Rumsfeld is allowed such high office? Personalities are interesting, and force of will is an important element in history, but bullies, including those of the wrestling variety, do not exist in a vacuum. Until we fix the problem, which would entail massive self and societal awareness, robust protections for government whistle blowers, and to reinstate civic virtue over partisan or private relationships, we'll keep on having bullies run the show.
Americans get our panties in a twist over the sordid sex lives of our leaders, but the fact that they might be aggressive to the detriment of open dialogue, or think that Gog and Magog lurk somewhere in the Eastern Middle East is greeted with a shrug and oh well. I don't like finding out all these little details years after the fact.

Tom and company,
If you are interested in life as a junior Joint Staff J2 Iraq analyst under Rumsfield, a friend of mine wrote a memoir of the year leading up to his protest resignation. The book is called "Still Broken" by Alex Rossmiller. He discusses senior officer's spinning intel reports and inserting optimistic conclusions for the Boss (Rumsfield). This was between 2005-2006.
I don't agree with all his views, but his facts are spot on. I shared a cubicle with him and was present for some of the conversations he recounts. And yes, he was very young but very talented. He wasn't the only one unhappy with how things were being run, but he was the only one to express his displeasure publicly. As he mentions in the book, there was a rash of transfers after he left.

Doug Feith's experience was the Rumsfeld needed and wanted strong personalities who would give and take, as opposed to simply salute and say "Aye Aye Sir!" The impression is of a man in a hurry, knowing time is a finite resource, with little need for the routine niceties of mealy-mouthed underlings afraid to support their ideas with developed analysis.

I've seen Richard Myers on Al Jazeera particpating in a few panel discussions (they have the best international commentary of any news network I've seen, even though it's biased in many respects--who isn't these days?), and his performance was shabby at best. I kind of feel for the guy, not knowing much about him, for having been ordered to execute some of the most disastrous policies this military has seen. But for some reason he still tries to defend his erstwhile political overlords. Maybe he's just trying to be patriotic, but the perception he promotes through these interviews is that he views all the policies he helped to implement positively. To attempt this defense on Al Jazeera just makes him look even more pathetic--you won't find more sophisticated arguments against those policies from any other network. He seems like a nice guy, but conclusion you have to come to is that this guy just doesn't know what he's talking about in regard to the global irregular war we are fighting.

I like the folks with strength of conviction and the facts to base that conviction on. I always wanted my commanders to come up with alternate palns and fight and advocate for them. But it still requires mutual respect and trust to move forward. Sometimes you also have to let them win, or they won't come back again. I was shrewd enough to sometimes set up circumstances just so they could do so. Machiavellian, sure, but also effective. You can also be very demanding without being demeaning.

I get the impression Rummy couldn't handle that inter-personal shit. But in the end I think Bully is the best word for it. Then, to add insult to injury, you get tagalongs like Wolfowitz, hiding behind his bully master's heel snapping away too?

As I said in the other thread I wouldn't put up with that crap if I was a 3 or 4 star...or a COL or LTC for that matter.

BTW, being in the Guard is the best reward and the best opportunity to do damn near whatever you want - as long as it is for the good of the mission and the troops - and damn the consequences. Whaddaya gonna do "Fire me from the Guard?" Hah you would be doing me a favor. My wife and kid would praise you!

I didn't like Rumsfeld, but he won some battles. For example, the USAF continued to maintain four F-15s on alert in Iceland to repel the Soviets. He battled to stop that BS, and won. The Icelanders, who spend zero on national defense, tried playing the NATO card to keep the few million we spent to keep the fighters there. I think Rummy was key to ousting our Navy from their WWII palace in London where three Admirals and 800 staffers commanded nothing. All was rightly consolidated with the 6th Fleet HQ in Italy.

Rummy was not ill equipped, having served as Sec Def under Ford, and according to Wiki.
Rumsfeld served in the United States Navy during peacetime, from 1954 to 1957, as a naval aviator and flight instructor. His initial training was in the North American SNJ Texan basic trainer after which he transitioned to flying the Grumman F9F Panther fighter. In 1957, he transferred to the Naval Reserve and continued his naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and retired with the rank of captain in 1989.[9]

I was wondering what happened to the four fighters in Iceland. When I was on the JS and had to vet the list of deployments that Rummy wanted to cut, Iceland was not on the list until my report went up the chain and our two star (deputy J-5) put Iceland on the list and sent it back down. This was the only time in my year that I really service play a role as the USAF wanted the fighters out of Iceland not so much because of the fighters themselves (which were relatively plentiful) but the long range rescue helos and plane that needed to be based in Iceland if a fighter crashed. And those long-range assets were in high demand especially with Afghanistan being so far from everywhere. The Navy was opposed because Iceland threatened to kick them out, threatening the anti-sub assets there, I think.

Rummy made some good decisions--the crusader was too costly, I think. But whatever good he did in trying to cut back on costs is overwhelmed by his impact on the planning of the Iraqi war and on his impact on Afghanistan from 2002-2006. The costs from his bad decisions there are of an entirely different magnitude than the costs from shutting down a base here and a weapon system there.

Sec. Rumsfeld, unlike his predecessors at the Pentagon, had served there before. How much of his performance as the Bush administration's Secretary of Defense could have been predicted from his record as the Ford administration's Secretary of Defense?

Rumsfeld was asked by a reporter if they can tag along on a SF mission.

Rumsfeld just looked at the reporter with a look of amazement 'what are you talking about.'

I remember falling out of my chair LMAO.

I think if you're going to reference Ed's thoughts on Rumsfeld, you should remind your readers that he was Rumsfeld's Military Assistant. I didn't catch that in the threads pertaining.

I'd love to know more about Rumsfeld and Cheney's posture during Pres. Ford's failure to support SVN in 1975. Everyone from SecState Kissinger on down claims to have called for US air strikes against NVA armor, but it's likely that a policy decision not to test the President's curtailed command authority, to let Saigon fall, had already been anticipated and vetted.

The details of ex-SecDef Rummy's mission to rescue Saddam in the 80's also remains untold, asided from his memo to build documentary deniability into the dual use chemwar stuf we sold as ag-pharm feedstock.

Early in the Bush43 admin, Rumsfeld proposed extending the declassification sunset that threatened to expose his earlier experiences in office.

Democracy is about more than an accurate vote count. Americans and our Congress need access to our own history, not just the cover stories that are part of the deception inherent in war ops.

http://old.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200405140838.asp

Take that, all you liberals!