Rumsfeld admits no real plan...

[dsm]

... after 9/11 for how the Defense Department should deal with terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20031022/ts_nm/iraq_usa_memo_dc&printer=1

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm
... after 9/11 for how the Defense Department should deal with terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20031022/ts_nm/iraq_usa_memo_dc&printer=1

I don't think the article quite supports your theory.

To me, the thing that stood out in the article was this quote: Rumsfeld said the United States had no yardstick for measuring progress in the anti-terrorism war. They have an idea what needs to be done, but they don't have an idea of how to measure their success.

And I think that's a big difference from not knowing how to deal with terrorism.

(That said, I do think they've made some big mistakes, such as not coming down harder on Saudi Arabia.)

[DrChinese]

From the article:

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?" Rumsfeld wrote, referring to the war on terrorism.

After half a trillion bucks, have you done enough? You start a war, then you want more wars. Eh, Rummy? Guess you better be careful what you wish for!

The war on terrorism will last for as many administrations as it can be extended. We need something now that we don't have commies to fear. That is the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) premise.

[DrChinese]

From the article:

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?" Rumsfeld wrote, referring to the war on terrorism.

After half a trillion bucks, have you done enough? You start a war, then you want more wars. Eh, Rummy? Guess you better be careful what you wish for!

The war on terrorism will last for as many administrations as it can be extended. We need something now that we don't have commies to fear. That is the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) premise.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese
From the article:

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?" Rumsfeld wrote, referring to the war on terrorism.

After half a trillion bucks, have you done enough? You start a war, then you want more wars. Eh, Rummy? Guess you better be careful what you wish for!


Perhaps if you had followed Rummy's various attempts to get a plan in place to restructure the military command bureacracy then you might understand what he meant.

[Crossbow]

There is a more detailed article in the Washington Post:

Rumsfeld Questions Anti-Terrorism Efforts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3217-2003Oct22.html

In a private memo sent last week to his closest Pentagon associates, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called into question his department's efforts to win the war on terrorism, and said it might be necessary to fashion "a new institution" that could better focus the government's campaign.

He said the Pentagon had not "yet made truly bold moves" to reshape itself for the ongoing war and said "relatively little effort" had gone into developing "a long-range plan" to defeat terrorism. He also said the United States even lacks a good set of measures to determine how well it is doing in the war.

...

The Rumsfeld memo does essentially concede that his Department of Defense has no long-range plan for dealing with terrorism, that the DOD may never be able to properly deal with terrorism, and that the war with Iraq and Afghanistan is still going on and it is a long way from being over.

[shecky]

It's nice to hear Rummy being so candid.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Crossbow

The Rumsfeld memo does essentially concede that his Department of Defense has no long-range plan for dealing with terrorism, that the DOD may never be able to properly deal with terrorism, and that the war with Iraq and Afghanistan is still going on and it is a long way from being over.

All great points. Except for SOF, the military really isn't designed for handling terrorist threats. In Afghanistan we simply toppled a regime that that support/harbored. Battling foreign powers is that the military is designed for. Stopping 5 guys with a dirty bomb and a plan is not.

What I don't understand is how so many people took the memo negatively.

A. Rumsfeld is looking for any excuse he can to get the new defense restructuring in place

B. Most of the "revelations" are really no-brainers

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx

All great points. Except for SOF, the military really isn't designed for handling terrorist threats.
...
What I don't understand is how so many people took the memo negatively.
...

I thought Clinton knew this well when addressing terrorism.

Like in the case of World Trade Center and the terrorists there.

Then why -in contradiction to this memo- is Bush now warring countries, blah-blah about the "...war on terror...", wasting billions of taxpayer money during recession, and killing thosands of innocents while missing Hussein (Iraq), Omar (Afghanistan), and bin Laden (Saudi Arabia)?

I tell you why:

1.) Bush is stupid to miss Hussein, Omar, bin Laden but kill innocents instead;

2.) Bush has hidden intentions -like looting oil and American military hegemony-;

and

3.) Bush camouflages his intentions behind pretexts like the "...war on terror...", "...September 11..." and WMDs.