The Architect of Obama's Vision for a Leaner Military
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Given President Obama's recent speech on his "vision" for slimming down and streamlining our military, yet keeping it responsive and battle ready, one must ask from where the Presidents "vision" came.
For those who remember Donald Rumsfeld it seems the President, and his advisers have bought into essentially what Rumsfeld was taking about during his tenure as Secretary of Defense under GWB.
Here's the report:
Who whudda thunk?
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Given President Obama's recent speech on his "vision" for slimming down and streamlining our military, yet keeping it responsive and battle ready, one must ask from where the Presidents "vision" came.
For those who remember Donald Rumsfeld it seems the President, and his advisers have bought into essentially what Rumsfeld was taking about during his tenure as Secretary of Defense under GWB.
Here's the report:
THE HILL - An unexpected name started popping up after President Barack Obama laid out his new defense strategy: Donald Rumsfeld.
Obama and Pentagon leaders used words like “leaner” and “agile” Thursday in describing the kind of military they intend to build.
Senior Pentagon officials said the leaner, more agile force Obama’s new strategy envisions is necessary so the force can both fight a major conflict while also quickly responding to a number of other situations and conflicts.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the envisioned force’s “greatest strength” is that it would be “more agile, flexible, ready to deploy, innovative and technologically advanced.”
The commander in chief acknowledged in the strategy that, “yes, our military will be leaner.”
“But the world must know — the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” Obama said.
If those descriptions sound familiar, they should.
When George W. Bush appointed Rumsfeld to be defense secretary after the 2000 election, the two-time Pentagon chief set about his so-called “transformation agenda.”
Rumsfeld, too, wanted a leaner, meaner military able to adapt quickly to various situations and deploy quickly.
“We need rapidly deployable, fully integrated joint forces capable of reaching distant theaters quickly and working with our air and sea forces to strike adversaries swiftly, successfully, and with devastating effect,” then-secretary Rumsfeld said in January 2002.
“We need improved intelligence, long-range precision strikes, sea-based platforms to help counter the access denial capabilities of adversaries,” Rumsfeld said. The latter is a major thrust of the new Obama defense plan.
“While transformation requires building new capabilities and expanding our arsenal, it also means reducing stocks of weapons that are no longer necessary for the defense of our country,” Rumsfeld said nearly a decade ago.
Echoing “Rummy,” Obama and Panetta said Thursday the Pentagon will begin, starting with the 2013 spending plan it will unveil in coming weeks, to terminate Cold War-era weapon programs. {Read More}
Who whudda thunk?
Via: Memeorandum
People forget that Rumsfeld's mission was to modernize the DoD. Then 9/11 happened.
ReplyDeleteObama's gleeful gutting will hardly resemble anything Rumsfeld had planned, but it's a neat liberal trick to invoke his name.
They're booting combat troops out, but I wonder how many Pentagon bureaucrats will get the ax?
Silver - Think outside the box. If possible.
ReplyDeleteYou linked to a straightforward news article the cover story the dems will use for cutting defense. What kind of out of the box thinking is required?
ReplyDeleteSilverfiddle may be on to something.
ReplyDeleteYes it is true that Rumsfeld wanted to transform the military. He wanted to switch from a division system to brigades, for example, and increase our ability to respond quickly which entailed sacrificing some "heavy" capability.
But I'm not entirely sure his vision was as completely congruent with what Panetta-Obama have done as the article implies. We'll have to see the details of their plan, and I'll have to study up more on Rummy.
I want us out of Afghanistan, and I don't want my kids going back over there. I've been there, and its hopeless.
ReplyDeleteI am also not against defense cuts, if we cut everything else as well.
I'm simply calling bs on the Obama admin using Rumsfeld as cover (and I'm not a big Rumsfeld fan either. He was doing good until he started channeling McNamera, and Bush waited too long to fire him.)
Silver said: "I want us out of Afghanistan, and I don't want my kids going back over there. I've been there, and its hopeless."
ReplyDeleteDo you think it's OK to abandon the place to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?
Dmarks: How many AQ are left in Afghanistan?
ReplyDeleteBut to answer your question, yes. Get the hell out. The worst punishment we could inflict on them (since we no longer know how to fight like Sherman), is to remover ourselves and our hundreds of billion that line the pockets of Karzai's bandits, the corrupt chieftains and the Taliban.
Let China, Iran, Pakistan and Russia handle it.
Silver - Makes sense to me.
ReplyDelete