Well, here's your first tangible result from last night's election: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld just quit, according to Republican officials. Good riddance.
Comments
DONALD RUMSFELD SHOULD BE APPRECIATED FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE. FROM A YOUNG BOY,TONAVY PILOT, HE HAS ALWAYS BELIEVED HARD WORK PAYS OFF. IF ALL AMERICANS SPENT MORE TIME FOCUSED ON DESTROYING EVIL. THAN CHARACTER ASSAINATION WE CAN KICK THESE VIOLENT PEOPLES BUTTS REMEMBER UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL. LEST WE NEVER FORGET THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE US, THOSE WHO WILL COME AFTER US. DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT RUMMY,PATTON, IKE, TRUMAN WOULD HAVE ENJOYED HAVING THIS MAN ON THIER SIDE NOT AGAINST US. WISH HIM YOUR FAMILIES A MERRY CHRISTMAS & GET TO WORK. I AM AN ARMY VET IN A WHEELCHAIR, & ONLY WISH I COULD HELP EACH MEMBER OF THE MILITARY THIER FAMILIES,FRIENDS ,MORE SO I OFFER YOU A PRAYER & MERRY CHRISTMAS
Posted by: Rick Mills at December 15, 2006 09:22 PM
With Rumsfeld's resignation, we just lost possibly the best SECDEF in my lifetime [I am a 63 year old vet].
Posted by: Forefronts at November 24, 2006 10:03 PM
Those who complain adamantly about the occasional politics post on DT need to realize that 'defense technology' is just all lab work. As an actual worker bee in the defense technology field at the Pentagon, I will tell you that there is a bit of politics in every piece of kit out in the field.
Force planning, R&D, system development and procurement all involve intensely political questions that revolve around one central axis: The Department of Defense budget, lovely number 051.
I'm a libertarian, so I have no dog in today's politics, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize Rummy or Bush on their defense policies. To be honest, I liked Rummy at first - he was schrewd and definitely knew his Cebrowski talk. Killing the Crusader won him a lot of leeway in my book as well.
After 2003 though, he went from contrarian to cantankerous and became a drag on the DOD. Abu Ghraib was the deal-breaker for me, but there are so many other good reasons to give him the boot.
Posted by: Robot Economist at November 8, 2006 11:00 PM
Well not that it matters, but I think you lost a reader today.
I came to this site to read about Defense TECH, and yet I find that the subject matter seems to take up less and less of the material posted.
I don't care if you like Rumsfeld or not, it makes no difference. However, it seems that on a site devoted to technology, your political opinions could be left to yourself, or at least placed in an "opinions" section off of the main site.
I'm sure somebody will consider this a post by a "Bush-backer" or something, and that is fine. I just hope that you will think about what this site is called, and hopefully return to what it seems like it was intended to be.
The posters on this site have all shown that they have a deep knowledge of the defense and tech industries and have a good deal of information to give to the readers, but maybe just maybe that information can be delivered, and the political leanings of the posters can be left at the door.
Posted by: Endyr at November 8, 2006 07:15 PM
Now that Rumsfeld is going to be looking for a job, may I suggest he take one as a driver or as some other government functionary in Baghdad? If he's done as good a job as many claim he has and the bad news in Iraq is as overblown as many of those same people claim it is, then Iraq needs good people like him and it should be perfectly safe for him to be there, right?
If he did it, I'd pay for his body armor.
Posted by: Edward Liu at November 8, 2006 06:42 PM
With all due respect, this is not a result of the election. You can't come up with a replacement nominee in one day. No doubt that Army Times, Navy Times, etc. editorial urging Rumsfield to resign was made with full knowledge on the part of the editors that Rumsfield's resignation was a done deal.
Posted by: ohwilleke at November 8, 2006 06:28 PM
Andrew Sullivan is NOT a conservative?
Then what is he?
Let me guess, you would also say that William S Lind, (based on his www.d-n-i.net commentaries) is not conservative either?
And if you dislike the liberal bias, either go someplace else (although Defense and the National Interest isn't a blog, its a pretty reliably conservative source for a lot of this stuff, although not nearly so tech-heavy), ignore it, or accept that the truth has an unfortunate heavy liberal bias these days.
Mostly because the liberals aren't in power to F@#)$(* things up like the conservatives are. Here in Kalifornia, where the Democrats DO hold most of the power, I'm pissed at the Governator mostly because he behaves like a stereotypical dunken-spending, social-engineering Democrat!
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 8, 2006 05:39 PM
Noah, Sullivan is not a conservative, and if you think of yourself as being anything like him, then neither are you. Frankly, the overall tone of this site obviously skews liberal, and has ever since I started reading it. The Rumsfeld comment might not provoke calls of liberal bias if it was isolated, but in the context of the overall bias of the site, and because liberals comprise the vast majority of those opposed to Rumsfeld, such criticism is appropriate.
Yeah, some republicans jumped the Rumsfeld hate bandwagon, because it was politically expident to do so. As for the retired generals? Political opportunists with grudges against a former boss who acted unprofessionally.
Rumsfeld made enemies of quite a few politicians and old generals. To me, that means he was doing a great job. I saw how intelligent and effective he was in congressional hearings and press briefings. I also saw how he was making a growing list of enemies among liberals and the decrepit, cold war mentality old guard generals who resisted his attempts to transform the military at every turn.
Also, your pathetic attempt to paint everyone here who doesn't agree with you on Rumsfeld as a "Bush partisan" is hypocritical. I am not a Bush partisan, not by a long shot. I think Rumsfeld was a scapegoat, hated by liberals for being good at his job, and hated by a minority of generals for pushing the military into a transformation that these generals opposed.
Posted by: Kaltes at November 8, 2006 05:23 PM
Good Afternoon Folks,
Well after yesterday and the departure of Rumsfeld it would appear that "The House of Bush" is now longer a three holer.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 8, 2006 05:15 PM
One of the things I've never really figured out about modern-day Bush partisans (as opposed to old-school, more idealogical, 1980-2001 Republicans) is that any critique of the President or his seconds automatically turns you into a "leftist loony."
Under those criteria, Senators McCain (R-AZ), Collins (R-ME), Hegel (R-NE), Coleman (R-MN) and Lott (R-MS) might all be considered "leftists" for blasting Rumsfeld's conduct of the war. So would intellectual godfathers of the Iraq campaign like Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, and William Kristol. Not to mention conservative thinkers like Newt Gingrich and Andrew Sullivan. And, of course, all those retired generals.
Posted by: Noah Shachtman at November 8, 2006 04:43 PM
Sparrow:
I know the Army Times is a private company. However, they are very in tune to the off-the-record comments of the officer and enlisted personnel. Its a necessity of their business. Nobody else is going to be paying $55 for that weekly.
The corporate media is many things, but it IS in tune to the audience, thats how they make their money. Its not interested in telling inconvenient truths, but telling what the viewers want to learn. "Dog Bites Man", not "Man Bites Dog".
Fox News is not going to speak out against Bush unless those who watch Fox News want to hear it. Air America was not going to comment on any Democratic loony crap. (Unfortunately for them, Air America's demographic target is already well served by commercial free NPR, so why bother listening to Al Franken with adds when you can get Talk of the Nation instead?)
The Army Times was not going to speak out against Rumsfeld, the WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION, unless the bulk of their readership and constituency, OFF THE RECORD, wanted them to.
And nobody speaks out against the current administration on the record. It is just Not Done. The US military has a very strong, very healthy, and IMO very good tradition of being apolitical in public.
During Vietnam, which made Iraq look like a sweet 16 birthday party in comparison, the highest ranking officer that I know of who spoke out against the war as being unwinnable while still in uniform was a Colonel (Colonel Hackworth).
If any senior officer would, ON THE RECORD, speak out against Rumsfeld, to the Army times or anybody else, it would have said that the US military was on the verge of a total breakdown.
Thus the lack of citing of any particular comments is not something which affects how I believe that editorial should have been viewed.
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 8, 2006 04:09 PM
Army times is not an actual army newspaper but a subsidary of USA Today
My position still stands, this website is full of political opinion and opinions that the webmaster and contributers here agree with. ex. The topic of the Raptor, so many article about complaints that it is too expensive and does not suit the military, and only one small sentence in the Raptor/Turkey comparison of how it destroyed more than 1 hundred targets in a wargame without a loss.
Many many other examples as well
I ask Noah and the other contributers to please put aside your political feelings, and post defense news. Not only that, but post the good and the bad of a system(s), and not just the bad.
otherwise, change the slogan on the top of the website to "the future of the military, law enforcement, and national security in our opinion"
Posted by: Livio at November 8, 2006 04:08 PM
"Lets turn it over to those liberal hack writers at the Army Times for their explanation on why Rumsfeld should go:
I hope you realize that is a subsidiary of USA Today. I also hope you realize that no military officer in that article called for Rumsfeld to resign. I don't for Rumsfeld but that article was horrible.
Posted by: Sparrow at November 8, 2006 03:46 PM
Lets turn it over to those liberal hack writers at the Army Times for their explanation on why Rumsfeld should go:
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 8, 2006 03:21 PM
it's obvious this blog does have a liberal bias to it. I remember the 04 prez debates when the Noah guy made this blog into a "I support Kerry" bandwagon, making posts against what Bush said during the debates and using the ACLU as one of his main sources.
That and i have never seen him or any of his friends say anything good about what has come into the military out of Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. All there is is constant complaints of cost, that supposedly weapons systems dont work (as if they saw into the future). Why cant this blog be what it is, Defensetech.org, where you talk about defense and the good and the bad of a system(s), instead of being more like a one sided political defense website, where one political side is presented as good (democrat) in it's views of what's happening in the military and it's leaders.
i used to like this website a lot, until it started turning into "most everything military today is bad, only the things from yesterday was good" and the liberal bias that came with it.
case in point, "good riddance"
it takes 12 years for a leader to make his mark, we'll see if the transformation worked, so try and be moderate
Posted by: Livio at November 8, 2006 03:16 PM
Even though Iraq is a mess, Rumsfeld should be praised for his transformation of the military. Which was both much needed and overdue.
Posted by: JH at November 8, 2006 02:55 PM
This blog has become so ridiculous it started out fairly balanced but more and more personal bias seems to filter in, and this comment "good riddance".. Ill still read it from time to time but have allready stopped taking anything presented on this leftist loony bin blog as factual until presented elsewhere in uncopied form.
Posted by: Trident at November 8, 2006 02:49 PM
Defense tech should do a rundown of why they don't like Rumsfeld. Help bring the uninformed like me up to speed.
Posted by: Sparrow at November 8, 2006 02:39 PM
ShepUK:
"The truth having a notorious liberal bias" you mean?
Rumsfeld has been a truely awful secretary of defense, unwilling and unable to do the right things on hundreds of occasions. Everyone, right left and center, should and are rejoicing that Bush was lying a week ago when he said that Rumsfeld was staying on until the bitter end. (At least in the press conference he didn't say that it depended on what the 'term is is').
I'm just shocked it happened today and not a week ago. A week ago it would have said "We are willing to change the course" much more than saying "We were never stay the course, we were always adapt and change".
I think the Administration was hoping that the Blue Tide wasn't going to materialize, just like so much of the counterinsurgency in Iraq seems to be "hope that THIS will be the light at the end of the tunnel..."
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 8, 2006 02:23 PM
Can we get rid of the Pentagon and the Inter-Agency as well? They want to fight an insurgency in Iraq, and Afghanistan using conventional forces. That is loser regardless who is in charge. The “Top Down” approach of rebuilding a country will not work.
The new guy is ok, but I am skeptical of anyone contaminated by Vietnam and the Cold War. I hate Realists, like Baker, Weinberger, and Powell.
We are good at killing people and destroying things, but we are not good of rebuilding, and that is what it takes to “win”.
Posted by: BT at November 8, 2006 01:58 PM
Shame he was a top guy too. This blog is more like a loony left hate fest blog now, which is more sad then rummy going. I don't see how this website can remain a credable source for defence related info anymore with such awfully 'reporting'.
Posted by: ShepUk at November 8, 2006 01:41 PM
Well, Donnie Darko, you have once again reached new lows of sucky, craptacular "service"! Thanks for nothing!
Posted by: RR Anderson at November 8, 2006 01:27 PM
Replacing Rummy with Robert Gates. That is at least the fifth person from the Iran-Contra Affair that Bush has appointed.
I'm beginning to think he just thumbs through the Tower Commission Report when he needs to appoint someone.
Posted by: TheMatt at November 8, 2006 01:25 PM
Rumsfailed is gone?
Amen
Posted by: Wild Nine at November 8, 2006 01:21 PM
What's the word on the new guy?
Posted by: Timmy Mac at November 8, 2006 01:15 PM
Place yer bets. Does Bush say that Rumsfeld did "A good job"
"A heckuva job"
or
"A hella good job"
as secretary of defense?
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 8, 2006 01:11 PM
DONALD RUMSFELD SHOULD BE APPRECIATED FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE. FROM A YOUNG BOY,TONAVY PILOT, HE HAS ALWAYS BELIEVED HARD WORK PAYS OFF. IF ALL AMERICANS SPENT MORE TIME FOCUSED ON DESTROYING EVIL. THAN CHARACTER ASSAINATION WE CAN KICK THESE VIOLENT PEOPLES BUTTS REMEMBER UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL. LEST WE NEVER FORGET THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE US, THOSE WHO WILL COME AFTER US. DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT RUMMY,PATTON, IKE, TRUMAN WOULD HAVE ENJOYED HAVING THIS MAN ON THIER SIDE NOT AGAINST US. WISH HIM YOUR FAMILIES A MERRY CHRISTMAS & GET TO WORK. I AM AN ARMY VET IN A WHEELCHAIR, & ONLY WISH I COULD HELP EACH MEMBER OF THE MILITARY THIER FAMILIES,FRIENDS ,MORE SO I OFFER YOU A PRAYER & MERRY CHRISTMAS
Posted by: Rick Mills at December 15, 2006 09:22 PM