Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (149471)	10/27/2004 8:49:15 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I watched the Frontline special on Rumsfeld last night - its well worth the time to catch. Note: Apparently the full show will be available online tomorrow Oct 28th pbs.org Of course it goes into some detail about force size - the story about Shinseki, etc, but what is most interesting is the detail on Rumsfeld - former CEO of several companies himself, including GILD - actively pushing, no, pressuring Tommy Franks to deliver a war plan calling for just 50,000 troops. A number of generals and the former Secretary of the Army backed up the story - there is no question that Rumsfeld wanted this -- and he wasn't the only one. This was something Cheney wanted too. If his plan had seen the light of day, it would have been the single biggest disaster in modern military history, but that's not my point. The story goes on to tell how Rumsfeld kept chipping away at Franks "you don't need that division there", "these are superfluous" etc - just like any CEO would do - keep challenging subordinates to think differently, usually with the goal of doing more with less. That's the strong impression I obtained from that segment of the documentary, although that point was not made directly. Rumsfeld the businessman might well have wanted to conduct the war with radically fewer troops than had ever been conceived before. It would help in reducing the cost of the war by a huge amount - not a linear reduction but much much more. Its a piece of the puzzle which tends to fit other pieces - fast, light and cheap strike force; quick capitulation of Iraq; move in the "outsourced contractors" to take over what was then anticipated to be a friendly and non-hostile countryside. And there's that oil to pay for it all. Its the "CEO Battleplan" - a fast, cheap war, had it seen the light of day and worked (clearly it would not in Iraq) would be the foundation for a whole new battle plan. Fast cheap wars in part supported by "contractors" could be repeated over and over. Why take the chance? Well you'd take the chance if you want to conduct a lot of wars in the near future. Just musing.