This blog thinks Donald Rumsfeld Needs to Step Down
4 Divisions Need to Regroup After Iraq
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A01
From the article
"....Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday."
"...Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a former division commander and staunch advocate of more Army forces, said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating "means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight."
Only two Army active-duty divisions will be available to fight in other parts of the world.
Extreme weather in Iraq and the unprecedented magnitude of the planned troop rotation have contributed to division-
"re-setting" slowdowns. Once divisions return from Iraq, Army readiness will be at its lowest point since the end of the Gulf War. Since then, Army officials have tried to keep divisions at the highest, (C-1) readiness level.
Ironically, President Bush had been known to sharply criticize the Clinton administration during the 2000 Presidential campaign for allowing two Army divisions to fall to the lowest readiness category in the late 90s because of peacekeeping obligations in the Balkans. Has Bush set a political trap for himself? Will he have Donald Rumsfeld to thank?
Should Donald Rumsfeld be fired, as suggested many times in the recent past, by the likes of Democratic candidate Howard Dean and so many American newspaper-editorials?
Will Capitol Hill be pushing for an increase in Army troops (as Senator John McCain has been saying for a while now?)
"....The article says "members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that they, along with Rumsfeld's staff, are still trying to determine whether the requirement for Iraq, which now stands at 130,000 soldiers, is a "spike" that will soon come down, or an ongoing commitment.
If it is a spike, they said, increasing the size of the Army may not be necessary..."
This tiring hedging, hemming, and hawing is nothing more than evidence of further misleading and lying
by the Bush administration.
We will need to be in Iraq for many years if our mission is to be accomplished. We'll need far more troops if that mission is proven worth our while and especially if we fail to get further international respect and cooperation.
The Bush administration can't seem to adequately support our troops because of their own worries about Bush's re-election. If these political election-related worries cause President Bush to continue to mislead and/or lie to his own people at the expense of those precious troops, I would not only call him a poor leader. I would call him ruthlessly and negligently anti-American.
Look, I'm just one citizen sitting here able to foresee a tremendously dismal and dangerous National Secuity future for our nation with the way Rumsfeld has handled his Secretary of Defense duties.
It's time for our Representatives and the press to wake up (as the Post has done in this instance) and keep Americans informed of the danger we face because of horridly irresponsible Defense Department decisions.
If your son or daughter should be called to duty, would you trust these shady, misleading, irresponsible characters
in the Bush administration with your children's lives?
If you cannot answer with a resounding YES, then it's time to let your Representatives know that you think Rumsfeld should go. Our troops need your good and true support now more than EVER.