firing Rumsfeld will demoralize the troops

[radfringe]

that's the latest spin from the bush-wingers...

never having been in the military, I may be off base on saying this -- if so flame away

here goes:

As a 'peon' at work - I really don't care who is at the top of the pecking order of the company.

What I do care about is that 'whoever' is sitting in the big chair is competent - especially if they are giving the day to day orders on running the company and how it effects me in my job

I think the troops on the ground, who are doing the fighting on a daily basis or trying to rebuild Iraq, would be more concerned over the COMPETENCY rather than the "WHO" regarding Sec. of Defense.

if the troops are not happy with Rummy, then a change could IMPROVE morale not hurt it

one more thought - given bush*'s track record on appointees and nominees - if Rumsfeld were to leave - which croney would bush put in his place and would that person be better or worse than rummy?

[Ezlivin]

1. I was enlisted - they could have released all my superior officers

And my morale would not go down.

My superior officers were good guys, too.

[Deja Q]

2. What do the troops themselves say?

Why do we only see "Hi to my family" segments on the news? We all know they ALL miss their wives, concubines, offspring, et cetera.

How do they feel about what they are doing?

You know they won't say what they do feel. And in many cases can't.

They're programmed to follow orders. Which is logical, you don't want troops to start questioning anything - it slows reaction time and leaves them dead, or what would be worse.

For troops, there is no such thing as moral - "they are out there to do one thing: Fight and win wars." (and you'd probably be shocked as to whom I just quoted...)

[C_U_L8R]

3. Pathetic Spin from the Republicans

The troops will be doing a happy dance when
the wicked witch of the Pentagon finally falls.

If Republicans had a single concern for the troops
(physically as well as their morale) they would not
send them out to fight DUMB wars without purpose.

FUCK THEM

[Olney Blue]

10. You mean DUMBYA wars?

[Lerkfish]

karl rove would be worse. look at the great job rove is doing with NOLA

reconstruction.

:rofl:

[Beelzebud]

4. If you listened to the Bushists, you'd think our troops are emotionally

fragile or something. Every single thing will "hurt their moral" or "send the wrong message".

Are the right-wing pundits and political hacks really trying to say that our troops are just over emotional pansies, that can't handle a little criticism of people higher up on the chain of command?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. The greatest fighting force ever seen or emotional pansies?

Which one is it, Pubes?

[salin]

5. heh - which is more demoralizing to the troops - Rummy's policies

and orders? Rummy's under equipping those who are deployed? Rummy's endless stopgap policies? Or Rummy leaving as Sec of Defense? :shrug:

[0007]

23. If what Rumsfeld reflects to us tv viewers,

imaged how his arrogance is perceived by the troops!

Moral would go though the roof if Rumsfeld were fired like General MacArthur.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Half the troops wouldn't know the other half wouldn't care.

When I was in, the bigshots were considered "the enemy", whether they were 2nd Lieutenants or the Secretrary of Defense. Except for the asskissing "lifers" who adored them.

[sellitman]

7. They can't be "Demoralized" if they are dead.

Maybe they are right? :sarcasm:

[marmar]

8. Puh-leaze...

I suspect they would be the first to applaud if Rumsfailed got the boot. :party:

[saltpoint]

9. Even the thickest of red voters knows that when half a dozen generals

state publicly that the Sec. of Defense is an arrogant jerk, the battle's lost.

Bush's pronouncement of support for Uncle Don yesterday isn't going to change the fact that Iraq is a holy mess and the specific defining failure of a generally failed presidency.

[IDemo]

11. Might want to tell cons one of their leading spokesmen disagrees:

"These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have."

William Kristol, chairman and co-founder of PNAC, writing in the Washington Post

[Renew Deal]

12. I have a feeling the generals have a better handle on the troops

Than wingers

[radfringe]

13. 3 Questions for Vets

1. How much of your morale depended on who was Sec. of Defense? (Scale 0-10 0=none 10=all of it)

2. If you were in combat - other than staying alive and unwounded - what were your main concerns?


3. who was Sec. of Defense while you were in the service? (no fair googling the dates)

[ptolle]

24. answers

Only for myself of course- draftee vietnam
1.-0
2.- Doing what I could to try to make sure my buddies remained in the same condition as you specified.
3.-mcnamara.

[Sawber1001]

28. Answers

1. 1. The SECDEF can screw things up, but generally doesn't directly impact the average soldier's life on a daily basis. Of course, major decision's like force sterngth in a combat region can affect the morale of those in combat, and we see how that has turned out.

2. Staying alive, accomplishing the mission, getting out alive.

3. Rumsfeld, (and going back in time), Cohen, Perry, Aspin, Cheney, Carlucci. I know simply because I needed to know that info "as a good officer"

Another question is if you were not in combat and had little choice of going, what were your main concerns?

[Jeanette in FL]

14. In the movie Fahrenheit 911

Michael Moore asked a soldier if he could speak to Donald Rumsfeld what would he say. The Soldier said "He would ask him to resign". And that was only 1 year into the Iraq War. I am sure it would improve morale, not hurt it in the least.

[peacebaby3]

35. I posted about this below. Just to clarify, it wasn't MM that asked the

3rd ID the questions, it was another reporter back in 2003 and MM used the footage. They were saying this stuff back during the first 6 months of the war, but notice how you never heard hardly anything after that. Those guys were threatened with court-martial, but I'm not sure exactly what happened.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. We are presently working on 2400 examples of Dummy's

competency.... not to mention the thousands of examples in Iraq, and the many thousands that have passed through hospitals in Germany on their way home to a new way of life.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. What about Rummy demoralizing the United States? Does that count?

[Klukie]

21. It sure as hell should....

As a US citizen and a taxpayer I am completely demoralized by the misappropriation of my money on this farce of a war.

[murray hill farm]

17. Naw!!

Actually the troops would throw fowers and cheer!

[baldguy]

18. We need soldiers who will fight & die to protect the Constitution.

Not those who would fight & die to protect the political power of a failed criminal President & his appointees.

[radfringe]

25. I like that

We need soldiers who will fight & die to protect the Constitution. Not those who would fight & die to protect the political power of a failed criminal President & his appointees.

mind if I use it in a LTTE?

[baldguy]

32. Be my guest.

I think the truth should be public domain.

[peacebaby3]

36. Soldiers are controlled by their CIC and their government so the people

are the ones in control of who, when, and the reason the soldiers fight. It all depends on who is elected to the office.

The UCMJ makes it clear that soldiers just can't decide who, when, where, and why to fight. If they speak out against the CIC or their superiors or refuse a legal order (which the legality is decided by those in charge) then they will be court-martialed and if found guilty during a war they can be executed.

[Canuckistanian]

19. Whoever replaces Rumsfeld...

Would be greeted as a liberator.

I think the word's out, Rumsfeld is the worst SecDef. Ever.

[Turbineguy]

26. Jeff Gannon

[Canuckistanian]

33. I'm sure Jeff is welcomed by someone in the WH

Just not for his administrative skills!

[Chomp]

20. You work well

for a good boss, and you work badly for a poor boss. That's the same whether you are flipping burgers or fighting a war.

[radfringe]

27. hehhehhehheh

my partner was just reading this thread over my shoulder

partner: so what the bushies are saying is "don't change horses in the middle of the stream?"

me: yeah, stay the course, don't change horses...

partner: well, if the horse is not getting me across the stream, I'd sure as hell would change it. .......pause..... in Rummy's case, it would be better to change the horse's ass, stream or no stream

[vickitulsa]

29. I think the troops' morale would be LIFTED

if Rummy were replaced!

I believe they would hope such a move signalled a change in policies that have "sentenced" them to perpetual war and stop-loss orders that redeploy them repeatedly and refuse them their right to retire from the military. Rummy's orders have kept them from their families for years, increased their chances of being killed or maimed, and sent them back to Iraq or Afghanistan with serious wounds barely healed and PTSD diagnoses ignored.

A little story here related to this topic, if you're interested. Yesterday I was watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation about a planet whose leaders locked away in remote maximum security prisons all of the veterans who had fought their wars for them. These inmates were "supersoldiers" who had been deliberately bred and brainwashed to be superior fighting persons so the soft bureaucrats and "good citizens" wouldn't have to get their hands dirty.

Then when peace was finally achieved on the planet, instead of "deprogramming" these men and helping them adapt to a non-violent life in society, the leaders just locked them all up, far away from "regular folks," so they'd feel safe from those dangerous veterans!

I was already noting some ironic parallels to how our troops today are being treated, particularly regarding the breach of faith this "alien" culture demonstrated. But then, right in the middle of this sci fi morality lesson on how NOT to reward the soldiers a society creates, appears one of the pervasive TV recruitment ads -- this one by the U.S. Army. I'm sure many of you have seen it ... a handsome uniformed soldier in his dapper beret joins some of his old friends from before he signed up for the military.

The friends smile and laugh a bit at how he has changed -- all for the better of course, and then they ask him what he's doing, what his job in the military is. He tells them he "works with computers," and they ask why he couldn't just do that in civilian life? Then the scene cuts away as the soldier pictures his working environment in a high-tech, impressive military computer room -- a true "supersoldier" in action.

The soldier then smiles at his old friends condescendingly, like they could never understand how much better he is now than they are. The implication is that those other guys would do well to follow this soldier's example and sign up for military service!

Now what I think they Defense Department should do is show the truth (which of course they won't ever do). Show a veteran returned from combat with a missing arm or leg, meeting his old friends who feel compassion for their pal who was duped by the recruitment promises....

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Only those that are loyal to him

because they know they're screwed too.

[Marr]

31. He'll never toss Rumsfeld, but if he did- I expect Richard Myers would

quickly retire from his position as General Kiss-ass and get Rumsfeld's office.

[peacebaby3]

34. You guys remember back in 2003 when the reporter talked to the 3rd ID when

they learned they were going to be kept much longer than they had initially been told? My husband was over there at the same time and was extended as well. Anyway, when the 3rd ID was interviewed they said things like - We have our own deck of cards with the faces of people from this administration (remember the infamous deck of cards) and one reporter asked a guy what he would say to Donald Rumsfeld if he had the chance and he said, "I'd ask him for his resignation!"

Notice you haven't seen anything like that ever really happen again (even though they deny the intimidation to keep your mouth shut).

Here's a follow-up article from the Stars & Stripes:

<http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15991&archive=true>

Most of the guys in the military don't give a rat's butt who the SOD is unless they are pissed off enough to pay attention.

My husband would be just fine if all of the people involved with this fiasco were gone.

[tabasco]

37. I was both enlisted and officer in the infantry.

Nobody in an infantry battalion could give a flying fkkk who the SECDEF is.

It actually improves morale when we know people are asking why we got stuck in a bloody quagmire.

Nothing but republican lies, as usual.

[MODemocrat]

38. I think Bush should listen to the officers who know what they're doing

Just because Rummy's a crony of his, shouldn't be a requisite for him to be in charge of something this huge. I believe the troops would have a lot more confidence in themselves, if there was a good and strong figure in charge of this operation. :dilemma: