He came into office in June 1999 with a clear vision
for "transformation" and talked passionately about the
army's need to adjust from thinking about traditional
enemies to what he called "complicators", including
both terrorists and the then little-known phrase
"weapons of mass destruction". Gen Shinseki might thus
have relished the arrival of a Republican team equally
committed to change.
Unfortunately, the two sides had very different ideas
about what the words meant. The general wanted a new
kind of army, one that could combine the adaptability
of light infantry and the power of heavily mechanised
forces. His new bosses had other ideas. "They had
pre-decided what transformation meant," said one
Pentagon source. "It meant more from space, more from
air and it didn't involve the army much. That was the
essence of the conflict."
This erupted over the Crusader mobile artillery
system, which Mr Rumsfeld has scrapped. Gen Shinseki
told Congress a year ago it would have saved lives
during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. By then he
had already been turned into a lame duck ("castrated",
according to the same Pentagon source) by the
apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to announce
his successor 18 months in advance.
He seems to have been caught in a classic bind:
distrusted by his subordinates for being too radical
and by his bosses for being too conservative.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html
--- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andy wrote:
> > My problem is both of your willingness to state
> opinion as fact when reality
> > is so much more complicated. In many ways you are
> acting in the same
> > fashion that you accuse the man you dislike, which
> seems somewhat
> > disingenuous.
>
> How about these facts then:
>
> 1.) General Shinseki spent decades in the military
> under both parties
> and was promoted to one of its highest ranks. This
> is material
> evidence that Gen. Shinseki was "Army material."
>
> 2.) Gen. Shinseki violated the unwritten rule - he
> publically broke
> ranks with the Pentagon. This is material evidence
> that Gen. Shinseki
> disagreed with the Pentagon and its Iraq policy.
>
> The question to you is, do you think a career
> military officer who
> publically broke ranks with the Pentagon was happy
> in his position?
> Do you think the Pentagon valued his opinion?
>
> If both answers are no then I'd say we're standing
> on firm ground.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF
community.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=35
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:133284
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
