Jack Murtha: The Britney Spears of Congress

[The ClayTaurus]

the pentagon didn't like rumsfeld because he wanted a special forces quick response army and the generals wanted a big army with toys .....

which army would you want?

Point is, we got neither.

[manu1959]

Point is, we got neither.

really....we don't don't have special forces or a conventional military?

then what do we have?....and tell me, why don't we have what you claim we don't have?

[CSM]

so was rumsfeld pushing the military in the right or wrong direction? as i understand it he was trying to create a more special forces military rather than the big lumbering WWII military and the old guard was pissed?

On the surface that is true, but Rumsfeld (and others) are pushing for more than that. The individual Services spend a lot of bucks duplicating efforts, developing the same capabilities and so forth. One of the things that is being attempted is to get dollars spent to the benefit of ALL the services where it is appropriate. Of course, once you do that, you are getting into individual "rice bowls" and some folks don't like that.

Another obvious thrust is to build a more agile military as a whole, lighter, more responsive but with enough punch to keep things from escalating beyond a certain point. Unfortunately, what that point is and what happens when you reach it is TBD.

Also, such a revamp in focus and thinking steps on a lot of toes. Besides fostering much debate, it creates a lot of animosity...always does when that much money is involved. That's why I take a lot of what the retired generals say with a grain of salt. Many of them have an axe togrind because their "pet rock" got dinged in the whole process.

[manu1959]

On the surface that is true, but Rumsfeld (and others) are pushing for more than that. The individual Services spend a lot of bucks duplicating efforts, developing the same capabilities and so forth. One of the things that is being attempted is to get dollars spent to the benefit of ALL the services where it is appropriate. Of course, once you do that, you are getting into individual "rice bowls" and some folks don't like that.

Another obvious thrust is to build a more agile military as a whole, lighter, more responsive but with enough punch to keep things from escalating beyond a certain point. Unfortunately, what that point is and what happens when you reach it is TBD.

Also, such a revamp in focus and thinking steps on a lot of toes. Besides fostering much debate, it creates a lot of animosity...always does when that much money is involved. That's why I take a lot of what the retired generals say with a grain of salt. Many of them have an axe togrind because their "pet rock" got dinged in the whole process.

csm,

thank you for your thoughts....our views of this matter are similar.

59

[The ClayTaurus]

really....we don't don't have special forces or a conventional military?

then what do we have?....and tell me, why don't we have what you claim we don't have?

No no, I think we, as a country, have both. As far as assets in Iraq, however, there is some combination of the two.

[GW in Ohio]

Based on the responses in this thread, my conclusion is that some of you guys are kinda crazy.

But I like you just the same. I like your forthrightness and I respect the fact that you're veterans.

So I think I'll stick around this forum.

[CSM]

Based on the responses in this thread, my conclusion is that some of you guys are kinda crazy.

But I like you just the same. I like your forthrightness and I respect the fact that you're veterans.

So I think I'll stick around this forum.

S'ok....contrary to popular belief, we don't eat babies...they are way too mushy and the best you can do is make stew out of em.

Truly, we are mostly reasonable folk but some of us have small tolerance for obvious trolling ... heck I even LIKE some of the more liberal posters!