I appreciate Micheal Yon's percspective, but I disagree with both his and your analysis of the SecDef's role. I'm finishing my third year in the building and haven't seen a single case of him countering the guys on the ground (he does ask some very tough questions of his commanders). Do you expect him to have townhall meetings with all the guys in the field on a weekly basis? Tactical operations require a tactical perspective and the SecDef shouldn't be in that business (and isn't). If there are problems at the operational level, those operational commanders need to fix them. I understand the adage of "the buck stops at the top"; so why not take your shot at POTUS. It would be as off the mark as this one is against the SecDef.

So what would you have your "replacement SecDef" do?

CY, I have to agree with Sluggo_f16 in that SecDef is not a commander. He is a political appointee and is bascially a resource man. He should be collecting the requirements his commanders articulate, requesting of and fighting with congress for the necessary resources and them apportioning out what he gets. He is not a commander, he is not a trained tactician, and he is not a trained strategist. He is surrounded by such talents, but he himself is not the war executor. The chain of command has the theater commander answering directly to the CINC, not SecDef. If the thaeter commander answers to SecDef, the chain has been screwed up and Bush needs to fix it. Perhaps it's time to make General Dick Cody the theater commander.

There was an article I read on an Iraqi General that got support from the locals in his area, I can't remember his name but maybe if he had a larger role or we could find a couple more like him.

Support from the Iraqi people could be a lot higher. That would go a long way in helping.

CY - My first thoughts after reading this was, "OMG, those damn Lamontites have hacked CY's website too!"

Responsibility and accountability, are 2 words with no meaning in this administration. POTUS, Rummsfield, Chenney, Rove, etc. no one is responsible for what is going on over there. Just the "terrorists". Unfortunately, the only way you have been able tell when someone in this administration is being held "accountable" for their job is when they are given a medal.

I agree that fresh eyeballs are needed but we also need a well articulated, thought out, financially scoped (how and who will pay for this) plan, not 3 second media clips. We stand down when they stand up is a nursery rhyme not a plan. Stay the course is a bumpersticker slogan, not a plan. we can't cut and run is simply pointing out another non-solution, not offering one.

Why all the blame on Rumsfeld? Hasn't State had a role in the post-war period? What about the CIA?

Given Rumsfeld's strength in successful invasions, perhaps we need him for a couple more.

While the Long War erodes our liberties at home (mainly because our Politically Correct elites won't concentrate our domestic countermeasures against our Islamist enemies), terrorists abroad create instabilities that raise the price of oil and thereby increase terrorist funding. What America needs is a Short War. And a quick victory in a Short War is well within our grasp, since winning the war on terror requires controlling a relatively small amount of territory occupied by a relatively friendly population.

We can seize our enemies' center of gravity by liberating the oppressed Shia Arab majorities in Iran's Khuzestan province and Saudi Arabia's Hasa province. These provinces also happen to be the sources of the oil that funds the mullahs and sheiks who run the Islamist terror programs. They are compact, and their populations have no love lost for the imperialists in Teheran and Riyadh who seized these provinces in the early 20th century.

The oil revenues could then fund an infrastructure for peace in the Middle East, with funds going to roads instead of nukes and engineering schools instead of madrassas. A coalition of the willing -- an Anglosphere+ Alliance with the US-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ-India + Japan + Germany -- could administer the funds, paying for schools and hospitals and highways throughout the region.

The Khomeinists and the Wahabbis would have a choice of resisting our liberation of those provinces and suffering the consequences in Teheran and Riyadh -- think shock and awe -- or submitting to our control of those limited territories and living in peace with their palaces and offshore bank accounts intact (or with whatever their citizens will allow them to escape with after leading their nations into a disastrous confrontation with the West). They'll probably submit, but if they don't, the Army and the Marines could sweep their forces aside, and our Iraqi allies could help restore order among their Shiite cousins.

The same coalition of the willing could form the nucleus of a new United Democracies organization, withdrawing from the United Nations and setting high standards for membership in the new global community. With control of Persian Gulf oil revenues, this community could offer real benefits to nations that meet membership standards. The Islamist threat would fade with the end of Islamist funding, which has never had anything to do with earned wealth and productivity.

Would any politician embrace using our overwhelming power to convert this Long War into a Short War? It smacks of Teddy Roosevelt, who liberated Panama when it was a Colombian province and Colombia wouldn't let the USA build a canal. Teddy didn't believe in limits on governmental power, which was not such a good thing domestically but earned the USA tremendous respect internationally. As we face radical Islam again, it's time to for a leader to arise who would fulfill a promise "Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead." Donald Rumsfeld, as you rightly note, seems to be the man. If he's been biding his time waiting for the opportunity, we should see that very soon. Both al-Quaida and Hezbollah have given us plenty of reason to go after Saudi and Iranian oil revenues.

GO her
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/
Go her
http://www.defendamerica.mil/
War world 4 Began on sevtember 11. 2001

I agree with Sluggo and Old Soldier in a certain light: The most significant problems in Iraq aren't of a military nature nor are amenable to a military solution, so firing Rumsfeld isn't likely to change much. Rumsfeld's errors were in the planning of the war and the management of the initial occupation period were extensive, but his ability to influence events are minor at this point.

As I understand it, the problem is not with Iraqi army but with the disparate Iraqi police units. These Shite units compound the Sunni terrorist problem both by recklessly lashing out at Sunnis and more generally by being in the indirect control of corrupt local chieftains.

Unlike Confederate Yankee, I don't think the question here is whether we (US military) have the stomach to crack down on these renegade police units and de facto militias like Sadr's men. Somehow we have to assist the Iraqi government in co-opting these elements into the political process, to divert their energies into more legitimate channels.

It's not an ideal solution, and will require giving these thugs a dignity they don't otherwise deserve. But in my opinion, if the US army cracks down on the militias it risks being seen by the Shites of Iraq (the majority of Iraqis) as agents of the Sunnis. That is not good.

If we are going to choose sides, we should choose now, and relocate a significant force to Kurdistan while the Sunnis and Shites solve their age-old grievances. This might also solve the question of tension on the Turkish border. It's the best solution I've seen so far.

I must whole heartedly agree with CY. Rummy needs to find a new place to go. He FAILED to capture Osama bin Laden when Bin Laden was most vulnerable while on the run in Afghanistan. He FAILED to maintain control over the populace in Iraq early on in the summer of 2003, before an insurgency could organize. We ARE the world's most powerful nation, the world's ONLY superpower. We HAVE the greatest military in the history of Planet Earth. There IS no room for such FAILURE and incompetence. It's time for Donald to take that fishing trip, and leave the business of war to those better suited.

Confederate Hillaree.

I can not figure out how babysitting the Iraqis while they have a civil war helps us fight the war on terrorism.

There is no civil war, they're just shooting each other.

It is not time for the SOD to resign. It's time to get the politicians out of the war. Let the SOD and the more than capable military get the job done. It's extremely hard on the military when 45% of the members of congress are betraying them on a daily basis. And they are betraying the members of the military and causing 75% of the deaths that occur in Iraq. If the idiots would shut up for 60 days the war would be over and the troops on the way home. With the lefties help, god help us all, it'll take 50 years and we'll still lose. Cut and Run is the option of cowards (democrats) and cowards only.

It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault, isn't it?