OK, well, the press should take some responsibility, but it will also be the bureaucracy:

Iraq has shown that the DoD bureaucracy is too big, too slow and out of touch with the realities of the modern battlefield.

Up until just recently the military was built for a set-piece battle against like forces. But our enemy does not want to cooperate with the geniuses in the Pentagon who came up with the plans and procured the equipment to execute those plans and developed training platforms to prepare soldiers for those plans.

The bureaucracy--even in combat--is staggering. To get some things done the request has to go through 15! steps of approval.

One Company Commander summed it up like this:

"They trust me with the lives of 100 men, humvees, weapons, ammo, civil affairs negotiations, classified intelligence, radios, everything. But I cannot be trusted with $20k worth of Dinar to hire a crew to build up an IP station?"

well if anybody at the top of DoD and the White House had
any combat experience, this might have changed,
but, not one combat vet was amongst the
DoD or White House Leadership

Enough already anonymous, you've convinced us. We all believe you're a moron now, so stop trying to prove it any further!

Cecil is right. anonymous is clearly showing signs of BDS here. Sorry, but I have to be honest you know. Also, one of the things Rumsfeld was focused on, and rightly so, was to try to make the military more efficient. Bureaucracies are highly inefficient. In fact it amazes me that a "big government" entity such as the military is actually capable of doing most things very well.

"well if anybody at the top of DoD and the White House had
any combat experience, this might have changed,
but, not one combat vet was amongst the
DoD or White House Leadership

Posted by anonymous at June 6, 2007 03:31 PM"

Things were worse under Clinton. We weren't even at war and we still only had one cleaning kit for every four M-16A2's in my racks. And we had no funding for class nine supplies to order more.

I begged more kits off of a friend and fellow Supply Sgt. in a better-funded SF unit.

Even a zoomie like Bush would see the insanity in that.

"In fact it amazes me that a "big government" entity such as the military is actually capable of doing most things very well."

Because the consequences of failure in the .mil are more grave, intimate and closely felt than in other bureaurcracies. If they fail badly enough, they actually go 'out of business' like the private sector can do.

Just like some of their competitors like the Wermacht and the Luftwaffe were put out of business by the .mil.

It'll be the fault of the idiot who started an unwinable war.

"It'll be the fault of the idiot who started an unwinable war."

Saddam Hussien?

You know, the USA actually had a chance to elect a certifiable war hero, Bob Dole. I don't think anyone would argue about whether he deserved his purple heart. Instead, the USA picked Bill Clinton, whose combat experience consisted of dodging the draft. There is some truth to the saying that you reap what you sow.

I will have to agree with your post Ed Minchau.

As for Mr. Anonymous, if you you think that simply replacing the "right leaders" at the top of a bureacracy (a sclerotic bureaucracy that is becoming more obsolete as networked individuals/groups get stronger) is going to help, your're in for a very unpleasant surprise in the twenty-first century.

Iraq has shown that the DoD bureaucracy is too big, too slow and out of touch with the realities of the modern battlefield

The military is a blunt instrument. It is meant to oppose military forces of other states and either smash them or intimidate them into uselessness. It fails when it is employed as a police force.

I find this comforting, because a popular way for democracies to die is when the military comes loose from the people and begins obeying the will of the tyrants. The lesson that a military force can not pacify a determined grass roots opposition is something I want our politicians to very aware of.

This fact carries with it international policy implications but also implications concerning illegal immigration. Keep the flood gates open and sooner or later there's going to be a nasty insurgency spring up. Particularly if there's a large enough illegal immigrant population "sea" for the insurgents to swim in.

Saddam Hussien?

Ok, I'll give you that one. Technically the period between 1991 and 2003 was a ceasefire, not peace.

But in hindsight, (and for a number of observers foresight), having a brutal strongman like Saddam Hussein at the wheel would have caused a lot less suffering among the Iraqi people than the current clusterfsck that the country has become.

The military is a blunt instrument. It is meant to oppose military forces of other states and either smash them or intimidate them into uselessness. It fails when it is employed as a police force.

The CCP would disagree with you on that.

And before Clinton - Dole '96, there was Clinton - Bush '92.

What did Bush Sr. do in the war?

Flew navy combat aircraft.

What did Bush Jr. do?

Flew F-102's -- an aircraft dangerous enough to pilot that it required enough design mods to become a different model aircraft: the F-106.

And Clinton...?

But in hindsight, (and for a number of observers foresight), having a brutal strongman like Saddam Hussein at the wheel would have caused a lot less suffering among the Iraqi people than the current ----------- that the country has become.

Ridiculous statement.

in hindsight, (and for a number of observers foresight), having a brutal strongman like Saddam Hussein at the wheel would have caused a lot less suffering among the Iraqi people than the current clusterfsck that the country has become.

Most polls I've seen indicate that the Iraqi people disagree. They're not happy with the current situation, but no one other than the Ba'athists want Saddam back.

one of the things Rumsfeld was focused on, and rightly so, was to try to make the military more efficient.

Well noted, TnT.

I join TnT and Leland on Rumsfeld who has been ridiculously underestimated and scapegoated.

I still remember how hard I laughed when he resigned; such excellent political manouvering is getting rare. It was extremely obvious that he chose to leave with a pre-emptive strike against the new Democrat-majority Congress. It worked, Gates was basically given a free pass into the job and the Democrats lost a lot of momentum (all of it for a short while). Election outcome plan B in action.

If my opinons are correct then it also illustrates that Bush and the administration couldn't care less about ensuring reelection for GOP members of congress (and rightly so). Bodes well for the future.