|
Rumsfeld Caught Off Guard by Troops' Questions
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Not quite as "fun" to be questioned by the troops as you thought it would be, eh Rummy?
| quote: | Troops Get a Chance to Question Rumsfeld
By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; 5:35 PM
Moments after Donald H. Rumsfeld said how much more "fun" it was to be questioned by the troops in Baghdad than the critics in Washington, the troops in the Iraqi capital hit the defense secretary with a barrage of serious, probing and sometimes personal inquiries, some of which, he confessed, he just could not answer.
One soldier asked when they would receive improved vests and better armor for the Humvees. It's those roadside bombs, he said. "We lost some soldiers due to them."
Another asked whether it was true that the military would not pay their full air fare back home.
Yet another wanted to know why his military medical coverage wouldn't handle physical therapy for his handicapped child.
When, if ever, would the United Nations send some troops and where would they come from?
Would Defense Department employees who are civilians working with the military be permitted to carry guns, asked a civilian working with the military?
The entire town hall meeting was televised live on CNN.
And sometimes it did indeed sound to Rumsfeld like a televised news conference full of journalists back home.
"Mr. Secretary," said a member of the audience. "You have said you would like to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Instead, more troops are being sent."
"You should be a journalist," Rumsfeld told her, smiling.
"Well, you're right," he said. "Our goal is to not have troops in Iraq, It's to have the Iraqi people take charge of their country and take charge of their security. And that's why you folks are working so hard to help recruit and train and equip and deploy and mentor the Iraqi security forces. So our goal is to pass that responsibility to them as soon as they're capable of taking it."
It was the longest answer of the day, albeit short by Rumsfeld's Washington standards.
Most of his responses were referrals, to Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , who was standing beside him, or to Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who was behind him.
Sometimes they could not answer either, and referred the questions onward, as they did with the soldier concerned about his handicapped child, who was told to see the officer in charge of health insurance.
Sometimes they answered.
"Good points. Excellent points," Myers said in response to the question about the armor.
"You can imagine we spend a lot of time on force protection, and our responsibility, I think, is to ensure we have the resources and protection lines and all that cranked up to get the equipment we need . . . We're producing them and sending them over here as fast as we can. . . . Production is ramping up this month," Myers said.
Rumsfeld, who came to Baghdad after being grilled before two congressional committees about prisoner abuse, was good natured throughout, even when he was, by his own admission, clueless, as he was on the question of arming Defense Department civilians.
The exchange on that subject went like this:
Questioner: "Sir, there are many DOD civilians who are here in the theater, and many of us are unarmed. And many times we're placed in harm's way in convoys and we have no means to protect ourselves. And I know there's been many memos and letters I've seen floating around saying it's the policy to arm civilians if they need to be armed, if they're in harm's way. But there seems to be a resistance . . . to actually provide arms to us. I was wondering what the current policy is on that."
Rumsfeld: "Well, I could do several things at this point. I could admit I don't know what the current policy is here, or I could turn around and ask General Rick Sanchez to come over here. Then he'll say he doesn't know."
Rumsfeld then called on Sanchez for an answer. He didn't know.
"We'll be able to get the definitive answer," said Sanchez. "But right now, we have been working to try to get the authorities to arm the civilians here. That has been an issue for some time. And you're right, we're working that and we have been for some time. And we'll get -- I'll get a specific status for you. Okay?"
It was okay.
The final question was equally serious, "about stability when we return home," said the questioner.
"I, like a bunch of people here and including my brothers, who are in Afghanistan right now, are on our second tours already within two years. I volunteered to come back over here because it's my duty to serve, but a lot of people don't get a chance to say hey, I'm ready to come back. Is there a plan for stability?"
"We have 20th-century industrial-age planning tools in terms of force management," said Rumsfeld. "They're making major efforts to improve them and they're getting better, but they're far from perfect."
When it was over, Rumsfeld got one thing he never gets from the press in Washington: a standing ovation.
"Thank you for your service," he said. "May God bless you and your wonderful families."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004May13.html |
Seems that the so-called "unwavering" support that troops often provide to their superiors is beginning to waver a bit. More evidence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1215613,00.html
Excerpt:
| quote: | In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the joint chiefs, awarded the prize for his strategy essay competition at the National Defence University to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Dunlap for The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. His cautionary tale imagined an incapable civilian government creating a vacuum that drew a competent military into a coup disastrous for democracy. The military, of course, is bound to uphold the constitution. But Dunlap wrote: "The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you."
The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists. |
|
|
|
| The Mex |
Seems that the so-called "unwavering" support that troops often provide to their superiors is beginning to waver a bit. More evidence:
You don't know me and I wouldn't want you to speak for me on this subject. My "unwavering" support for my superiors is still intact. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Mex
You don't know me and I wouldn't want you to speak for me on this subject. My "unwavering" support for my superiors is still intact. |
You are correct - I do not know you, and I certainly don't speak for you. I am unsure how you have deduced that I am speaking for you. I am, however, referring to the articles and the tone of the troops towards Rumsfeld, based on their line of questioning.
Would you care to address the articles at hand? I would be interested in your opinion on that. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I think it's good that the troops were asking those questions. I don't think it's an indication that their support is wavering per se, rather they are asking questions that plenty of people are asking. If anything it shows that our military is engaged and aware of what's going on at home as well as in Iraq and are asking questions that they should be asking. Sure, some of them are tough questions, but the soldiers have more of a right to ask those questions than a lot of the anti-war folks at home. I'd say the standing ovation is evidence of this, though I'm sure soldiers usually applaud their Defense Secretary after he speaks. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
wow its amazing how you guys can make all these raidcal assessments out of nothing.
Good job left wingers! This ones for you |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
wow its amazing how you guys can make all these raidcal assessments out of nothing.
Good job left wingers! This ones for you |
From the article:
| quote: | One soldier asked when they would receive improved vests and better armor for the Humvees. It's those roadside bombs, he said. "We lost some soldiers due to them."
Another asked whether it was true that the military would not pay their full air fare back home.
Yet another wanted to know why his military medical coverage wouldn't handle physical therapy for his handicapped child.
When, if ever, would the United Nations send some troops and where would they come from?
Would Defense Department employees who are civilians working with the military be permitted to carry guns, asked a civilian working with the military?
"Mr. Secretary," said a member of the audience. "You have said you would like to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Instead, more troops are being sent."
|
| quote: | Questioner: "Sir, there are many DOD civilians who are here in the theater, and many of us are unarmed. And many times we're placed in harm's way in convoys and we have no means to protect ourselves. And I know there's been many memos and letters I've seen floating around saying it's the policy to arm civilians if they need to be armed, if they're in harm's way. But there seems to be a resistance . . . to actually provide arms to us. I was wondering what the current policy is on that."
Rumsfeld: "Well, I could do several things at this point. I could admit I don't know what the current policy is here, or I could turn around and ask General Rick Sanchez to come over here. Then he'll say he doesn't know."
Rumsfeld then called on Sanchez for an answer. He didn't know.
|
| quote: | | "I, like a bunch of people here and including my brothers, who are in Afghanistan right now, are on our second tours already within two years. I volunteered to come back over here because it's my duty to serve, but a lot of people don't get a chance to say hey, I'm ready to come back. Is there a plan for stability?" |
Now the tone of these questions are of serious concern. It may be, as Shakka said, just a well-informed group. But combined with the fact that these questions completely caught Rumsfeld and his staff off-guard, along with other articles and statements that demonstrate a number of military men and women questioning their role and purpose in Iraq as well as questioning Rumsfeld's position. It also bad to read such quotes as this from the second article I posted:
| quote: | | One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld". |
Now you can take the Guardian source for what its worth (probably not much for conservatives), but that is, indeed, a sad statement to read if true.
Are all troops and high-ranking officers turning on Rumsfeld? Of course not. But the disgruntled sentiment and questioning of Rumsfeld is pretty undeniable to me. |
|
|
| Shakka |
For what it's worth, the armored Humvees that the soldiers could really use weren't even available when troops were originally deployed in 2003. It's a shame, because they would be a huge help over there. It's also a shame that so many people don't know this.
It's also no big secret that many in the military don't care for Rumsfeld, in part because he wants to downsize the personnel aspect of the army in favor of improving technology and streamlining operations. And yeah, he's arrogant, but I also believe he's highly intelligent, capable, and qualified. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
From the article:
|
you realize I did read the thing once, right? :conf:
| quote: |
Now the tone of these questions are of serious concern. It may be, as Shakka said, just a well-informed group. But combined with the fact that these questions completely caught Rumsfeld and his staff off-guard, along with other articles and statements that demonstrate a number of military men and women questioning their role and purpose in Iraq as well as questioning Rumsfeld's position. |
How do you know the tone? Where you there? Did you hear this on audio?
I didn't hear the tone, to me the tone sounded curious and sympathetic.
But to suggest that these questions and the disability of Rumsfeld to answer them suggest that he was caught off gaurd and is completely ignorant is ludicrious.
Let me ask you this question, under your current health care plan will you recieve benifits if you had a child that has passed the age of 21 but has been diagnosed as mentally ill?
Could you also please tell me how long it took to recieve that e-mail you sent out to that guy earlier this morning? He should of had it in 5 secs but it didn't arrive for at least an hour. Can you tell me what happened to it?
Also, what is your current company's policy on dogs in the work place? Many employees need dogs in the work place to make them happy and more productive. But there seems to be a great resistance to dogs in the workplace where you work, why is this so? Shouldn't people be encouraged to bring their dogs to the workplace?
Now did these questions catch you off-gaurd? And if they didn't I know your lying. ;) Rumsfeld was asked the same type of quesitons regarding his job - why hasn't the body armor arrive, what are our medicial benifits policy, and what's the deal with civilians and arms? HOW THE HELL SHOULD HE KNOW!
The guy's job is not to micromanage every issue in the whole DOD. Its to set general policy and direction, to make sure the machine is flowing well. Just like it isn't your job to know exactly what an e-mail process compromise, the small print details of your medical coverage, or the dog policy at your work place. :rolleyes:
The fact that he admitted he doesn't know, does not make him any less capable of his job, or any more ignorant then he should be. Should you know exactly what happened to that e-mail you send this morning and why it has been backlogged? No! But when the client calls you and complain you can go to the server people, or the e-mail guy, ask them and give them an answer.
| quote: | | It also bad to read such quotes as this from the second article I posted: |
Big freakin deal! Rumsfeld has over ONE MILLION people working for him! Is it really that hard to find one that doesn't like the guy? Nope, I'm sure there are hundreds, even thousands. Put that in perspective they make up less than one percent.
I bet you I can find a person that disagrees with you in yoru company and would provide me with such a statement if you work for a place with at least 50 employees. Hell, this board has probably about 25 'regulars' and I'm sure I can get one of them to make such a statement with you. Maybe I can even get you to make a similar statement about someone you work with, or your boss for that matter.
| quote: | | Are all troops and high-ranking officers turning on Rumsfeld? Of course not. But the disgruntled sentiment and questioning of Rumsfeld is pretty undeniable to me. |
Whats one in a million got to do with anything?
The fact is I have no problem with any of these articles.
My problem is the fact that you are trying to "suggest" something with these articles about Rumsfeld that is clearly untrue, or at least nothing that these articles have to contribute on the effort.
I mean for godsake, have you ever seen a press conference with Rumsfeld? He doesn't know many answers:eek:
Quick lets impeach:whip: :rolleyes:
I prefer an honest guy that will tell me he doesn't know the answer and will find out, to a guy who pretends he knows all and will give me BS any day of the week, why don't you? |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
wow its amazing how you guys can make all these raidcal assessments out of nothing.
Good job left wingers! This ones for you |
No kidding. I would venture to guess that no one here actually watched the entire speech, followed by the Q&A session, as I did. This article does nothing to capture the upbeat mood of the troops, nor does it capture the sincere nature of their questions and the sincere answers of Rumsfeld.
There were no "tense moments," nor were there any issues the troops had that went unaddressed. It's typical of the press to try and make something out of nothing. When something's on paper, the nature of the interaction is entirely stripped of its context. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
you realize I did read the thing once, right? :conf:
How do you know the tone? Where you there? Did you hear this on audio?
I didn't hear the tone, to me the tone sounded curious and sympathetic.
But to suggest that these questions and the disability of Rumsfeld to answer them suggest that he was caught off gaurd and is completely ignorant is ludicrious.
Let me ask you this question, under your current health care plan will you recieve benifits if you had a child that has passed the age of 21 but has been diagnosed as mentally ill?
Could you also please tell me how long it took to recieve that e-mail you sent out to that guy earlier this morning? He should of had it in 5 secs but it didn't arrive for at least an hour. Can you tell me what happened to it?
Also, what is your current company's policy on dogs in the work place? Many employees need dogs in the work place to make them happy and more productive. But there seems to be a great resistance to dogs in the workplace where you work, why is this so? Shouldn't people be encouraged to bring their dogs to the workplace?
Now did these questions catch you off-gaurd? And if they didn't I know your lying. ;) Rumsfeld was asked the same type of quesitons regarding his job - why hasn't the body armor arrive, what are our medicial benifits policy, and what's the deal with civilians and arms? HOW THE HELL SHOULD HE KNOW!
The guy's job is not to micromanage every issue in the whole DOD. Its to set general policy and direction, to make sure the machine is flowing well. Just like it isn't your job to know exactly what an e-mail process compromise, the small print details of your medical coverage, or the dog policy at your work place. :rolleyes:
The fact that he admitted he doesn't know, does not make him any less capable of his job, or any more ignorant then he should be. Should you know exactly what happened to that e-mail you send this morning and why it has been backlogged? No! But when the client calls you and complain you can go to the server people, or the e-mail guy, ask them and give them an answer.
Big freakin deal! Rumsfeld has over ONE MILLION people working for him! Is it really that hard to find one that doesn't like the guy? Nope, I'm sure there are hundreds, even thousands. Put that in perspective they make up less than one percent.
I bet you I can find a person that disagrees with you in yoru company and would provide me with such a statement if you work for a place with at least 50 employees. Hell, this board has probably about 25 'regulars' and I'm sure I can get one of them to make such a statement with you. Maybe I can even get you to make a similar statement about someone you work with, or your boss for that matter.
Whats one in a million got to do with anything?
The fact is I have no problem with any of these articles.
My problem is the fact that you are trying to "suggest" something with these articles about Rumsfeld that is clearly untrue, or at least nothing that these articles have to contribute on the effort.
I mean for godsake, have you ever seen a press conference with Rumsfeld? He doesn't know many answers:eek:
Quick lets impeach:whip: :rolleyes:
I prefer an honest guy that will tell me he doesn't know the answer and will find out, to a guy who pretends he knows all and will give me BS any day of the week, why don't you? |
spoken like a true texan:p |
|
|
| occrider |
Hehe perhaps I can be of some service since I was unfortunately listening to the c-span rebroadcast of Rumsfeld's Q&A session with the troops Thursday night (lengthy roadtrip and forgot my cds).
Based upon my unexpert opinion (I must confess this is the first broadcast of Rumsfeld fielding questions from troops in Iraq that I've ever heard so what do I know?), I really didn't detect an apparent lack of support from the troops ... at least something that one can detect over the radio. I heard him being asked about up-armored humvees to which he replied that all up-armored humvees in existence were being transferred to Iraq with the exception of some being retained in the US for chemical/biological attacks. He then stated that they were being produced at a rate of 2 hundred something per month and shipped out as soon as possible. He was then asked about sending more troops to Iraq to which he replied that the administration always bowed down to the requests of lead commanders in Iraq. He was then asked whether troops were given full flights home to which he deferred the answer to myers who stated that troops were given full tickets home. About that time I stopped listening because it became monotonous. But after most question and answers, the troops gave a little 'hoorah' cheer and applaused.
So all in all, I'm not entirely certain how one is supposed to perceive such an event (from a reporters standpoint), but all in all I thought of it as a non-issue (hence my flipping the radio dial to some crappy rock station after 45 minutes). The fact that a story was written about the whole event leads me wonder whether journalists are simply looking for something that is newsworthy to report or whether they are looking for something new to report and hence making it newsworthy. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Yeow! Damn, Yoepus, I believe I found your boots up my ass. It took a while to find it, but after a long hard dig I believe I have it. Yep, here they are sir, now if you just pull real hard while I push my sphincters....
Ahhh! Damn that hurts! Hoowee, there you are sir, good as new, almost:
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/ 0WQAAAGgc7hzNW4ZDEZgc7hcPwSCZKQXSok413fpUBW5YmNJfbwbGhQTxtjZwMiG*ftmHF5hNIsp3MiHXIN*6JEp!!193FUyQHN7
Lz7vv5!1JVeLaWqIW08wNpqI*Aula2uCKJ5ns*IM/ty%20boots%202.jpg?dc=4675389791419388124[/IMG]
Sheesh, gettin' raked over the coals for this one. Did I hear the interview? No, and I don't want to lie and pretend I did. I will concede to Occ's interpretation of the "mood" from the interview, and will also concede that there may have been a slight (*gasp*) bias by the writer.
Then again, perhaps not.
You really have a propensity for being a Bush apologist under any and all circumstances, Yoepus. Are you ever going to concede that there are more than just a few individuals (i.e. more than .1%) that are questioning their superiors and their roles in Iraq, as well as questioning why the hell Bush sent them there in the first place? I will easily concede that there is a possible bias in the media against Rummy right now. "Beat up on Rummy" is the current theme in present day news, and with the New Yorker article coming out today, it's just not going away anytime soon. But will you ever concede that the troops aren't in lockstep with Captain Ahab Bush here? I mean, really, yes those questions threw Rummy a curveball, but why are they asking those kinds of questions to him, and is there a possibility that the troops know they were stumping questions in the first place? Most supporters who interview someone has a tendency to throw softballs. Christ, look at the difference in questions being given to any Senate hearing for example. It certainly resembled something similar in this instance when these military men and women started asking some tough questions. Did they honestly expect that Rummy have all the answers, or were they deliberately asking tough questions to get a point across? I still tend to believe the latter, and you assume in a facetious manner that I meant the former.
That is not the case.
(Side note: The questions you asked me I do have immediate answers for, esp. the email question - it's my job to know about email traffic and problems with our tempermental Exchange server. Off topic, sorry.)
And I must say, this last statement just cracked me up:
| quote: | | I prefer an honest guy that will tell me he doesn't know the answer and will find out, to a guy who pretends he knows all and will give me BS any day of the week, why don't you? |
You really coin Rummy and everyone in this Administration "honest"? You "honestly" believe this Admin. is more "honest" than other former Admins., or other politicians for that matter? Surely you jest?
Edit: Ah hell, my pic isin't comin' through. Just go here to find your boots, Yoepus:
http://groups.msn.com/deepbootsands...hoto&PhotoID=30 |
|
|
|
|
