fins bit may have applications for corned-beef-and-cabbage loving scuba divers. Maybe. I’d just as soon never find out.
Slarti: And you thought legalese was bad. Hah!
Oh, it’s interesting enough. Doesn’t have anything to do with the declared topic of the thread – why Rumsfeld should go, and why he never will – but it’s still interesting, and I wouldn’t expect any intelligent Republican to seriously try defending Rumsfeld in public.
Hey, someone asked. And this is a place where I feel I’ve got some qualification to comment, where as far as Rumsfeld (or any other high government official, for that matter) goes (or stays), I’m much less certain that I’m qualified to render an evaluation. And all the opinionation on the subject isn’t compelling me one way or the other.
It’s not my area of specialty, but it has always seemed to me that the technical difficulties were the least of the problems with missile defense. Far less worrisome that (a) cost and (b) effectiveness at meeting the actual goal, that is, the fact that even if it works perfectly, it can be so easily overcome. (By decoys, or suitcases, or container ships, or Liberian flagged tankers sailing 200 miles offshore, or myriad of other ways that people in the field can think off.
Since it isn’t really going to work, what we’re looking at is a massive pork barrel expenditure. OK, nothing like the expense of supporting the not-totally-poor elderly, but big money nonetheless.
It’s not my area of specialty, but it has always seemed to me that the technical difficulties were the least of the problems with missile defense. Far less worrisome that (a) cost and (b) effectiveness at meeting the actual goal, that is, the fact that even if it works perfectly, it can be so easily overcome. (By decoys, or suitcases, or container ships, or Liberian flagged tankers sailing 200 miles offshore, or myriad of other ways that people in the field can think off.
Since it isn’t really going to work, what we’re looking at is a massive pork barrel expenditure. OK, nothing like the expense of supporting the not-totally-poor elderly, but big money nonetheless.
Doesn’t have anything to do with the declared topic of the thread
It’s an open thread…discuss knitting if you like…
Slarti: Hey, someone asked.
Absolutely. I was giving vent to a tiny amount of snark about the absence of intelligent Republicans willing to tie themselves in knots defending Rumsfeld: but I do genuinely find the well-informed comments on “missile defense” interesting.
CharleyCarp: Since it isn’t really going to work, what we’re looking at is a massive pork barrel expenditure.
Yep. Technically interesting, politically valuable, immensely profitable to everyone except the taxpayers, and militarily a doonboggle.
As for the no-armor question, I think some of the milbloggers have fielded that one.
Have they fielded the allegation that Rumsfeld lied about armor production? If so, would you mind providing a synopsis?
Missile defense is supposed to defend against missiles, CharleyCarp; it’s equally ineffective against the intrusion of disruptive ideology, which is also irrelevant to discussions of the effectiveness of missile defense. The container-ship threat is a completely different one, and one that needs to be addressed separately.
Antitank weapons are great for killing tanks, but they do nothing at all about the sniper in the tree that you didn’t see drawing a bead on you. It doesn’t mean antitank weapons are useless, just that they serve a relatively narrow purpose.
Ouch. I’d forgotten it was an open thread. Sorry.
Re: Rumsfeld, this is my field. I think it is just bizarre that so many people are unloading on the Secretary after the President has publicly asked him to stay. Any hint from the WH that a change is even within the range of possibility represents a massive loss of face. Does anyone actually believe that GWB is constitutionally capable of asking R to leave at this juncture. If not, what’s really going on here? Jockeying for 2006? 2008?
Given that and the importance placed in the recent election campaign on staying the Rumsfeld course, I do not consider expressions of loss of confidence in Rumsfeld from people who supported re-election to be particularly serious. There was a time when they could actually accomplish something, and during that time, those people were saying, loudly and frequently, that R was better than any possible SecDef that K could have come up with. That view won out, and I for one have no sympathy for the people who knowingly backed incompetence, and now want to whine about it.
Haven’t seen that one. Please post a link, and ask this guy or this guy what they think, too.
Those links are to articles written by a couple of guys that address the Rumsfeld question. This guy, as I’ve mentioned, was actually there.
Charley: I think it is just bizarre that so many people are unloading on the Secretary after the President has publicly asked him to stay.
Because unfortunately, the US is now stuck with President George “disaster area” Bush till 2008. And no doubt any replacement Bush picked would be just as bad as Rumsfeld, or possibly even worse.
But it is possible to imagine getting rid of Rumsfeld without impeachment: whereas the US, and the world, is most likely stuck with Bush. (Though YNK: Nixon looked pretty secure this time thirty-two years ago.)
Slarti: I’d ask them but I don’t actually know them so I’m unconvinced of the utility. Especially since I doubt I could phrase my question in a way that wouldn’t immediately cause hackles to be raised, thus trumping whatever legitimacy my question might have.
[If that’s overly cynical, well, that’s what the wealth of my internet experience has taught me.]
Re the allegations about Rumsfeld, he claimed at the press conference that the only thing standing in the way of providing more armor to the personnel in Iraq was “physics”, i.e. production capacity. This is, as far as I can tell, a flat-out lie; see, e.g., here. It’s possible that the Army somehow didn’t realize that they just had to commit to more orders at a time or, though I’ll give this no credence absent some external confirmation, that Rumsfeld completely misspoke, but frankly it looks to me like complete BS. I’d be interested in hearing the counterarguments, though.
As an addendum, I’ll also remark that Rumsfeld’s “You go to war with the Army you have” is, as noted elsewhere, fundamentally disingenuous but not, perhaps, directly relevant to the matter at hand.
To tell the truth, I see no benefit in Rumsfield being fired other than it being a symbolic “counting coup” that might make the election loss hurt a little less for opponents of the Bush administration.
I have zero confidence that he would be replaced by someone more competent.
I have zero confidence that he would be replaced by someone more competent.
This seems to be a common opinion here. I disagree though. I don’t applaud Bush’ choices for State or AG, but I can’t see how anyone could bring the same blend of arrogance, intolerance for differences of opinion, and what I suspect is disrespect for even the Oval Office (although, perhaps not for that of VP) to the position as Rummy has.
Anarch, if you read through the links I supplied, I believe you’ll find your answer. Here, I’ll point it out:
I don’t know how to interpret Rumsfeld’s response. I guess I’m a little slower to cry “liar!”.
Oh, and this adds a little perspective.
No more legalese for me.
At least they would be incompetent in a different way, to paraphrase Anna Karenina.
I’m for missile defense: it’s called the U.S. Army Special Forces Group. Just ask the Israelis. They’ll tellya.
I like the IAF version just as much. Didn’t earn them any friends, but it sure was cheaper than putting silos full of interceptors all over the country.
Recommended reading: Fafnir’s take on the failed missile test:
Can we just coronate Fafnir and be done with it?
Can we just coronate Fafnir and be done with it?
I suspect that wouldn’t go over well with another member of the Fafblog Three…
I suspect that wouldn’t go over well with another member of the Fafblog Three…
I’m not afraid of Giblets any more–I’ve peeked behind that curtain and he’s just some guy in highwaters and a long coat pulling levers at this big control panel. Fafnir is the genius of the three, although I suspect the Medium Lobster would be quite exquisite with a bit of butter…
(now what’s the number for the witness relocation program again?)
OK, so the administration has most definitely decided to replace Rummy…either that or Lott has gone off the deep end:
What do you mean, “has gone off the deep end”? Can one do that more than once?
good point Slarti, but I assumed last time he didn’t realize he’d pay so dearly…this time I’m assuming he’s earning his way back into the admin’s good graces.
Hmmm…well, perhaps. But to me, going off the deep end sort of implies dire mental straits that precludes a struggle to the side of the pool, only to fall in again. Then again, now that I’ve described it that way, I begin to see the point.
Oh, and this adds a little perspective.
It adds something; I’m not sure it’s perspective, though. Going to the Army Materiel Command, an organzation directly answerable to the Donald is a little like asking Scott McClellan for a frank assessment of Bush.
Actually, Hummers aren’t the big problem. For the most part (~70%), they’re armored. It’s the M915 MTVs that are seriously under-armored.
yup…Rummy’s Toast:
GOP lawmaker Collins joins Rumsfeld critics
BTW, Lott may know something. Watch John Warner between now and New Year’s.
So, are you saying the M915s are designed to be armored, only someone’s decided not to put the armor in?
Or is the problem more like this? If so, I’m beginning to see a case, here.
I don’t know how to interpret Rumsfeld’s response. I guess I’m a little slower to cry “liar!”.
That’s fair. I suppose proper skepticism should require me to wait; but given my general despair of Rumsfeld’s honesty or respect for the complete truth I think my response is, sadly, also warranted.
[I had actually read all three articles you linked, but somehow managed to miss that, btw. Thanks for the heads-up.]
It took only four months from the first request in August 2003 to the beginning of production of the armor kits – a process, Motsek contended, that normally takes years.
And here we run smack into the Administration’s lack of seriousness about the war: I’m all for a properly conservative war policy (waste not, want not &c) but wtf were they doing between March 2003 and August 2003? Hell, why weren’t these requests submitted in late 2002 when war became (de facto) inevitable, if not even earlier?
Rumsfeld might turn out to be technically correct that the problem is one of physics, but in the same way my students could technically claim that it was the laws of physics that prevented them from handing their homework in on time. The fact that they didn’t start the assignment until the night before, well, that could hardly be to blame…
As I recall, it took a while for the insurgency to begin being effective. Given that it was totally unanticipated, the demand for up-armor programs would not have been even recognized until the problem cropped up. I don’t have a chart, but I suspect we’re talking June or July before the problem was recognized as such. And it does take a while to design armor and an attachment method. I could be wrong about the timeframe, but I couldn’t find anything quickly.
So the delay in getting the production underway doesn’t bother me all that much. What bothers me is that someone at the Pentagon screwed up in the cost estimate for the next year, by at least an order of magnitude, and someone else decided it was ok to hold soldier pay as hostage in order to pay for it. I’m all for creative ways to get things that widely recognized as an absolute necessity financed, but unless there was some widespread approval of this, along with communication down the ranks, this crosses a line.
See my last link if you’re confused. Read the whole thing.
Given that it [the insurgency] was totally unanticipated, the demand for up-armor programs would not have been even recognized until the problem cropped up.
By no means is that a given.
Virtually every pre-war scenario I’ve seen indicates the military was going to face exactly what they’re facing now: insurgency, urban/guerilla warfare, etc.
Let us remember there was only a very small group of neo-cons (the Donald included) pushing the notion that Iraqis would greet us with flowers and sweets.
McPaper:
Slarti: As I recall, it took a while for the insurgency to begin being effective. Given that it was totally unanticipated
No, it wasn’t. Or rather, it was if you believe Bush & Co honestly thought they could invade, occupy, and publicly plan to loot a country, without the locals getting… well, “insurgent” is one word for it. But, in fact, I think you’ll find that military and civilian agencies repeatedly warned that winning team, Rumsfeld and Franks, that there would be resistence – and warned them before the invasion. Not just American agencies – the British Joint Intelligence Committee warned of cells of resisters that “intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons”.
Bush & Co, lost in their PNAC dreams, apparently believed that the US occupation would be welcomed as “liberators”. In that sense, the insurgency was
“totally unanticipated”. But not by people with common sense or experience – or indeed valuable intelligence. All of these things were disregarded by Bush & Co because they wanted to invade. Why they wanted to invade/occupy Iraq we still don’t know for sure: every public reason they’ve given for it so far has been proven to be a lie.
I don’t have a chart, but I suspect we’re talking June or July before the problem was recognized as such.
Yeah – by the people with authority to do anything. But those people had received warnings before the invasion that there would be insurgency: it just didn’t suit them to pay any attention. So, rather than “totally unanticipated”, let’s try:
In short, Bush & Co screwed up bigtime. But we knew that. So do you, if you could just bring yourself to look at facts, not PNAC fictions.
BTW, Bush received two NIE reports saying an invasion of Iraq would likely result in an insurgency/civil war as well as support for guerillas by outside groups and other ME countries in Jan 2003.
Perhaps. But that wasn’t in the plan, as far as I know. You can fault the administration for not having a contingency plan, and you can fault them for being wrong, but faulting them for the results of not having a plan as if it’s a completely separate issue isn’t strictly correct. Note I’m not saying you can’t fault them for the consequences of not planning, just don’t attempt to disconnect the consequences and make them into new issues. They aren’t.
Now, what I linked to very well might be. If you’re going to make a case for not taking care of your troops, that’s fertile ground.
“Unanticipated” should read “unplanned-for”. Adjust your clocks accordingly.
Damned decongestants. I think today is going to be lower quality than usual.
Damned decongestants.
I hear ya. I am a walking fountain of mucous today…clearheaded thinking impossible…good time to debate entitlements ;0
But that wasn’t in the plan, as far as I know. You can fault the administration for not having a contingency plan, and you can fault them for being wrong, but faulting them for the results of not having a plan as if it’s a completely separate issue isn’t strictly correct.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re illuminating here but I probably disagree anyway. It wasn’t like the insurgency was unpredictable or even unpredicted; now they’ve sown the wind and our soldiers are reaping the whirlwind.
[Added in proof: ah, with “unanticipated” -> “unplanned-for”, I think we’re more or less in agreement.]
The fact that they chose to rectify this by screwing with soldiers’ pay is indeed fertile ground for criticism; I was hoping, though, that the condemnation would be apartisan and hence not really worth mentioning.
I think today is going to be lower quality than usual.
Boy, do I hear you. No decongestants for me yet; I’m going to try a long shower and if that does the trick. Here’s to hoping.
BTW, my sleep-addled brain remembers an incident a few months ago where the Bush Administration indulged in some similarly creative accounting, where they funded a shortfall in a budget by, essentially, raiding the pension plan of the employees. Anyone remember what I’m talking about?
Slarti: “Unanticipated” should read “unplanned-for”. Adjust your clocks accordingly.
Well, yeah: there’s quite a bit of difference between the two. I probably wouldn’t have responded so strongly at 09:49 AM if you’d used “unplanned-for” at 09:18 AM… since while “unplanned-for” is not quite as strong as “totally ignored”, it’s also not quite as excuse-making as “unanticipated”.
Damned decongestants. I think today is going to be lower quality than usual.
What are you even doing online? Go away, lie down, get some rest, dammit!
What are you even doing online? Go away, lie down, get some rest, dammit!
OK, what is this, the sick-room? I’m home, too, coughing my lungs up. What else are ya gonna do, stay in bed and read? (I’m actually feeling very put out as well as plain-old-sick. I cut the smoking down to half a pack a day, and this is the thanks my body gives me: *hack* *choke* *wheeze* – I don’t know if I’m actually ill or just detoxifying.)
(I’m actually feeling very put out as well as plain-old-sick. I cut the smoking down to half a pack a day, and this is the thanks my body gives me: *hack* *choke* *wheeze* – I don’t know if I’m actually ill or just detoxifying.)
If small children become addicted to slurping your sweat, it’s probably the latter. Mmmmm… tomacco…
Anarch, that’s … ew. So incredibly ew.
For the gerrymandering-averse, a very partisan suggestion.
ARGHHH!!!!
I’m speechless…
“the president is focused on working closely with him on those matters”
So there’s the problem …
There are two sproblem with the KOS suggestion on gerrymandering. First, the premise that Republicans couldn’t let it pass in Texas is false. Republicans would likely lose at most one seat in Texas, and could easily gain one or more in states like California. Second, the premise that the Democrtic Party wants non-partisan districting is also false. The nice thing about the Kos suggestion is that non-partisan districting would be good.