Talk:Rumsfeld Doctrine

Untitled

The "Rumsfeld Doctrine" as described here, is not the opposite of the Powell Doctrine. What is being described here would more accuratly be a reflection of the Revolution on Military Affairs on the Powell Doctrine. The concept of Network centric warfare coupled with increased use of high tech weapons makes the Powell doctrine an easier formula to attain. The underlying current within this entry is a blatant attempt to compare Powell's "success" in the first Gulf War with the "failure" of Rumsfeld in the latest mess. The problem is the war itself was more successful than the first Gulf war. What is different is the lack of an exit strategy, a Powell Doctrine requirement, coupled with a failure to adequetly plan for the post war environment-something the Powell Doctrine does not cover.

Is there a way to change the page's title to a capital 'D' for doctrine, or does it not matter?Anon012345 05:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please include reason for NPOV disputes on talk.

Not so good...

This article is pretty poorly written, to be honest. I would improve it if I could, but I lack both the specific knowledge and the time. Examples include:

• many would disagree that the afghanistan result was entirely successful. Key objectives (e.g. bin Laden) were not obtained (perhaps because of porous borders and poor intelligence caused by a lack of troops). As far as I am aware, great swathes of the country outside of the capital are not secured.

• " Opposition Opinion " paragraph = Particularly bad. "However, in Iraq at least the first 70 or so air-strikes all hit civilian families..."- can this be verified empirically, e.g. a link to a post-conflict analysis or at least a news article? It may be true, but it does sound unlikely (and I am by no means an apologist for the likes of Bush or Rumsfeld) and needs to be verified.

• "There were not enough troops to defend Iraq from Syria and Iran..."- If you have evidence that the governments of Syria and Iran have directly attacked Iraq, I suggest you contact news organisations with this piece of breaking news and make yourself a few quid! I am surprised no-one else has noticed what with all the kerfuffle over there. The meaning is fairly obvious (I suspect you mean alleged SyrIranian backed insurgents?) but it currently sounds ridiculous and needs to be rephrased.

• "This was not as much of a problem in Afghanistan because Russia had long ended hostilities with Afghanistan and Afghanistan benefits from geological border protections."- I did not realise that Russia bordered Afghanistan. If there is a border, it must be very short and hence easily defended (in theory) with a small number of troops. I do not see the relevence of mentioning Russia therefore. Afghanistan IS bordered by e.g. Iran and China, for example, and also US-friendly allies e.g .Tajikistan, India, Pakistan.

• The connection with Abu Ghraib presumably comes from the assertion during one or the other trials that there were insufficient guards for the number of prisoners (although I do not understand how this justifies torture and prisoner abuse, but there you go). This should be referenced, especially if pre-fixed by a phrase like "Some have argued...". Needs an external link.

I could go on. The first paragraph of this article is...OK. The rest needs to be totally revised. Sorry I can't do this, and I don't mean to be overly critical. I certainly think that in light of events this is an important article that is well worth working on. I would try but my knowledge is superficial at best.

Excellent comments. I am mostly in agreement, however I probably will not have time for about another month. Anon012345 11:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

References

Frontline Transcript: Rumsfeld's War http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/script.html

Frontline Transcript: Invasion of Iraq http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/etc/script.html

Interviews from the transcripts differ on the exact numbers. On says that Rumsfeld wanted 50,000 troops, another say 75,000. One says that Pentagon wanted 400,000, anther 560,000. Nonetheless the fundamental disagreement is clear.

Human Rights Watch: Report on the failed air campaign http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

There were approximately 50 air strike attempts at decapitating the Iraqi leadership, beginning with Saddam. Not a single decapitation was successful. However, collateral damage to civilians was extensive. I was unable to find refutation from the Pentagon.

Iraq War Controversy

My understanding from the recently declassified Iraq war plans over at the National Security Archive is that the Five Phase Plan (Short Buildup) called for 160,000 troops for the initial invasion added to this some 60,000 coalition troops followed by an additional 248,000 troops to secure territory. This numbers some 475,000 troops in total identified to meet the short buildup scenario. The long buildup scenario required 248,000 troops plus 60,000 coalition troops totaling some 308,000 troops. [1]

The Iraq war section of Wikipedia records "...initial coalition military forces were roughly 300,900, of which 98% were U.S. and British troops." although provides no source for this.

It appears to me that the Rumsfeld doctrine as applied to the initial invasion was well conceived and ably met the "Decisive Operation" objectives of Phase III of the invasion. Unfortunately, the Phase Five plan called for a slow and steady draw down of troops numbers once Phase IV (stabilization and recovery) commenced instead of a build-up of troops to secure and stablize. [2]

The real question is why did Rumsfeld fail to provide enough troops to undertake the peace-keeping requirements during Phase IV of the invasion especially when the ratio's of required troops to civilian to maintain order in a civilian population was a well known quantity? --Wildframe 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)