Monday, December 20, 2004
Andrew Sullivan's lost it
I hate to say it, because probably more than any other person, Andrew Sullivan influenced me to start blogging.
But this time he's come off his meds.
This statement is stupid on so many different levels it's hard for me to know where to start.
Rumsfeld wants to prevent us winning? By refusing to deploy more manpower? (From where, General Sullivan?????)
Why? After all, your memories of the sheer brilliance of the campaign to destroy the Taliban - one of the most remarkable military campaigns in military history for its innovation and outside-the-box thinking, have already faded.
Likewise your memory of the fastest mechanized advance in the history of warfare, and a Baghdad that fell without a seige.
Your appreciation of the fact that we have not seen a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th, 2001, and have actually seen several plots foiled, seems to have faded pretty quickly.
You don't seem to have figured out that it was the MILITARY who broke the Abu Ghraib story, not the press. Abu Ghraib was already under investigation when the New Yorker caught onto it.
You have already forgotten about Rumsfeld the Transformationist, who stood up to the entrenched Army types like the SAINTED General Shinseki, and insisted on developing a strategy and force structure for the next TWO wars instead of the next one.
You also haven't figured out that Tommy Franks is easily the best theater commander the Army's had since Ridgeway. He's better than Schwartzkopf, better than Powell, better than Abrams, who was no slouch, and certainly better than Westmoreland.
Sullivan, these guys are functioning wayyyyy beyond what you're equipped to analyze now.
You were better off obsessing over gay marriage.
Splash, out
Jason
But this time he's come off his meds.
Now that Powell has gone, Rummy will see it as a matter of cojones that he stay for a while, if only to prevent sufficient manpower being deployed to win the war in Iraq...
This statement is stupid on so many different levels it's hard for me to know where to start.
Rumsfeld wants to prevent us winning? By refusing to deploy more manpower? (From where, General Sullivan?????)
...and to let memories of Abu Ghraib fade. (Sorry, Rummy, but mine won't.)
Why? After all, your memories of the sheer brilliance of the campaign to destroy the Taliban - one of the most remarkable military campaigns in military history for its innovation and outside-the-box thinking, have already faded.
Likewise your memory of the fastest mechanized advance in the history of warfare, and a Baghdad that fell without a seige.
Your appreciation of the fact that we have not seen a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th, 2001, and have actually seen several plots foiled, seems to have faded pretty quickly.
You don't seem to have figured out that it was the MILITARY who broke the Abu Ghraib story, not the press. Abu Ghraib was already under investigation when the New Yorker caught onto it.
You have already forgotten about Rumsfeld the Transformationist, who stood up to the entrenched Army types like the SAINTED General Shinseki, and insisted on developing a strategy and force structure for the next TWO wars instead of the next one.
You also haven't figured out that Tommy Franks is easily the best theater commander the Army's had since Ridgeway. He's better than Schwartzkopf, better than Powell, better than Abrams, who was no slouch, and certainly better than Westmoreland.
Sullivan, these guys are functioning wayyyyy beyond what you're equipped to analyze now.
You were better off obsessing over gay marriage.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Jason,
Thank you! I've been saying this about Andrew Sullivan for a long time.
I really don't see how he has any kind of qualification to make judgments on doctrine or leadership.
As a fellow officer who is tired of seeing the civilian leadership at the Pentagon maligned, because they don't "listen to the Generals", I appreciate your post.
Thank you! I've been saying this about Andrew Sullivan for a long time.
I really don't see how he has any kind of qualification to make judgments on doctrine or leadership.
As a fellow officer who is tired of seeing the civilian leadership at the Pentagon maligned, because they don't "listen to the Generals", I appreciate your post.
# posted by 
: 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
Jason,
With respect to "we have not seen a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th, 2001":
How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have we seen before 7/11/01? I know of one 8 years previous on the WTC in 1993. If that is the the only one then we won't know until at least 2009 if this trend has been successfully reversed.
Regards, Tony.
Post a Comment
With respect to "we have not seen a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th, 2001":
How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have we seen before 7/11/01? I know of one 8 years previous on the WTC in 1993. If that is the the only one then we won't know until at least 2009 if this trend has been successfully reversed.
Regards, Tony.
# posted by : 7:58 AM
: 7:58 AM
