We canâ€™t know for sure whether Rumsfeldâ€™s resignation was driven by panic, political deafness or any other speculated reason including escape from Congressional Inquisition or some other form of p[ro][er]secution. Is it going to a James Baker inspired cut and run? I truly hope not for the least reason but the most impalpable one in my mind of that George is running back to Daddy. Weâ€™ll know soon enough. But I take umbrage in the attacks on Rumsfeld in both Rickâ€™s post and in the comments. This is so for the simple reason that despite every warning that the dialog the Left wants, Vietnam, is the very one theyâ€™re getting. I know there are very happy cockles right now from the semi-intelligent Islamofacist straight up to the leaders and strategic thinkers of Dar al Islam. Rumsfeldâ€™s resignation is their cherry on top. They have constantly predicted America would fold and had every guaranty from the MSM and the entire western Left that they would do their part, and then some.
I think the most startling realities are those we are avoiding. Letâ€™s face it, we are not the military superpower we think we are. Our all-volunteer military was wrongly configured and it is puny. Forty years ago we had 350K troops in Vietnam going full bore for the half million mark with heavy military commitments to NATO and the rest of ASEAN. At 150K deployed in two theaters, we have bare cupboards. The President has done squat to get what Rumsfeld needs to end this war in bloody resoluteness, as both Rick and Ralph Peters have sought. The President will not even attempt to interdict, punish and destroy the two sh*thole countries keeping the insurgency alive, forty years ago it was the entire commie worldâ€”oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Who could leverage the British to actually do something like fight the Iranian-led Shiâ€™ite militias in southern Iraq? President Bush couldnâ€™t because he needed the political cover of Blair and British participation. It was only quiet for the limeys because they didnâ€™t fight. The British â€œsoftly, softlyâ€ approach has cost America dearly and that too lies at the Presidentâ€™s feet. All these are political decisions, made by the President and abetted by two really bad choices for Secys of State, Powell and Rice (who were/are 41â€™s before theyâ€™re 43â€™s). Oh, and Bremer was theirâ€™s too.
The question everyone should be asking but isnâ€™t, because everyone is focused on their own opinions, is what do the fighting men and women think about Rumsfeldâ€™s resignation and what adverse reactions could occur? Question two would be is what will happen to an all-volunteer military that is betrayed in the field if cut and run is implemented? Volunteers? Anyone?
One last thing. There is no such thing as the â€œresurgentâ€ Taliban. Pakistan has just opened another front in their Islamic war and it is against America and our NATO allies. We are killing all Pakis now, newly minted and fresh from Peshawar. If we let Iraq fall, how far behind is Afghanistan? Without Rumsfeld, who is the firewall? My faith in this President has reached its nadir with Rumsfeldâ€™s resignation, for no other reason that if not constrained, he was the most ruthless and feared man for those who seek to destroy us.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 9.11.2006 @ 03:02
Great writeup, you deserve it Rick.
Geez, only 120 listeners. What a lonely bunch we are.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 15.10.2006 @ 11:29
The link works off both the RWNH and the W.A.R. websites.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 1.08.2006 @ 07:57
Could be my machine, but I doubt it because it has worked before.
Are there podcasts in the future?Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 25.07.2006 @ 07:50
It is Sunday, so its time to play fantasist. I haven't tackled the battle raging between the IDF and Hezbollah before this post and probably shouldn't now, except that I am playing fantasist. It's too early to tell what strategic goals the IDF has been tasked with. I certainly think Ralph Peters has jumped the shark.
It is no secret that the IDF prefers surprise and maneuver to static and broad front offensives. In his foreword to his book "Strategy: The Indirect Approach" Capt. Basil Henry Liddell Hart maintains that his best students had been the Germans in WWII and the IDF. I believe the IDF remains so.
The IDF is employing the IAF, artillery and rocket forces to prep the battlefield. They are degrading the aforementioned Shi'ite Seigfried Line; they are purposely leaving a very small force of about 3,000 soldiers and a few dozen tanks on the border area; they are attempting to separate the fighters from the civilians (if that is possible in the Jihad culture); they have cut off the asymmetrical communications network of TV and radio stations, as well as, the cell phone infrastructure and they are taking a few isolated high points (see Gettysburg: Little Round Top) and setting up observation posts.
It is my guess that the Israelis by not following the Peters' playbook and are trying to accomplish three tasks before they strike at the heart of Hezbollah. First, by following a seemingly limited strategy of pinpoint incursions with limited forces they are showing the face of weakness to the enemy and thus emboldening them. Following that setup, the IDF seeks to have as many Hezbollah and IRG units stream south from Beirut past the Litani River. They want the enemy to see an opportunity to change its tactics from static defense and rocket attacks to an offensive that can't resist the very enticing morsel of the small IDF presence on the border with seemingly isolated outposts on their territory. Whether studied or not, the chance to deliver a coup de main and perhaps seize Israeli territory is a morsel too enticing to be ignored. As history has proven, sagely counsels to refuse to be baited by such conditions have almost always been thrown into the wind in favor of the gleam of great victory.
The IDF counterstroke is what I am looking for. If they achieve the massing and concentration of enemy forces south of the Litani and leverage them out of their fortifications, the real battle will commence and Hezbollah and the IRGs will cease to exist except for a fleeing rabble leaving behind all that is left of their deployed arsenal and fortifications. Or, they will all be dead.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 23.07.2006 @ 10:25
But dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Why now? Is it because thereâ€™s a shooting war going on between Israel and its blood enemies and Kristol thinks no one will notice if we go a-bombing in Iran?
There is no strategic advantage to bombing now compared to a year or two years from now. Itâ€™s not like the facilities are going to get up and walk away. They will still be there unless we can convince the Iranians that they will never build a nuclear weapon as long as the United States has anything to say about it. And since I actually agree with Kristol that the likelihood of that happening are about as close to zero as you can get, it very well may be that some day, Iranâ€™s turn will come. But why it should happen now except as an adjunct to what Israel is doing?
There exist threats that Israel will have to seriously get a grip on and the U.S. cannot be a silent partner. That is why behind the scenes we are trying with great exertion to contain this conflagration. First, like as in Iraq, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in thick of the fighting. The C-802 missile strike on their Sa'ar-5 class corvette was a shock to the Israelis (who, if he were an American naval captain, would be crucified for dereliction of duty) both because of its presence in Lebanon and that the Iranians fielded that battery. Hezbollah under Iranian military command which also fields it own forces means the supposed checkmate of Iran through Afghanistan and Iraq have leveraged the U.S. with that combined force now presenting a threat through the entire Iraqi western front.
If Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guards were to unleash a weapon in the WMD class or if Iran were to launch from their territory, who is in the flyover zone for the first or second strikes? Whether in a first strike or the retaliatory one, you can bet the casino that the barrage from Iran will be everything on the shelf from short to long range missiles, a few will not make it to Tel Aviv but perhaps the Green Zone and a few other concentration areas that would decapitate our forces in Iraq in a catastrophic way. Praying that Iran has no working WMDs is a risk I wouldn't take.
The U.S. would have to decide now, not later what contingencies there are in the worst-case scenarios. For sure any exchange between Israel and Iran would have to fly over Iraqi airspace, with Israel having a small percentage possibly out of territory. With Iranian forces already in the conflict against the U.S. and now Israel, none of our options including timing are of our choosing but better be anticipated or we can pay a dear price for not doing so.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 16.07.2006 @ 02:59
After Buford's troopers hung on for two more full hours of fighting, they were reaching the limit of their endurance. Reynolds knew this and that if he did not hurry he would lose McPherson's Ridge. He turned in the saddle and called back over his shoulder to the infantry trudging up behind him: "Forward, forward, men! Drive those fellows out of that! Forward! For God's sake, forward!" Those were his last words. He suddenly toppled from his horse and lay quite still, face-down on the soil of his native Pennsylvania. No one knew what hit him--including Reynolds himself, most likely--until an aide saw the neat half-inch hole behind his right ear, where the rifle bullet had struck. When they turned him over he gasped once. then smiled, but that was all. He was dead at the age of forty-two, brought down by a reb marksman in the orchard just ahead. "His death affected us much," a young lieutenant later wrote, "for he was one of the soldier generals of the army."Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 2.07.2006 @ 13:15
Archer's brigade pressed on in the main to overrun the dismounted troopers. But, they were thrown into disorder by a fence they had to climb before they forded a stream and could start up the slope of McPherson's Ridge. They managed to regain order and as they started up the Ridge they suddenly ran into flame-stabbed smoke and the crash of heavy volleys. This was musketry, not sporadic Spencer carbine fire and then they saw why. Not only were these new opponents infantry, but their black hats told the startled and stalled attackers that this was our Iron Brigade. The first brigade of the first division of the first corps of the first Army of the Republic. If Thomas Jackson's Stonewall Brigade was a fearsome sight to make our men tremble, the same or moreso could be said of our Iron Brigade, these hard-bitten Westerners with the formidable reputation for hard fighting and their fierce pride.
Staggered by this ambush, the surviving butternuts made a dash back from the attack. This time that fence would prove to be fatal. Piling high on the fence in disorder, the Alabamians were suddenly attacked from their flank by a Michigan regiment. They were cut to ribbons and those who escaped considered themselves lucky.
75 rebs were captured including Archer, who was roughed up by a hefty private named Patrick Maloney. Archer never got over the mauling the big Irishman gave him. Heh.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 2.07.2006 @ 12:55
In the eve of July 1, one of Buford's brigade commanders remarked that the rebs would not be coming in any considerable strength and that he would be able to hold them off without much trouble, Buford rebuffed him, "No you won't," he said. "They will attack you in the morning and they will come booming--skirmishers three-deep. You will have to fight like the devil until supports arrive." That is how the rebs came, three-deep and booming. Led by Archer and his Alabamians--Archer who whipped us back at Chancellorsville.
Buford who was watching his dismounted troopers barely hang on, from the cupola of a Lutheran seminary, knew if Federal infantry didn't come up soon, he would have to pull out to avoid being caught in pincer attack. At about 8:30, however, as Buford started down the ladder, perhaps to give the order to retire, he heard a calm voice asking from below: "What's the matter, John?" It was Reynolds, considered by many to be the best general in the army. Buford shook his head. "The devil's to pay," he said. Reynold's asked if that meant he could not hold on till I Corps got there, Buford reckoned he could and that was all that Reynolds needed to know.Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 2.07.2006 @ 12:07
Even the New York Times, arrogant and self righteous though they may be, must be allowed to decide whether or not to publish information that may harm national security. We donâ€™t like it. We believe they did it because, at bottom, they disagree with the governmentâ€™s contention that we are at war and that publishing secrets gives aid and comfort to the enemy. But in the end, they must not be prevented from making their own judgments in such matters because to limit their decision making also puts prior restraint on their ability to publish. That is de facto censorship and cannot be allowed in a free society.
Does it really matter â€œwhyâ€ they did it? Are there extenuating circumstances to committing an act of treason?
You say that the NYT has a right to publish without hindrance anything they desire. Fine, the AG has the right to prosecute the publisher, the editor, the reporters and even shut the joint down.
This is not a rhetorical exercise about the freedom of the press. The NYT have been wormeating for a good long while now and because of that freedom, nothing has happened to hinder this right. When national security is harmed and Americans are put at risk, that right should lead them straight to a super-max. Or would you feel better about such a prosecution if weâ€™re attacked by any alphabet terror group that slipped through that compromised highly classified operation?Comment Posted By Badge 2211 On 27.06.2006 @ 19:12