A conservatory of Ldotter blogs.

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Another fairness injection. . .

. . .for SecDef. Rumsfeld comes from Michael P. Tremoglie of MensNewsDaily.com. He provides quotes from the exchange in full context, as well as some emails from people actually serving in the field.

Whether or not Rumsfeld ever gets a fair shake from the mainstream media, it behooves any blogger with any sense of proportionality to acknowledge this side of the story. You may, or may not like Donald Rumsfeld. You may, or may not feel that the Iraq post-war has been directed badly. But, what you cannot do is fairly accuse him of arrogantly dismissing the soldier's question/complaint after reading this piece. And, as I've said before, to accuse him of gross incompetence is to engage in hyperbole at the expense of the facts.

As Mr. Tremoglie correctly points out, the majority of people doing the greatest amount of carping are Monday morning quarterbacks who have no clue as to how run a chow hall (or mess tent), much less the entirety of the greatest fighting force ever to grace the face of the planet. Those calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's head are a lot like the people you hear calling local post-game radio shows after losses -- and in many cases, less-than-perfect wins.

Invariably, they make comparisons to great teams of the past, and how they played against other great teams in their era. What is never taken into account is that, like our armed forces today, teams go through transitions -- some far more sweeping than others -- and plans are made based on the strengths and weaknesses that exist today, not the strengths and weaknesses that existed back then. Secretary Rumsfeld does not have at his disposal the number of units, nor the coalition, that existed during the first Gulf War. And to compare this campaign to the previous one shows a complete lack of understanding of the military that now exists.

"Sometimes Monday Morning Quarterbacks are correct and sometimes they are not. However, the fact is they are Monday morning. What they say is purely an opinion without consequence. They do not have to worry about the team.

It is easy to be a critic. Critics have the luxury of not having to experience the consequences of their choices. They have the luxury of not being responsible for the lives of other people. They have the luxury of not being responsible for the continuation of an enterprise.

This does not mean their criticism should not be considered. However, when such criticism is motivated by purely selfish political reasons then it is not cedible. Such criticism is unconscionable. The critics are unscrupulous."

free website counters