Ignorance fuels Rumsfeld attack
The latest media assault has begun. This time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is in the crosshairs of liberal editorial boards, including The Standard-Times, which editorialized "Rumsfeld needs to retire." This is not the first time they have attacked him. Last spring, they ran a column "Rumsfeld must go."
What do the troops think? From my observations, they love this straight-talking warrior. Shortly after 9/11, I attended an Army-Navy wrestling match in which Mr. Rumsfeld was present. It took 10 minutes to quiet a standing ovation when he entered the arena.
While the troops love him, the press hates him for the same reason -- he is a straight talking warrior. Of course, the press has a history of wanting spineless fuzz balls running our military. They detested General George Patton. He made the unforgivable error of being arrogant while driving the enemy all over North Africa and Europe.
Rummy is created from the Patton mold. I can never forget his response to a question posed by a reporter during the Afghanistan liberation. She asked why we are using cluster bombs when they are so dangerous. Rummy replied that we are using cluster bombs because they are very effective at killing people and that is what we are trying to do.
Imagine that. In a war with a sworn enemy, our military is using the most effective weapons. What an outrage!
The widely reported town hall meeting where a soldier asked him about armor for Humvees was actually a setup. Although the media praised the honesty of the soldier, it has now been revealed that an embedded reporter planted the question. There you have the "truth" that the liberal media love, scripted by an aggressive reporter who used a young soldier that had just reported to Kuwait, as a pawn.
Although they have reported the fiction, the media have ignored the fact that soldiers were able to ask the questions because Rumsfeld gave them the opportunity.
The Standard-Times committed a bigger outrage by implying that the reason the troops did not have more armored vehicles is that President Bush preferred to spend the money for tax cuts for the wealthy. Does there exist any logic tortured enough to justify such a monstrous claim? I guess you will have to judge for yourself, but to me, it is a baseless attempt to exploit the class warfare wedge to the detriment of troop morale.
In reality, the cost of the war effort has never been a primary factor. Except for a few, including a flip-flopping, defeated presidential candidate, nobody has disputed spending whatever is required to protect our troops. The Army says it has been purchasing hardened Humvees as fast as they can be manufactured. In all, 22,000 of its 30,000 Humvees have been hardened, with more on the way. Those that have not are given safer missions.
While armchair generals may not understand, sophisticated military equipment does not grow on trees. It takes years to design and specialists to manufacture. Given the circumstances, the record is astonishingly good.
Rumsfeld took heat for the quote, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." History proves he is right. In the Civil War, Lincoln was forced to fire General McClellan for squandering opportunities to attack. McClellan always wanted to wait for further troop strength prior to committing.
The problem with such shortsighted thinking is that the enemy also has the opportunity to improve his situation. This is really Military Strategy 101. In war, you must seize the initiative and keep the enemy on the defensive. Patton knew and Rumsfeld knows that by keeping pressure, you prevent the enemy from regrouping and strengthening. If Rumsfeld were to have listened to his critics, he would have been pilloried for inaction that allowed the terrorists to strengthen.
The strategic thinkers of the liberal media question the fairness of the regular Army getting the improved equipment prior to the reserves. This is further evidence of their lack of understanding about the military. The best equipment always goes first to the very front where it is needed most -- what the Army refers to as the tip of the spear. From there, it is backfilled as more becomes available.
President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld have made a commitment to supply the troops with the best training and the finest materials available. This is a noticeable improvement from the Kennedy/Johnson/McNamara Vietnam strategy where the stated goal was winning at the lowest cost.
Secretary Rumsfeld deserves our gratitude for agreeing to staying and finishing the job and providing much needed continuity. With a little education about the military and a perspective that is on the level, more in the media might learn to appreciate that.
Peter Friedman of Dartmouth is a retired Naval submarine officer who writes the "Conservative Corner" for The Standard-Times. His e-mail address ConservativeCorner@hotmail.com
This story appeared on Page A18 of The Standard-Times on December 16, 2004.
|
|
