Do you think the U.S. military is better or worse since the changes enacted by Donald Rumsfeld?
922446
I would like to see a larger army as well. But our troops are the best\nthere are any where.
194479
NO. I have friends and family who are in Iraq in the military and my father in law just got back from Iraq as a civilian bomb dog handler. Each of them has told me how saddened and sickened they are by the media portrayal of only negative things from the war. Each of them has told me about how they can see positive changes in Iraq and how much better the living conditions are over there now and how they have started schools and brought order back in many places. I don't think that is a waste of time. It is hard for us who have people we love over there and I am sure we would like to see them all come home safely and not have to be at war -- but the efforts made my our troops in Iraq are not a waste of time.
376949
I believe that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld needs to resign. While in office, his vision for the military simply does not jibe with reality. His concept of "transformation" means cutting down troop levels, purchasing a ton of gold plated fly boy toys, and letting the military-industrial complex (and private military companies) get hold of the taxpayers' hard earned money.\n\nThe perception of Rumsfeld is that with superior technology, America can defeat any opponent, unconventional and conventional. This is evident in the emphasis on technology as opposed to doctrine and training. However, as Col. Boyd (who developed the concept of OODA) once said, "People, ideas, hardware, in that order!" One must remember that in Vietnam, we had superior technology, but we could not entirely eliminate the NVA and VC after how many years of combat (though the VC was decimated after the Tet Offensive). In Korea, the Chinese were able to surprise the UN & US and drive them back, after managing to conceal their entire divisions from the UN/US air patrols. Americans must realize that technology may be a force multiplier, but cannot be relied on too much to fight wars. History has proven time and time again that excellent strategy, training, and quality warriors will always turn the tide of the war while technology helps (and hinders as well). One must also look at Iraq and see what is the major killer of our warriors. IEDs. These IEDs are relatively inexpensive, and are able to defeat our hundred thousand dollar uparmored HUMVEEs and even our million dollar M1A2 Abrams tank. RPGs can take down our helicopters. Why is it that the enemy can find a low cost and effective solution and we cannot? And about the Army's planned brigade combat teams... it guts maneuvering elements (and counts the reconnaisance battalion as a maneuvering element) while enlarging headquarters. Being flexible is important, but this BCT concept on the surface seems to make it more flexible, but in reality makes it less flexible. With less maneuvering elements and a bloated headquarters, it becomes more slower and inefficient.\n\nNot to mention, his performance for the invasion of Iraq was unacceptable. Despite the warnings and objections from the professional generals (about troop levels, post-war planning, etc), he decided to go ahead anyways. Now we are stuck fighting an insurgency in an effort to stabilize Iraq.
341709
Yes. Given the options, it was the lesser of 2 evils. After 8 years of Reagan (who I also voted for), we needed a change.
286965
actually it seems to be getting better all the time.    since 1998 alone Ive seen enormous improvements in viet nam, economic, personal freedoms, infrastructuraly.. not prefect by any standard[ especially in the human rights dept] my favorite suggestion to improve vn is ;" better more available health care, a few garbage cans, and a good plumber".. there is still corruption , especially among the police, but here in the usa we didnt even begin to clean up our police force till the 1950s... the viet namese way is slow and methodical[ look how they fought their many wars] i believe the government [as corruptas it may be] means well for the people. viet nam is a country that takes pride in itself  and will do well. listen any government no matter how bad that continualy improves cant "suck".   anyway they've been able to keep out of going to war for gan 30 nam roi[ close to 30 yrs]... thats not to shabby by any standards
1152298
I used to roll my eyes at the military. I used to spew uneducated nonsense about how our country was a terrible place to live, and that I wanted to live someplace that was actually free. That was before I realized that soldiers sacrafice so much of their own freedom in order to make our country a great place to live. Thank you for giving your life to make all of us "civilians" free. Happy Father's Day, Big C!" You're doing a wonderful Job!
764826
Come again?\n\nDo you mean Rumsfeld's replacement?
949215
As long as the new SOD makes some big changes in Iraq policy. The cut and run crowd will never be satisfied until we totally leave. But I think most people want some type of change instead of "stay the course and do exactly what hasn't worked for the last 4 years."
152549
As a former military guy, I know that when you go into a new situation you learn. We are becoming more adaptive and learning to be a better military.
801451
No.  My nephew decided to join to go there and signed up and he wanted to because he believes in the cause, so it is not like he was forced to go there.  When someone signs up for the military, they know they are going to go fight, and they choose to serve.   My other nephew his brother went ROTC and so he went through college, graduated, got his commission and is training troops now so he will be going over but he is still in the states.  ( my nephews, sister and whole family are all Republican )\n\nWhy would their family or friends want to change to a party that does not support what they are doing???  The whole "we support the troops but not the war" thing that democrats say is only being is fake and we all know it and so do the troops.  \n\nI do not agree with the way the war has been carried out, but that is tactics, and a tactical disagreement, not a philosophical or moral one.   I believe that Rumsfeld should have listened to the generals and gone in with a MUCH greater force from the get go and we would have been done by now, like we were in Desert Storm.   That does not mean I disagree with the war or think we should pull out, I do not in either case.
724816
You must think the liberals and democrats are fools they know you can't  remove the troops immediately but I'M sure they would try to change the down road policy of Rumsfeld and try something else my own opinion is get rid of Rumsfeld and put in someone who knows the region and the people and let him try to get the different fractions together where there talking to each other and maybe it will stop some of the violence. You have to remember even if they win some seats It probably will not control the congress or senate so it will probably be status quo and still Rumsfeld policy.
979663
Not much different ... Iraq is a tough call though ...I think that the collection of advisors and administration personnel who were in this Whitehouse in 2002-2003 sent us to war there.  In a Quale administration it would be a safe bet to say that most of those folks would be in his administration as well.  What the outcome would have been is a different story.
909249
Yes very much!\nKerry`s statements just prove the how the Democrats are uninformed and have true contempt for the Military.\n\n1.The Military is better educated than the general population. \n2.The Military is all volunteer. \n3. One can not join without a minimum of a high school degree.\n4. 73.3 percent of the Enlisted Military have some college, 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours, and 4.7 have a bachelor’s degree. 85 percent of officers have advanced degrees – 70.7 percent have master’s degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.\n5. Dropouts can not get in the Military. They have to go to Mc Donalds.\n6. Bush out performed with better grades Kerry in the same school and Bush went further.\n7. There is no draft that takes underachieving kids out of school and sends them to war, that was the Vietnam war.\n8. Kerry was talking to students about education.\n\nSo Kerry`s joke doesn`t fit and he was stating what he believed about a Military he has contempt for. The "Joke" was damage control for the gullible.
742339
"There are known knowns, things we know we know.  There are also known unknowns, we know some things we don't know.  There are unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."--Donald Henry Rumsfeld\n\nMaybe he will be portrayed as a deadender or as a genius; it will all DEPEND on the FUTURE.  \n\nHowever, here is what I know.  I know that he pissed off a lot of military leaders trying to make the military lighter and nibbler.  That is what we need on the war on terror.  You see what we need is BALANCE.  We need to have "enough" troops to catch the terrorists while SPEEDing up the communication with FEWER CASUALTIES so we can catch them quicker.  \n\n"You go to war with the Army you have.  They're not the Army you might want or wish to have," said Rumsfeld on December 8, 2004.  This is why I decided to put "enough" in parenthesis.  There is NO such thing as enough because that perception chages constantly.  In fact that advantages of "not enough" is LESS abuse of resources and being CREATIVE, CREATIVE.  This adage has certainly improved my life, being in my twenties, since I DON'T PANIC as much as I used to.\n\nOf course, some of us think that 2800 U.S. troops killed in Iraq is such a "big" number.  Maybe.  Look at the number of dead in other wars and calculate them per year.  Vietnam has 5 K per year MORE than this war so you could credit Rumsfled with this.   He put a democratic/parlimentary government in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I believe those government can flourish in the LONG-TERM because the idea is to put AS MANY PEOPLE IN TYRANNY AS POSSIBLE.  I believe we put TOO MUCH blame on Rumsfeld because as he has been saying all along this will take time.  This is why we should be putting the more blame on the ARAB CULTURE since somehow they are causing the killings BUT I could be WRONG.\n\nHowever, I will admit there were some things he SHOULD have done that could have put the country in better shape currently and made him the only TWO-TERM Secretary of Defense, probably.\n1. Kept Saddam's military that should have been used right away to keep order.  These men only worked for him just to make MONEY.\n2.  Kept the LOWER ranks of the Baathist Party (not in the top 55 most wanted).  They worked for him like the soldiers and know more about this country than the exiles.  They would have been the interim government.\n3. Authorization for U.S. troops to shoot a few looters just to keep order.\n4. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on Iraqis possessing weapons so there would have been fewer insurgent attacks.\n5. Not putting "enough" troops.  This just a MAYBE.\n\nBy the way if anyone is going to be in this position assert your CIVILIAN control, like Rumsfeld, but still listen to the uniform.  The 1947 law that combined the Depts. of Navy and War into Defense says that the Secretary of Defense must have a MAXIMUM OF TEN YEARS OF ACTIVE MILITARY EXPERIENCE.  I understand that the longer one is in the military, the more hostile he or she would be.  I think he is the most active/exciting (because of his "excessive" press conferences) Secretary.\n\nNow going back to the question, I do not know if he will be praised or hated but I gave you what I know.\n\nI am SORRY to say all this.
865833
Well, it's already changing! Now Bush and Cheney are backpedaling off their "full speed ahead" talk re: Iraq. Now they're talking about "no one being happy with the situation," and "needing a fresh perspective"! Finally Rummy is out (let's see how Aggie man does in his place). We've got the FIRST woman Speaker of the House - third in line to the presidency - the first time that a woman has been in such a position of power. Maybe now stem cell research can be treated with more respect and considered for all the good it can do in the world. Maybe now all the talk of "either you're with us or against us" will fade into the background of a really botched-up 6 years of history. Maybe now this country can be a bit more balanced and fair. \n\nExcited to see how '08 turns out!
231542
The military is not stupid. We need men to protect our country. What we need is better POLITICAL LEADERS that do not start unnecessary wars.
602276
I don't think your English is very good and, I am going to check your page. Are you writing to us from the Middle East somewhere? You should write a letter to Donald Rumsfeld, and ask him these questions. Nobody here on Yahoo can change anything our Government does to other Countries, and their people.