I feel like the "Resign, Rumsfeld" headline that The Economist ran makes people forget all the dumb stuff he did before the torture ever entered the public view
I know he's dead now and can't defend himself, but as more info about Rumsfeld comes out, it becomes more and more abundantly clear that the man who seemed like he was unqualified for the job back in the 2000's was indeed actually grossly incompetent and arrogant to boot.
Rumsfeld was like one of those corporate c-suite goobers than runs his mouth saying he can consolidate and optimize process without knowing anything about it then cutting half the workforce and tanking the company, but jumping out with a golden parachute.
Exactly, an insider hire with no actual experience or results that'd qualify him to make the decisions he'd be making, but has enough political resources that his mistakes can be dimed out to anyone but himself, while he heads out the back door.
And the thing is people like this don't learn and they continue to move to new companies and do the same thing. Case in point, Dave Calhoun, the current CEO of Boeing, used to be CEO at my company.
"They'll keep doing it, and so long as we keep getting lucky they'll keep making the same mistakes." Generation Kill really illuminates how roughshod management isn't at all restricted to the private sector.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718”move fast and break things” in the private sector as shown very mixed results. Often the things you break are things you are going to need when you want to scale.
@MarcosElMalo2 The private sector is infinitely better than the public sector. When you break something in the private sector, you can be held civilly and/or legally liable. Good luck holding the government liable. Your ideas of the private sector tell me you've never worked in the private sector.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 This isn't true either, how many times have a CEO screwed up a company financially yet often are sent home with a huge retirement package meanwhile thousands of average workers get laid off and kicked over the curb with little to nothing. It also depends what industry you're talking about as some industries do have more accountability like in construction, pharmaceuticals, or hospital care meanwhile others like banking and securities almost certainly do not or at least not be punished enough. It just depends.
The point is that Rumsfeld wasn’t willing to listen or learn. He was a hectoring, nagging schoolmarm treating our best and brightest generals like they were failing students. Senior Bush warned Junior Bush about both Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Politicians were pissed that Schwarzkopf finished Desert Storm before they could mess it up, so this time they nipped it in the bud before planning could even commence.
I think that's unfair to George H.W. Bush. I think he saw his job as fulfilling the UN mandate, and that's exactly what he did. I believe that the second Gulf War happened because his idiot son, who had to listen to those criticizing his father for not removing Saddam from power, somehow found himself in the oval office. Criticism that was unfair, but "W" wasn't smart enough to understand that, and thought that he should "Finish the job." And there was Cheney and his cronies in the oil industry egging him along every time his resolve flagged.
I doubt any politicians were actually pissed Stormin’ Norman finished DS so quickly. More like elated. It didn’t didn’t stop “Rummy” and his pals from screwing up OIF.
It's still crazy to me that politicians think you can have a quick, low-casualty smackdown war, while using an absolute minimum of resource and particularly manpower. These guys would have planned D-Day with three Rangers and a rowing boat, with everyone else sitting at Dover waiting to be "surged"
You could never again have those types of high casualty battles like we saw in World War II. The rise of the media, pumping combat footage into Americans TV sets, with rolling up to the minute casualty reports. Americans accepted the 400,000 dead in world ear 2 and before you say but but were attacked, the strong majority of those casualties were lost liberating Europe, not defeating Japan. Vietnam was a longer war, a little over 1/8th the casualties and the public couldn't stomach it demanding withdrawal. The draft was so unpopular in the 60s and early 70s that it was politically untenable to even contemplate. So we had the same guys doing 4, 5, 6, 7 combat tours.
The CIA embarrassed Rummsfeld with their plans in Afghanistan. He wanted his name on a similar plan that used minimal forces to effect a similar outcome. The hubris to believe he could concoct a similar plan, one that the CIA spent years planning and gathering intel for, is mind boggling.
Not that he knew better - but CIA plans should generally be taken with a grain of salt. False conclusions seem to be a CIA specialty since it's foundation. They pay locals a crapload of money - for false information. The basic intelligence rule of "don't believe anything unless it's proven by a second source" hasn't reached them yet. After the fall of nazi Germany, their main source of information were ex-nazis. They got amnesty for their crimes against humanity and a ton of cash for mostly worthless rumours and wild stories. That's where truly ludacris stuff like the nazi bases in Antarctica or on the dark side of the moon originally came from. Oh - and of course, the nazi nuke program. Equal to the US program - but hidden in secret underground bunker systems. Yeah - right. In reality - all there was were some very very basic experiments leading to the conclusion a nuclear bomb was feasible in theory. But uranium enrichment and other key skills were simply non-existent. Since then, the CIA missed basically all key events in world's history. Not the fall of Saigon, of Iran in 1979 or of the Soviet Union. They were so busy counting tanks and rockets with their high-tech sattelites they missed the simple fact civilians had a hard time sourcing bread. Therefore, I'm a bit sceptical regarding CIA plans. In particular regarding foreign cultures - like the Arab world. They have proven their inability to understand foreign cultures and -countries more than once.
Does it or does it not feel like our leaders are essentially an ongoing class reunion. Kinda like how the civil war was a West Point reunion brawl. But like imagine the ambitious people you remember throughout school and remember their egos? Man. It’s just like everyone in government are just bros from college who think they’re the next Napoleon.
"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." - Guy whose insane demands made the army one might want or wish to have at a later time impossible
Outstanding video. This is the kind of information the American public rarely hears. If the Iraqis weren't so degraded as a combat force prior to the operation, it sounds like it could been a Vietnam in the sand. Amazing that administrators can believe that they're so much smarter than career military. Rumsfeld's arrogance could have cost countless lives on both sides with his ignorant meddling in things he didn't understand.
A modern army only advances as far as its logistics can support, only a fraction of manpower in any theatre will ever be actual combat personnel. In modern wars, you need more manpower than ever in theatre for logistical support, what with some 5-10 men being needed to supply and manage every soldier. Cutting down on logistical and support manpower dooms any modern force.
@@flippinkamikaze8738 "There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war." - Clausewitz "a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own" - Sun Tzu It'd be more interesting to try and find successful battles and campaigns where fighting personnel outnumbered support/logistics.
I once worked for a CEO of a tech company whose background was in sales all his life, and he would make unrealistic demands, deadlines, and promises, anything he thought would look great in a sales pitch to investors and future customers. The company ended up closing down, because none of his promises could be fulfilled. That's by analogy.
It really feels like the political side of the invasion wasn't about intervention or about deposing a dictator at all so much as it was an excuse for a few rich boys to puff up their political careers.
The Neocon master plan was to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously with US bases squeezing Iran from both sides. Iran would then either have regime change internally or through another US invasion. The US would then control all the oil outside of Russia as leverage against China or any other rising power. Neocon think tanks like Project for a New American Century openly talked about an American empire. It was hubris beyond belief and led to a massive loss of US prestige and power as their Iraq war failed. The Supreme Court giving the 2000 election to Bush changed our world in ways we can barely imagine today.
Pretty much. Political leaders don't like to think about how people may know more than them, but often experts are experts for a reason. 2020 was the same. Drastically smarter people than politicians gave excellent advice and politicians after a few months became hostile to evidence.
Your government *was* accountable. It reacted exactly like the average american at the time. When a mob of angry, slightly racist people screaming for vengeance and "teach a lesson to those damn brown people" become a foreign policy, it turns into this. And when the mob calms down and realises it was an absolute shitshow and mistake, it turns on those who enacted the policy and accuses them of being responsible.
@@souleaterfan1234 The problem was not deposing him, the problem was the complete incompetence of the US military administration that followed it. Removing all the people with a Baassist card from any public offices for the rest of their lives, for them and their families, meant that you effectively blocked 90% of all those with an education to enter iraqi administration... and created a million of unhapoy people.
Rumsfeld’s 17 thousand man invasion plan was the equivalent of Putin’s “Kiev in 3 Days” The actual invasion was effective, the US failed gravely in the occupation due to grave mistakes, lack of post-invasion planning and lack of manpower. Chaos ensued and hundreds of thousands of life were lost. Cobra II is a great book indeed.
Or 'we'll force them back to Germany and be home for xmas', which was used in both world wars. Or Hitler's idea of successfully invading Russia while still fighting on the western front.
@@robbob9273Welp, this one may have been bold, but it also was particularly dumb and badly implemented. Redoing the 1968 soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia with half the manpower, in a country 4.5 times bigger with 3 times the population, that has spent the last 8 years at war was *not* a sane idea.
@@marcbuisson2463Great powers are a funny thing. They convince themselves that a lean “streamlined” military is all they need to maintain position on the world stage, then quickly learn that an “optimized right-size military” is almost exactly the opposite of whats required in offensive operation. Years pass and politicians begin to campaign on leaning out the military… lmao. Whats worse is that you’ll find generals that actually believe that garbage, and they are always the ones that are known for not listening to advice and being more politician than tactician. FWIW Russia cant afford to endlessly sustain a doomed campaign like the US can, so that mindset of a minimum force appears to have been extinguished over there.
Imagine having the best military advisors in the world, who had already invaded the country once, and thinking you were better than them. Rumsfeld was truly stupid
The USA dosent have the best military advisors in the world the they can't even win a war against Afghan cave dwellers or vietnames rice farmers the US has never won a single war without the help of powerful allies 😂
The Iraq War, specifically the ‘03 invasion, was the perfect example how when everything that could go right goes right, while simultaneously everything that could fail, fails. The coalition took Baghdad after just 26 days with just over 100 casualties, as compared to the THOUSANDS of Saddam’s troops, and eventually him and his sons, killed. This same invasion began with among the largest and most successful air campaigns since WWII. But, a closer look will reveal the failures at An Nasiriyah and Karbala. This war was easily among the most complicated, yet also most simple, war in modern history, ESPECIALLY within the last 40 years.
The Iraqi army didn't really fight back. the republican guard had a deal with the CIA to not fight back to stay in their barracks. they were the only Iraqi formation even capable of so much as carrying out a counter-attack after 12 years of sanctions. the resistance was uncoordinated and ad-hoc. it wasn't really a war at all. It was a colonial police action dressed up to look like a great victory for TV. That's why they were so confident they could just stroll into Baghdad. American leadership knew that the Iraqi army was utterly unreliable well before the war which is why Rumsfeld wasn't worried about invading with just a division sized formation. Of course they never told anyone, even to this day, because it would have only served to diminish the great victory. This of course is also why they didn't think they need a large garrison force. Once you know this the decisions make more sense - it wasn't really even a war.
I remember Col. Douglas McGregor's name from his commentaries about the war in Ukraine, back in 2022... Him being completely wrong about Russia's military capabilities makes a bit more sense now - after hearing that he also actually believed the war in Iraq could be won with just 17.000 American troops.
Rumsfeld's thinking was likely rooted in the first Gulf War experience where the coalition had popular support and the Iraqi military wasn't putting up much of a fight. They weren't anticipating anything but to finish the job.
They succeed in demolishing its military to the ground, but failed to establish a single shit after the Invasion, i dont know if its comedic or just sad
The idea was to set up a functioning democracy styled in the Western image that would spread and grow throughout the region. Our leaders failed to take into account that these cultures were steeped in centuries of backwardness, and were not going to come into the democratic age overnight. Or ever. Especially by military force.
What you didn’t touch on at all is that the US Army had already moved entire specialties into the reserve by ‘02. The reason they NEEDED reservists is that certain MOSs no longer existed in the active duty force.
The problem was that while Rumsfeld was interfering with planning, his lackeys were mucking up the intelligence and the post-hostilities phase. We might have won the war, but we absolutely failed to win the peace. The result was a protracted occupation that resulted in lack of focus in Afghanistan. Final result: loss in Afghanistan and a very mixed bag in Iraq.
@@MarcosElMalo2 We're largely gone from Iraq and the government we put there is still there. I hesitate to say we won overall, but for once we kinda didn't lose? And it doesn't seem like this government is going away any time soon.
Iraq wasn't a disaster like Afghanistan. But considering how the war resulted in China, Iran and Russia becoming a powerful force in Middle-East, the growth of ISIS and the destabilization of the area, it's also not a win.@@superfamilyallosauridae6505
Rumsfeld's insistence on micromanaging the conflict from his office in the Pentagon demonstrated that he had learned nothing from LBJ's micromanaging of the air war against N Vietnam. Indeed, Rumsfeld's interference was far worse. His initial insistence on conducting the war on half a shoe-lace could have resulted in disaster. The question is why. Was it his hubris or did he have political reasons? Tommy Frank's threat to resign saved the day. Of course, the rationale for conducting the war in the first place turned out to be based on lies from the George W Bush administration. Saddam had NO WMDs.
I don't say this often, if ever, but after 9/11 and the inevitable response that would follow, the American people deserved a better class of politician than the ones they got with the Bush Administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, talk about an Axis of Evil. The only adults in the Oval Office at that time with IQs over 100 were Rice and Powell, and unfortunately they both got swept up in the group delusions, and Bush's desire to avenge his daddy's screw up of leaving Saddam in power and watching the Kurds burn.
It’s too bad the video didn’t address this question (WHY try to conduct the campaign on a shoestring?) I think the answer may have to do with expectation of political backlash against the Bush administration if the war placed a burden on reservist’s families. (In the end, it was a tremendous burden. It’s not clear that the Republican Party felt the full force of the backlash, because the Obama administration eventually owned the botched occupation as well.)
Indeed. Being stupid is one thing but not recognising your stupidity despite all the evidence is mind blowing. This is what happens when morons are given power.
It kinda gets swept under the rug, but there was that culture of "Let's finish the job" lingering around in the 90s that added fuel to the support for the second war
Cobra 2 is a great source for an unbiased look at the invasion. The complete and total incompetence of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Franks and several other generals is astounding. The fact that no one was fired, relieved and publicly disgraced is even more concerning.
Tom Ricks Fiasco, The Gamble, and The Generals also goes into depth into why Iraq was such a mess (course this is still when he was on the side of Petraeus before we knew he couldn't keep his pants on)
Spoke with a Gulf 1 vet from the 101st, his battalion was to assault a trenchline without any support, and exactly five 155mm rounds allocated for the initial breaching attack.
That sounds very different from what happened in the Gulf War (where the bombardments were so intensive that Iraqi units that wanted to surrender couldn't). Did you mean this war in the video, the Iraq War?
At 17 :04 we can see a rare Fedayeen Sadam Darth Vader Helmet , these were designed specifically for that unit and yes was inspired by the movie villain , in practice it was junk , with poor ergonomics not alowing to aim and shoot an AK.
The book “The Generals' War: The Inside Story of the First Gulf War” shows how several of the Neocons such as Cheney believed lack of aggression on the part of the US Army, specifically General Fred Franks had allowed the Republican Guard to escape and Saddam to survive in 1991. So they were on the Army’s back from the start of the 2001 administration. Rumsfeld and Cheney had a long political relationship dating to the 70s and Rumsfeld felt it was his push that led to the quick early victories in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld was also a Navy aviator used to having his logistics sorted for him. Finally Rumsfeld was also pushing a controversial reorganisation of the Army to break up their divisions into brigades. I also understand that Douglas McGregor (still active on UA-cam arguing Ukraine’s cause is lost) was Operations officer of 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, the spearhead of VII Corps. He was further up the command chain than a certain Captain HR McMaster who would win the Silver Star for leadership at the 1991 Battle of 73 Easting. During the Iraq occupation McMaster would return to command the 2 ACR and would rise to General and be one of Trump’s National Security Advisors. A small world.
9/11 was no different to October 7. A peaceful and freedom loving people were attacked by cowards who sneakily penetrated our countries and killed as many of us as they possibly could murder. The reaction was overblown and worked to their advantage, causing the world to hate both America and Israel. The fact is we need to wisen up, and not take the bait even after we've been barbed. Our dead are gone. There is no bringing them back. No avenging their memories. We are at war with a global faith, and some take their faith more literally than others. This war cannot be won by military means. Isreal is wasting its time in Gaza, just as America has wasted 20 years, billions in treasure and lots of blood overseas fighting a war it cannot win. If we want to win we need to smarten up. And be united.
I can't remember which book it was, maybe it was Thomas Rick's The Generals, but the chapter was on The Gulf War and how Dick Cheney and a bunch of non-military types were ticked off that Desert Storm required months of build up and a huge logistical tail of thousands of support troops and they thought they could privatize all that stuff so they didn't need to ship 500K men overseas and save money (Which never happens) and so Cheney and the 90s was the rise of the PMCs like Black Water and gutting a bunch of infrastructure that came to bite them in the ass in Iraq cause, I forget which general said it in 2002, that it would take at minimum 700K troops to fully control Iraq and Rumsfeld ran him out of town in retaliation. And then of course all those Contractors running around Iraq who made things worse.
As a retired soldier, believe me, the people he had working for him were no better. I had a run-in with a particular SS genius that thought I somehow was beneath HIM in the CoC rather than Rummy. He got super angry when I told him what he could do with this position and I am not moving until someone in MY command tells me.
I remember how shocked we were when they quickly started pulling us out and sending us home. We knew it wasn't going to go well and I felt bad for the guys initially left behind.
Not true at all. Armies throughout history have depended on scavenging what they needed as they moved along. Alexander the Great didn’t have supply lines that stretched for 1000 miles. Modern militaries can’t do that due to both the enormous scale of modern warfare and obviously the need to constantly resupply bullets, armor and parts for everything. Even then, there’s lots of examples of success despite poor logistics. All of the Nazi victories came despite their logistics being horrific and destined to fall apart within a couple months. This was known when they invaded Russia too.
"you go to war with the military you have" only pertains to being on the defensive. If you have a force unsuited to your goal, that is the reason not to attack. War being an option of last resort. But, at this point, "what difference does it make?"
yeah maybe in the modern day we could send 18,000 super soldiers in fucking power armor to invade a nation... but they'd probably need a pretty huge logistical train
Suffice to say medieval armys also plundered spoils and food from the nearby regions while killing virtually anything with impunity. TECHNICALLY logistics could be stripped down by allowing the troops to plunder the region dry until they leave in the near future, and you need less garrisons when the fighting men are *not fighting anymore*.
And….once again…(like the US learned from Vietnam/learned from Op Desert storm) this is what happens when politicians get deeply involved in military operations. Let the politics do what they do. But when it come to letting the US military off the leash? The politicians need to step away and let the Professionals Do Their Damned Job! Simple as that. Great vid folks. Thanks! 😎👍
No, on the contrary. Desert Storm was a perfect example of a good coordination between the civilian government and the military. Politics decided the objectives ; the military were free to establish the plan they needed to accomplish it. Politicians have to stay in, but also to stay at a limited role. What must be accomplished ? What we can't do ? What are the assets we can have ? Once the politician answer those questions, the military do it's job.
@@francoiscamy5066 good point, I suppose I more meant when politicians become more involved to a point where you might say they’re meddling. I do understand that politicians have needs grounded (generally) in the population and of industry, but sometimes I think that they can restrain the military and prevent them from showing their full potential. In addition sometimes the military has been left with jobs that it just isn’t built to do, such as general nation building (infrastructure, governance, healthcare etc etc) and they are forced to pull out of nations like Afghanistan that were never really developed while they were there
It's hard to overstate the damage that these wars do to the US military. You have a bunch of extremely qualified people in all areas doing their best to get all parts of society to enlist, then a politician sends these guys on a wild goose chase for oil and it's PTSD and understaffing for decades.
A lot of that was because military resources were split between the Iraqi and Afghan theaters with minimal realistic plan for how to manage and rebuild the countries after their governments (whom were largely holding the countries together through force and terror) were overthrown. For much of the campaigns there weren't enough military personal available on the ground and with enough anti-guerilla equipment to combat the continual problem with insurgents. The campaigns may have been wakeups to what modern conflicts/wars look like but they really beat the heck out of the US military in the process.
Not that alone, but also a huge loss in reputation, which affects recruitment. If the US army was legit purely a peacekeeping and liberating force, then there would never be a recruitment issue.
Rumsfeld gave me my favorite quote that I use at work. "as we know, there are *known knowns*; there are things we know we know. We also know there are *known unknowns*; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also *unknown unknowns*-the ones we don't know we don't know"
Yeah. McNamara played a real part in losing the Vietnam War and Rumsfeld played a major part in creating the Chaos that was the US Occupation of Iraq. The problem was never defeating the Iraqi Army - it was in occupying the country. .
"Ah General Franks, shouldn't we be securing all this Iraqi equipment just in case of insurgents?" "Don't care. Not my problem, I'm already retired and want my big parade."
Can you do "Japanese Occupation of the Philippines from the Filipino/American's Perspective"? I watched and loved your Operations Room episodes on Leyte Gulf and Battle of the Philippine Sea (as a Filipino subscriber on your channel).
Excellent. The previous unknown knowns are now known however the known unknowns are still in question. Will you be doing another video to address the unknown knowns and the unknwon known unknowns?
“You go to war with the army you have not with the army you wish to have.” And while you’re at it, you compromise the logistics and staging of the army you have, and then come up with a really stupid and unrealistic post war plan “that will make the war pay for itself”. I’m not sure what makes me madder, the neocons being neocons or the neocons giving Rumsfeld a position of responsibility.
Nice presentation. I was deployed in the BIAP area of Iraq from Jan 04 thru Dec 04. Saw some action, but not enough to warrant any personal awards. It sucked ass, but we all made the best of it. Some didn't go home as they left it. Most didn't return home the same mentally, or physically either. SEC DEF Rumsfeld didn't help our cause nor did many in the Chain, but I'm proud of the men and women that served with me. My unit, as most others, did receive the Meritorious Unit Commendation. I was only yards away from an IED explosion, but the powers that be didn't believe it warranted a Combat Action badge. Again, I'm proud of those I served with!
I served through both this knucklehead's terms and it was obvious to everyone his ideas were going to cause more causalities than save them. He never understood logistics at an operational level despite his relationship with Dick Cheney and Haliburton. You could argue his understanding of Civilian logistical support of the military was his motivation for a leaner war plan.
The entire US establishment should be in jail. Decade after decade, they maintain the same ideology and the same policies, regardless of who is their figurehead president. The intelligence community, the party organizations, the advisors, the lobbyists, the 80 year old congressmen, all are responsible.
I think many of our allies wish that our ideology was predictable, but Ideologies have been starkly different between some presidents. Any member government of NATO, plus Japan, philippines, RoK, and Australia would tell you why they're so invested in our upcoming election. Or look at the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership that imploded as a small vignette
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin True. One thing that made De Gaulle so hateable was that he basically argued "You can't trust the Americans to have your back". If the US wants to spite the guy, and I know you do, the best way to do it is prove him wrong. And throughout the Cold War, America has been able to do just that. Sure, it's tripped over its own feet on occasion *cough*Vietnam*cough*. But throughout that time, they had the advantage of being right for as long as there was no major war that could put that statement to the test. But in the modern day, all of a sudden you got these weirdos on the conservative side of politics who make the mistake of thinking Russia is their friend now that it's not using communist symbols anymore. Nothing could be further from the truth. Leaving aside that Putin loves to glorify the Stalin-era and allows the commies to project as much bolshevist adoration on him as they like, the reason behind NATO was ultimately about containing Russian imperialism and authoritarianism. The problem wasn't with their hammer-and-sickle flag, or how (un)successful their economic policies were. It was about preventing a superpower with hostile intentions to the West from spreading further across the continent. Putin hasn't changed that dynamic. He wants things to go back to how they were back then. To put Russia in a position where it could knock America down to second place, or even third if he's feeling charitable towards China. For all of America's faults, you're allowed to point them out without fearing you will be jailed. And if you're a citizen, you can vote to fix them in spite of the poor choices its political parties give you. That's not the kind of society Putin believes in. And it's not the way things will be like for Russia's neighbours if Europe and America can't maintain their alliance. Ukraine is just the first nation to face that danger.
@@cdcdrrRussia and China aren’t our enemy they could care less about us. Stop being a Warhawk and Israel simp. The only reason Russia has ever had to act in anger towards us is because we have consistently and without failure been hostile towards them.
I still remember how Fox news use to gas up Rumsfeld. They use to call him "The Real Rumsfeld". You would think he was a rockstar. When he died they briefly talked about it.
_“Colin, your oversight of the successful DS operation led by Schwarzkopf just ten years ago is ‘legacy thinking.’ Trust me! I’m a lawyer with no military experience.”_ - Rumsfeld
My therapists fiancée died in Iraqi Freedome, she was 21, now she’s in her 40’s and she broke down crying about him when I brought it why I learn about the military and their people because the men who fought deserve to be remembered. 20 years later and she still cries.
the first gulf war did quite a bit of damage in terms of convincing people that lighting fast, shock and awe would always win out - as if an entire army could swoop in like special forces. Politicians in particular want an easy in and out with no long term quagmires but that isnt realistic.
I think those people forget that part of why the ground campaign went so quickly in the 1st Gulf War was due to the nearly 6 week long air campaign leading up to it that degraded the Iraqi air and ground forces. The coalition also included nearly a million military personal from 42 countries. Only about a third to half that number took part in the 2003 invasion.
thinking back too all those episodes of generation kill, you can see how the decisions and struggles during the planning in these phases affected the marines in that unit. Reservist pressed into duties they weren't cut out for, shortages of manpower and supplies everywhere, an inability to take advantage of opportunities due to a constant need to 'Push, Push, Push' so the war is ended as quickly as possible, the list goes on.
As an Iraq war veteran I spent most of the video shaking my head at the naivete behind many assumptions and goals expressed in this video, this is a textbook reason why politicians should have minimal input in the operations of the military.
It sounds like Rumsfeld was conflating Reserve Military Units with Military Reservists. Reserve Units, operate as you describe, being held in reserve, out of the line of battle, to serve as rearguard and reinforcements. Military Reservists, on the other hand, at least in the US, are a separate military formation. They serve the same way levies and conscripts did in the past: they muster for training and drills on a periodic basis [a couple weekends a month] after basic training, but maintain civilian jobs the rest of the time, only activated during war time to replenish or reinforce active duty personnel [it replaced the draft for the most part, and is also voluntary service]. Reservists, while they can get deployed into reserve formations, are not the same as Reserves, which in the planning stages are active duty personnel [as in their job is the military, they do not hold civilian jobs]. During WW2 the British Home Guard are an example of Reservists: they were given basic training and muster locations, but only ig the Germans actually invaded. The German Osttruppen were for the most part Reserve Forces, being used as garrisons as the SS and Heer advanced. The Volkssturm were both: Reservists pressed into defensive combat.
Military Plan was incredibly simple and effective namely go in with the ground forces without air support. I don't know if that was part of the plan or in defiance of a lack of plan but because no one expected the United States to attack prior to an Air Campaign complete tactical and strategic surprise was achieved and compelled the US Air Force to be supporting of the ground Campaign as opposed to "winning an Air War" and ending that effort at that. I want to say the F-111 Aardvark played a huge role in Operational Iraqi Freedom that few know about or have addressed which is unfortunate if true. Either way the USA has been cutting War spending to the bone ever since this invasion which has turned out to be a great way to "win the Battle"(Iraqi Freedom) but "lose the War"(entire War on Terror USA defeated.)
The fact that the USA thought Irak would simply hand over their country in gratitude for removing Saddam is so... so typically American. "We are the USA, bow in gratitude that we occupy your country". This scenario keeps playing out where ever the USA starts a war; they go in, expect the enemy to basically just give up when they see a US flag, and then act all indignant when the enemy starts fighting back. Remember the whole IED thing? The US thought that was extremely cowardly for these peasants to build IED's and dig them into the road. Meanwhile they were observing these peasants from their attack helicopters 2 miles away, pressing a single button to launch a $60k missile to destroy said peasant. When it comes to war, the US's biggest problem is ego.
Iraq was perhaps the US's worst failure in the 21st century, despite it being an overwhelming victory. This war still has terrible consequences till this day, and only further fuels the hate for Americans in the entire middle east
Libya was worse. Iraq was disgusting but Libya was worse. Libya used to have the highest standard of living of any African nation, and now it has illicit slave markets and violence that never ends
The failure to consider logistics reminds me of a very old quote, "They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way." Now Arthur Wellesley was speaking about the failure of the French to innovate their tactics at Waterloo, but I feel the same can be said about not considering the logistical requirements of an army. The Germans had that lesson forced upon them in World War II. Sure the panzers look pretty (mean), but they run on gasoline. No fuel, no kiss kiss, no bang bang.
America is great at fighting and winning on the battlefield. It is the peace and withdrawal that we are really bad at. That is NOT the military's fault! American politicians and media are the world's worse at closing out a military operation. Like leaving people behind, Biden and Afghanistan come to mind. I spent 30 years in the Army and saw it first hand.
This is exactly right. They dismantled the entire security apparatus in Iraq. Imagine if in Japan and Germany, they put all police, all civil service people associated with the regimes out of jobs. It would have been chaos. Paul Bremer purging Baathists from even menial security or administrative jobs was so dumb. If you are a former cop out a job because of an invading army, what is gonna happen?
Rumsfeld was remarkably unqualified.
I feel like the "Resign, Rumsfeld" headline that The Economist ran makes people forget all the dumb stuff he did before the torture ever entered the public view
So was his boss.
We have known risk, unknown risk, risky risk, left risk, beer risk and Risk, the board game. We’re using the board game assessment method.
And never got judged for anything.
Well, not in his mind 😂
I know he's dead now and can't defend himself, but as more info about Rumsfeld comes out, it becomes more and more abundantly clear that the man who seemed like he was unqualified for the job back in the 2000's was indeed actually grossly incompetent and arrogant to boot.
Hey Slapshoes. Love ya videos, especially Mark Martin series
@@TrickiVicBB71 Thank you, sir 🙏
And corrupt
The craziest thing about Donald rumsfeld is his connection to green light Aspartame into food and drinks.
I think we should implement a moratorium on electing anyone or appointing anyone named Donald to any decision making post. Including the presidency.
Rumsfeld was like one of those corporate c-suite goobers than runs his mouth saying he can consolidate and optimize process without knowing anything about it then cutting half the workforce and tanking the company, but jumping out with a golden parachute.
Exactly, an insider hire with no actual experience or results that'd qualify him to make the decisions he'd be making, but has enough political resources that his mistakes can be dimed out to anyone but himself, while he heads out the back door.
Very well said.
I've dealt with those kinds of people several times and that is a spot-on assessment.
And the thing is people like this don't learn and they continue to move to new companies and do the same thing. Case in point, Dave Calhoun, the current CEO of Boeing, used to be CEO at my company.
@@Dayvit78 That might explain a few things.
"They'll keep doing it, and so long as we keep getting lucky they'll keep making the same mistakes."
Generation Kill really illuminates how roughshod management isn't at all restricted to the private sector.
Roughshod planning is less prevalent in the private sector.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718”move fast and break things” in the private sector as shown very mixed results. Often the things you break are things you are going to need when you want to scale.
@MarcosElMalo2 The private sector is infinitely better than the public sector. When you break something in the private sector, you can be held civilly and/or legally liable. Good luck holding the government liable. Your ideas of the private sector tell me you've never worked in the private sector.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 This isn't true either, how many times have a CEO screwed up a company financially yet often are sent home with a huge retirement package meanwhile thousands of average workers get laid off and kicked over the curb with little to nothing. It also depends what industry you're talking about as some industries do have more accountability like in construction, pharmaceuticals, or hospital care meanwhile others like banking and securities almost certainly do not or at least not be punished enough. It just depends.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718Really depends. Nepotism and covering one's back is not exclusively a government thing...
Politicians overreaching and ruining something that they don’t even understand? Can’t be.
The point is that Rumsfeld wasn’t willing to listen or learn. He was a hectoring, nagging schoolmarm treating our best and brightest generals like they were failing students.
Senior Bush warned Junior Bush about both Rumsfeld and Cheney.
"We call that Tuesday" ~ CIA
Republicans thinking they know better than people with decades of experience and whoever questions them is called a terrorist lover? Cant be
Politicians were pissed that Schwarzkopf finished Desert Storm before they could mess it up, so this time they nipped it in the bud before planning could even commence.
I think that's unfair to George H.W. Bush. I think he saw his job as fulfilling the UN mandate, and that's exactly what he did. I believe that the second Gulf War happened because his idiot son, who had to listen to those criticizing his father for not removing Saddam from power, somehow found himself in the oval office. Criticism that was unfair, but "W" wasn't smart enough to understand that, and thought that he should "Finish the job." And there was Cheney and his cronies in the oil industry egging him along every time his resolve flagged.
I doubt any politicians were actually pissed Stormin’ Norman finished DS so quickly. More like elated. It didn’t didn’t stop “Rummy” and his pals from screwing up OIF.
thats probably last actually good military campaign in 30+ years and counting. everyone else has been winging it since regardless of country.
@@effexon Desert storm was lightning in a bottle tbh
I didn't know that, where could I learn more about it?
It's still crazy to me that politicians think you can have a quick, low-casualty smackdown war, while using an absolute minimum of resource and particularly manpower. These guys would have planned D-Day with three Rangers and a rowing boat, with everyone else sitting at Dover waiting to be "surged"
Your estimate was still really generous, lmao.
How about a really angry mouse with a stick vs Omaha Beach?
sir, this is how we get golf carts going in minefield in ukraine :D
@@effexonWhich army are you from?
You could never again have those types of high casualty battles like we saw in World War II.
The rise of the media, pumping combat footage into Americans TV sets, with rolling up to the minute casualty reports. Americans accepted the 400,000 dead in world ear 2 and before you say but but were attacked, the strong majority of those casualties were lost liberating Europe, not defeating Japan. Vietnam was a longer war, a little over 1/8th the casualties and the public couldn't stomach it demanding withdrawal.
The draft was so unpopular in the 60s and early 70s that it was politically untenable to even contemplate. So we had the same guys doing 4, 5, 6, 7 combat tours.
The CIA embarrassed Rummsfeld with their plans in Afghanistan. He wanted his name on a similar plan that used minimal forces to effect a similar outcome. The hubris to believe he could concoct a similar plan, one that the CIA spent years planning and gathering intel for, is mind boggling.
Not that he knew better - but CIA plans should generally be taken with a grain of salt.
False conclusions seem to be a CIA specialty since it's foundation.
They pay locals a crapload of money - for false information. The basic intelligence rule of "don't believe anything unless it's proven by a second source" hasn't reached them yet.
After the fall of nazi Germany, their main source of information were ex-nazis. They got amnesty for their crimes against humanity and a ton of cash for mostly worthless rumours and wild stories.
That's where truly ludacris stuff like the nazi bases in Antarctica or on the dark side of the moon originally came from.
Oh - and of course, the nazi nuke program. Equal to the US program - but hidden in secret underground bunker systems. Yeah - right.
In reality - all there was were some very very basic experiments leading to the conclusion a nuclear bomb was feasible in theory. But uranium enrichment and other key skills were simply non-existent.
Since then, the CIA missed basically all key events in world's history. Not the fall of Saigon, of Iran in 1979 or of the Soviet Union. They were so busy counting tanks and rockets with their high-tech sattelites they missed the simple fact civilians had a hard time sourcing bread.
Therefore, I'm a bit sceptical regarding CIA plans. In particular regarding foreign cultures - like the Arab world. They have proven their inability to understand foreign cultures and -countries more than once.
Does it or does it not feel like our leaders are essentially an ongoing class reunion. Kinda like how the civil war was a West Point reunion brawl. But like imagine the ambitious people you remember throughout school and remember their egos? Man. It’s just like everyone in government are just bros from college who think they’re the next Napoleon.
@@Wot50202 because it is, they all go to the same schools and are the same lapdogs of the bourgeois class
Right on the money.
@@Wot50202thats why monarchy still rules
"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." - Guy whose insane demands made the army one might want or wish to have at a later time impossible
Outstanding video. This is the kind of information the American public rarely hears. If the Iraqis weren't so degraded as a combat force prior to the operation, it sounds like it could been a Vietnam in the sand. Amazing that administrators can believe that they're so much smarter than career military. Rumsfeld's arrogance could have cost countless lives on both sides with his ignorant meddling in things he didn't understand.
A modern army only advances as far as its logistics can support, only a fraction of manpower in any theatre will ever be actual combat personnel. In modern wars, you need more manpower than ever in theatre for logistical support, what with some 5-10 men being needed to supply and manage every soldier. Cutting down on logistical and support manpower dooms any modern force.
I thought it was 3-1, for every 1 grunt, you need 3 to support. But point taken 😊
@@JohnSmith-gb5vgBare minimum vs ideal
Not even modern; Napoleon and Frederick the Great are credited with saying "An army travels on its stomach."
@@flippinkamikaze8738 "There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war." - Clausewitz
"a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own" - Sun Tzu
It'd be more interesting to try and find successful battles and campaigns where fighting personnel outnumbered support/logistics.
@@flippinkamikaze8738exactly, “infantry win battles, logistics win wars”
WWI, WWII, the Napoleonic Invasion of Russia, Desert Storm, etc, etc, etc are all examples
Born too late for the middle east
Born too early for the middle east
Born just in time for the middle east
Literally dude. Especially with what's on the news rn
The sandbox is calling
haha
Born too late for deployment
Born too early for deployment
Born just in time for deployment
They having been fighting there for 1000 years no generation can miss it .
I once worked for a CEO of a tech company whose background was in sales all his life, and he would make unrealistic demands, deadlines, and promises, anything he thought would look great in a sales pitch to investors and future customers. The company ended up closing down, because none of his promises could be fulfilled. That's by analogy.
It really feels like the political side of the invasion wasn't about intervention or about deposing a dictator at all so much as it was an excuse for a few rich boys to puff up their political careers.
This applies to every conflict ever.
@@065Tim except the butter wars in sweden and norway
The Neocon master plan was to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously with US bases squeezing Iran from both sides. Iran would then either have regime change internally or through another US invasion. The US would then control all the oil outside of Russia as leverage against China or any other rising power. Neocon think tanks like Project for a New American Century openly talked about an American empire. It was hubris beyond belief and led to a massive loss of US prestige and power as their Iraq war failed. The Supreme Court giving the 2000 election to Bush changed our world in ways we can barely imagine today.
yeah funny that
Pretty much. Political leaders don't like to think about how people may know more than them, but often experts are experts for a reason. 2020 was the same. Drastically smarter people than politicians gave excellent advice and politicians after a few months became hostile to evidence.
Another Intel Report, keep up the good work people
This was a train wreck of a war we should have never fought….
We got to make our government accountable….
It’s honestly infuriating watching this.
Too late, millions of Iraqi died, middle east is still on fire. You lot are now praising Bush after the orange menace.
Your government *was* accountable. It reacted exactly like the average american at the time.
When a mob of angry, slightly racist people screaming for vengeance and "teach a lesson to those damn brown people" become a foreign policy, it turns into this.
And when the mob calms down and realises it was an absolute shitshow and mistake, it turns on those who enacted the policy and accuses them of being responsible.
While Saddam Hussein was deplorable, deposing him has made the region severely worse than it was. Devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
@@souleaterfan1234 The problem was not deposing him, the problem was the complete incompetence of the US military administration that followed it. Removing all the people with a Baassist card from any public offices for the rest of their lives, for them and their families, meant that you effectively blocked 90% of all those with an education to enter iraqi administration... and created a million of unhapoy people.
Rumsfeld’s 17 thousand man invasion plan was the equivalent of Putin’s “Kiev in 3 Days”
The actual invasion was effective, the US failed gravely in the occupation due to grave mistakes, lack of post-invasion planning and lack of manpower. Chaos ensued and hundreds of thousands of life were lost.
Cobra II is a great book indeed.
Putin never said anything like that
@@kanabis134 was col mc gregor who said that
Nobody in Russia ever said ''Kiev in 3 days'¨', stop the stupid western propaganda.
Where does this 3 day talking point come from?
Or 'we'll force them back to Germany and be home for xmas', which was used in both world wars.
Or Hitler's idea of successfully invading Russia while still fighting on the western front.
14:11 "rarely has a military plan depended on such a bold assumption."
Russia: hold my beer!
LOL hold my vodka. 😂
Big nation's make big moves succes or not.
@@robbob9273Welp, this one may have been bold, but it also was particularly dumb and badly implemented.
Redoing the 1968 soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia with half the manpower, in a country 4.5 times bigger with 3 times the population, that has spent the last 8 years at war was *not* a sane idea.
@@marcbuisson2463Great powers are a funny thing. They convince themselves that a lean “streamlined” military is all they need to maintain position on the world stage, then quickly learn that an “optimized right-size military” is almost exactly the opposite of whats required in offensive operation. Years pass and politicians begin to campaign on leaning out the military… lmao. Whats worse is that you’ll find generals that actually believe that garbage, and they are always the ones that are known for not listening to advice and being more politician than tactician. FWIW Russia cant afford to endlessly sustain a doomed campaign like the US can, so that mindset of a minimum force appears to have been extinguished over there.
@@marcbuisson2463but the rookies r wining
Imagine having the best military advisors in the world, who had already invaded the country once, and thinking you were better than them. Rumsfeld was truly stupid
The USA dosent have the best military advisors in the world the they can't even win a war against Afghan cave dwellers or vietnames rice farmers the US has never won a single war without the help of powerful allies 😂
@@BritMemesDo you know the difference between conventional and unconventional wars? No? Then don't make the comparison.
@@black-uh1df I will in fact make the comparison and I am completely right and you are entirely in the wrong. Good day nimwit
The Iraq War, specifically the ‘03 invasion, was the perfect example how when everything that could go right goes right, while simultaneously everything that could fail, fails. The coalition took Baghdad after just 26 days with just over 100 casualties, as compared to the THOUSANDS of Saddam’s troops, and eventually him and his sons, killed. This same invasion began with among the largest and most successful air campaigns since WWII. But, a closer look will reveal the failures at An Nasiriyah and Karbala. This war was easily among the most complicated, yet also most simple, war in modern history, ESPECIALLY within the last 40 years.
The Iraqi army didn't really fight back. the republican guard had a deal with the CIA to not fight back to stay in their barracks. they were the only Iraqi formation even capable of so much as carrying out a counter-attack after 12 years of sanctions. the resistance was uncoordinated and ad-hoc. it wasn't really a war at all. It was a colonial police action dressed up to look like a great victory for TV. That's why they were so confident they could just stroll into Baghdad. American leadership knew that the Iraqi army was utterly unreliable well before the war which is why Rumsfeld wasn't worried about invading with just a division sized formation. Of course they never told anyone, even to this day, because it would have only served to diminish the great victory.
This of course is also why they didn't think they need a large garrison force.
Once you know this the decisions make more sense - it wasn't really even a war.
I remember Col. Douglas McGregor's name from his commentaries about the war in Ukraine, back in 2022... Him being completely wrong about Russia's military capabilities makes a bit more sense now - after hearing that he also actually believed the war in Iraq could be won with just 17.000 American troops.
I once met Marine who 100% believed that a single MEU could take Beijing. Such is how Americans view themselves
@@lolwutyoumadthat’s espirit de corps lol A Sec Def’s opinion is policy and dangerous
@@paradox_productions There is motivation and there is pain old delusion based entirely on perceived incompetence of the enemy
Mcgregor is looking more and more correct by the day. Ukraine is getting smashed and has been for a year.
@@lolwutyoumad to be fair a lowly lance corporal is not exactly a military strategist
Rumsfeld's thinking was likely rooted in the first Gulf War experience where the coalition had popular support and the Iraqi military wasn't putting up much of a fight. They weren't anticipating anything but to finish the job.
Neither Afghanistan or Iraq had a rational plan for what would happen after "victory."
They succeed in demolishing its military to the ground, but failed to establish a single shit after the Invasion, i dont know if its comedic or just sad
The big plan was to use them both as invasion corridors for Iran, but they didn't quite have the momentum to make it happen.
Well both wars were started by irrational people
@@DeWellstein i mean both bullshit started by same piece of sh- named bush, so
The idea was to set up a functioning democracy styled in the Western image that would spread and grow throughout the region. Our leaders failed to take into account that these cultures were steeped in centuries of backwardness, and were not going to come into the democratic age overnight. Or ever. Especially by military force.
What you didn’t touch on at all is that the US Army had already moved entire specialties into the reserve by ‘02. The reason they NEEDED reservists is that certain MOSs no longer existed in the active duty force.
This looks oddly familiar to the assumptions Russia had with the Invasion of Ukraine.
Thank GOD wisdom prevailed instead of Rumsfeld’s rhetoric.
Well russia doesn't exactly have a solitary claim to blundering mitlary incompetence. There have been many examples throughout history.
The problem was that while Rumsfeld was interfering with planning, his lackeys were mucking up the intelligence and the post-hostilities phase. We might have won the war, but we absolutely failed to win the peace.
The result was a protracted occupation that resulted in lack of focus in Afghanistan. Final result: loss in Afghanistan and a very mixed bag in Iraq.
@@MarcosElMalo2 We're largely gone from Iraq and the government we put there is still there. I hesitate to say we won overall, but for once we kinda didn't lose? And it doesn't seem like this government is going away any time soon.
@MarcosElMalo2 not to mention the whole disbanding the iraqi army and police force fiasco which of course led to anarchy.
Iraq wasn't a disaster like Afghanistan. But considering how the war resulted in China, Iran and Russia becoming a powerful force in Middle-East, the growth of ISIS and the destabilization of the area, it's also not a win.@@superfamilyallosauridae6505
Rumsfeld's insistence on micromanaging the conflict from his office in the Pentagon demonstrated that he had learned nothing from LBJ's micromanaging of the air war against N Vietnam. Indeed, Rumsfeld's interference was far worse. His initial insistence on conducting the war on half a shoe-lace could have resulted in disaster. The question is why. Was it his hubris or did he have political reasons? Tommy Frank's threat to resign saved the day. Of course, the rationale for conducting the war in the first place turned out to be based on lies from the George W Bush administration. Saddam had NO WMDs.
I don't say this often, if ever, but after 9/11 and the inevitable response that would follow, the American people deserved a better class of politician than the ones they got with the Bush Administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, talk about an Axis of Evil. The only adults in the Oval Office at that time with IQs over 100 were Rice and Powell, and unfortunately they both got swept up in the group delusions, and Bush's desire to avenge his daddy's screw up of leaving Saddam in power and watching the Kurds burn.
Saddam had no nuclear weapons but very much did have WMDs. The Kurds will tell you all about them.
It’s too bad the video didn’t address this question (WHY try to conduct the campaign on a shoestring?) I think the answer may have to do with expectation of political backlash against the Bush administration if the war placed a burden on reservist’s families. (In the end, it was a tremendous burden. It’s not clear that the Republican Party felt the full force of the backlash, because the Obama administration eventually owned the botched occupation as well.)
Fuck Tommy Franks, too. He bought into the light footprint bullshit almost as much as Rumsfeld. It's why bin Laden escaped Tora Bora.
@@randomlyentertaining8287the UN confirmed Iraq had no WMD’s before the invasion, nuclear or chemical or what have you. It was a war based on lies
The scary part is not Rumsfeld is incompetent, but he is ignorance of his incompetent.
And that the president was ignorant of his incompetence as well
That's a known psychological phenomenon called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
There’s the stuff Rumsfeld knows, and the stuff Rumsfeld knows he doesn’t know, and then all the stuff Rumsfeld doesn’t know he doesn’t know.
Indeed. Being stupid is one thing but not recognising your stupidity despite all the evidence is mind blowing. This is what happens when morons are given power.
@@ivan_pozdeev_u"I know all there is to know about the Dunning-Krueger effect" 😂😉🤯
It kinda gets swept under the rug, but there was that culture of "Let's finish the job" lingering around in the 90s that added fuel to the support for the second war
I remember that.
Cobra 2 is a great source for an unbiased look at the invasion. The complete and total incompetence of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Franks and several other generals is astounding. The fact that no one was fired, relieved and publicly disgraced is even more concerning.
Tom Ricks Fiasco, The Gamble, and The Generals also goes into depth into why Iraq was such a mess (course this is still when he was on the side of Petraeus before we knew he couldn't keep his pants on)
The most underrated show ever called generation kill, follows a group of marines during this operation it’s awesome
Spoke with a Gulf 1 vet from the 101st, his battalion was to assault a trenchline without any support, and exactly five 155mm rounds allocated for the initial breaching attack.
well they pulled it off didn't they
What happened? Did it occur?
We had sticks! Two sticks and a rock for the whole platoon.. AND we had to share the rock!
Uhhh, that seems suboptimal...what the fuck
That sounds very different from what happened in the Gulf War (where the bombardments were so intensive that Iraqi units that wanted to surrender couldn't). Did you mean this war in the video, the Iraq War?
At 17 :04 we can see a rare Fedayeen Sadam Darth Vader Helmet , these were designed specifically for that unit and yes was inspired by the movie villain , in practice it was junk , with poor ergonomics not alowing to aim and shoot an AK.
I thought those were darned odd-looking pots.
Would be awesome to see a similar video on the plans for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Politicians will never learn they are not Generals.
The book “The Generals' War: The Inside Story of the First Gulf War” shows how several of the Neocons such as Cheney believed lack of aggression on the part of the US Army, specifically General Fred Franks had allowed the Republican Guard to escape and Saddam to survive in 1991. So they were on the Army’s back from the start of the 2001 administration. Rumsfeld and Cheney had a long political relationship dating to the 70s and Rumsfeld felt it was his push that led to the quick early victories in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld was also a Navy aviator used to having his logistics sorted for him. Finally Rumsfeld was also pushing a controversial reorganisation of the Army to break up their divisions into brigades.
I also understand that Douglas McGregor (still active on UA-cam arguing Ukraine’s cause is lost) was Operations officer of 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, the spearhead of VII Corps. He was further up the command chain than a certain Captain HR McMaster who would win the Silver Star for leadership at the 1991 Battle of 73 Easting. During the Iraq occupation McMaster would return to command the 2 ACR and would rise to General and be one of Trump’s National Security Advisors.
A small world.
9/11 was no different to October 7. A peaceful and freedom loving people were attacked by cowards who sneakily penetrated our countries and killed as many of us as they possibly could murder. The reaction was overblown and worked to their advantage, causing the world to hate both America and Israel. The fact is we need to wisen up, and not take the bait even after we've been barbed. Our dead are gone. There is no bringing them back. No avenging their memories. We are at war with a global faith, and some take their faith more literally than others. This war cannot be won by military means. Isreal is wasting its time in Gaza, just as America has wasted 20 years, billions in treasure and lots of blood overseas fighting a war it cannot win. If we want to win we need to smarten up. And be united.
I can't remember which book it was, maybe it was Thomas Rick's The Generals, but the chapter was on The Gulf War and how Dick Cheney and a bunch of non-military types were ticked off that Desert Storm required months of build up and a huge logistical tail of thousands of support troops and they thought they could privatize all that stuff so they didn't need to ship 500K men overseas and save money (Which never happens) and so Cheney and the 90s was the rise of the PMCs like Black Water and gutting a bunch of infrastructure that came to bite them in the ass in Iraq cause, I forget which general said it in 2002, that it would take at minimum 700K troops to fully control Iraq and Rumsfeld ran him out of town in retaliation. And then of course all those Contractors running around Iraq who made things worse.
Unfortunately, "Cheap Victory" is the most popular entry in The Recipe for Disaster Cookbook.
This is a case study in the age old "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
It's Sunday, The Intel Report has uploaded. Life is good.
As a retired soldier, believe me, the people he had working for him were no better. I had a run-in with a particular SS genius that thought I somehow was beneath HIM in the CoC rather than Rummy. He got super angry when I told him what he could do with this position and I am not moving until someone in MY command tells me.
I remember how shocked we were when they quickly started pulling us out and sending us home. We knew it wasn't going to go well and I felt bad for the guys initially left behind.
Logistics being legacy thinking huh.. it's like the common denominator for all armies success throughout history.
Not true at all. Armies throughout history have depended on scavenging what they needed as they moved along. Alexander the Great didn’t have supply lines that stretched for 1000 miles.
Modern militaries can’t do that due to both the enormous scale of modern warfare and obviously the need to constantly resupply bullets, armor and parts for everything.
Even then, there’s lots of examples of success despite poor logistics. All of the Nazi victories came despite their logistics being horrific and destined to fall apart within a couple months. This was known when they invaded Russia too.
"you go to war with the military you have" only pertains to being on the defensive. If you have a force unsuited to your goal, that is the reason not to attack. War being an option of last resort.
But, at this point, "what difference does it make?"
18,000 men? That’s like the size of a medieval army.
yeah maybe in the modern day we could send 18,000 super soldiers in fucking power armor to invade a nation... but they'd probably need a pretty huge logistical train
Yeah, it's genuinely frightening that this was ever considered. 18,000 troops would be woefully insufficient as far back as the Napoleonic Wars.
Suffice to say medieval armys also plundered spoils and food from the nearby regions while killing virtually anything with impunity. TECHNICALLY logistics could be stripped down by allowing the troops to plunder the region dry until they leave in the near future, and you need less garrisons when the fighting men are *not fighting anymore*.
@@Cailus3542 Or even the Punic wars. LOL
@@seagie382 Only Luxembourg lol.
And….once again…(like the US learned from Vietnam/learned from Op Desert storm) this is what happens when politicians get deeply involved in military operations.
Let the politics do what they do.
But when it come to letting the US military off the leash? The politicians need to step away and let the Professionals Do Their Damned Job!
Simple as that.
Great vid folks.
Thanks!
😎👍
The US military when left to its own devices is a scary beast, Operation Overlord, Operation Desert Storm etc etc
@@kevinfleming truth
No, on the contrary.
Desert Storm was a perfect example of a good coordination between the civilian government and the military.
Politics decided the objectives ; the military were free to establish the plan they needed to accomplish it.
Politicians have to stay in, but also to stay at a limited role. What must be accomplished ? What we can't do ? What are the assets we can have ?
Once the politician answer those questions, the military do it's job.
Sometimes military efficiency has to come before political goals.
@@francoiscamy5066 good point, I suppose I more meant when politicians become more involved to a point where you might say they’re meddling.
I do understand that politicians have needs grounded (generally) in the population and of industry, but sometimes I think that they can restrain the military and prevent them from showing their full potential.
In addition sometimes the military has been left with jobs that it just isn’t built to do, such as general nation building (infrastructure, governance, healthcare etc etc) and they are forced to pull out of nations like Afghanistan that were never really developed while they were there
It's hard to overstate the damage that these wars do to the US military. You have a bunch of extremely qualified people in all areas doing their best to get all parts of society to enlist, then a politician sends these guys on a wild goose chase for oil and it's PTSD and understaffing for decades.
A lot of that was because military resources were split between the Iraqi and Afghan theaters with minimal realistic plan for how to manage and rebuild the countries after their governments (whom were largely holding the countries together through force and terror) were overthrown. For much of the campaigns there weren't enough military personal available on the ground and with enough anti-guerilla equipment to combat the continual problem with insurgents. The campaigns may have been wakeups to what modern conflicts/wars look like but they really beat the heck out of the US military in the process.
"Muh oil". Please
Not that alone, but also a huge loss in reputation, which affects recruitment. If the US army was legit purely a peacekeeping and liberating force, then there would never be a recruitment issue.
Still believing it was about oil is the most naive thing possible other than thinking it was about WMDs
Thanks so much for tackling this subject. Appreciate the detail and that it is finally public knowledge.
15:19
Hey Intel Report, you got a notification/text. Lol
Rumsfeld gave me my favorite quote that I use at work.
"as we know, there are *known knowns*; there are things we know we know. We also know there are *known unknowns*; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also *unknown unknowns*-the ones we don't know we don't know"
10th place... Seriously though, iv been hoping & waiting for you to cover this topic on intel report, currently watching. Thanks!!
Long grind but worth it. Still one of my favorite ground mounts.
Yeah.
McNamara played a real part in losing the Vietnam War and Rumsfeld played a major part in creating the Chaos that was the US Occupation of Iraq.
The problem was never defeating the Iraqi Army - it was in occupying the country.
.
Worked pretty well
Next video should be 'Operation Iraqi Freedom - How NOT To Plan An Occupation'
"Ah General Franks, shouldn't we be securing all this Iraqi equipment just in case of insurgents?"
"Don't care. Not my problem, I'm already retired and want my big parade."
Amazing video
Can you do "Japanese Occupation of the Philippines from the Filipino/American's Perspective"?
I watched and loved your Operations Room episodes on Leyte Gulf and Battle of the Philippine Sea (as a Filipino subscriber on your channel).
Excellent. The previous unknown knowns are now known however the known unknowns are still in question. Will you be doing another video to address the unknown knowns and the unknwon known unknowns?
“You go to war with the army you have not with the army you wish to have.” And while you’re at it, you compromise the logistics and staging of the army you have, and then come up with a really stupid and unrealistic post war plan “that will make the war pay for itself”.
I’m not sure what makes me madder, the neocons being neocons or the neocons giving Rumsfeld a position of responsibility.
Unknown.
Nice presentation. I was deployed in the BIAP area of Iraq from Jan 04 thru Dec 04. Saw some action, but not enough to warrant any personal awards. It sucked ass, but we all made the best of it. Some didn't go home as they left it. Most didn't return home the same mentally, or physically either. SEC DEF Rumsfeld didn't help our cause nor did many in the Chain, but I'm proud of the men and women that served with me. My unit, as most others, did receive the Meritorious Unit Commendation. I was only yards away from an IED explosion, but the powers that be didn't believe it warranted a Combat Action badge. Again, I'm proud of those I served with!
I served through both this knucklehead's terms and it was obvious to everyone his ideas were going to cause more causalities than save them. He never understood logistics at an operational level despite his relationship with Dick Cheney and Haliburton. You could argue his understanding of Civilian logistical support of the military was his motivation for a leaner war plan.
Rumsfeld and Bush should be in prison. Made sense to be in Afghanistan hunting Osama but the Iraqi invasion was criminal in so many ways.
The entire US establishment should be in jail. Decade after decade, they maintain the same ideology and the same policies, regardless of who is their figurehead president. The intelligence community, the party organizations, the advisors, the lobbyists, the 80 year old congressmen, all are responsible.
I think many of our allies wish that our ideology was predictable, but Ideologies have been starkly different between some presidents. Any member government of NATO, plus Japan, philippines, RoK, and Australia would tell you why they're so invested in our upcoming election. Or look at the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership that imploded as a small vignette
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin True. One thing that made De Gaulle so hateable was that he basically argued "You can't trust the Americans to have your back".
If the US wants to spite the guy, and I know you do, the best way to do it is prove him wrong. And throughout the Cold War, America has been able to do just that. Sure, it's tripped over its own feet on occasion *cough*Vietnam*cough*. But throughout that time, they had the advantage of being right for as long as there was no major war that could put that statement to the test. But in the modern day, all of a sudden you got these weirdos on the conservative side of politics who make the mistake of thinking Russia is their friend now that it's not using communist symbols anymore.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Leaving aside that Putin loves to glorify the Stalin-era and allows the commies to project as much bolshevist adoration on him as they like, the reason behind NATO was ultimately about containing Russian imperialism and authoritarianism. The problem wasn't with their hammer-and-sickle flag, or how (un)successful their economic policies were. It was about preventing a superpower with hostile intentions to the West from spreading further across the continent.
Putin hasn't changed that dynamic. He wants things to go back to how they were back then. To put Russia in a position where it could knock America down to second place, or even third if he's feeling charitable towards China. For all of America's faults, you're allowed to point them out without fearing you will be jailed. And if you're a citizen, you can vote to fix them in spite of the poor choices its political parties give you. That's not the kind of society Putin believes in. And it's not the way things will be like for Russia's neighbours if Europe and America can't maintain their alliance. Ukraine is just the first nation to face that danger.
@@cdcdrrRussia and China aren’t our enemy they could care less about us. Stop being a Warhawk and Israel simp. The only reason Russia has ever had to act in anger towards us is because we have consistently and without failure been hostile towards them.
@@cdcdrrbeautifully said and done.
Next level this one. Well done. Shades of Pound and Churchill in there, I thought.
Micromanaging seldom improves the situation.
The show Generation Kill is a great show that portrays this mission very well!
I still remember how Fox news use to gas up Rumsfeld. They use to call him "The Real Rumsfeld". You would think he was a rockstar. When he died they briefly talked about it.
nice video
Great work!
At 15:17 to 15:20, I heard a sound that seems like a phone alert on vibrate mode.
I wonder if he thought that the mic wouldn't pick it up😂
I thought that was my phone vibrating lol
Lmao just as I read this I heard it
_“Colin, your oversight of the successful DS operation led by Schwarzkopf just ten years ago is ‘legacy thinking.’ Trust me! I’m a lawyer with no military experience.”_ - Rumsfeld
It seems to me that Rumsfeld backed down every time he was stood up to.
War is just a effed up mess in which you just have to make damn sure you eff up less than the enemy.
15:18 Bro got a message
Nicely informative video
My therapists fiancée died in Iraqi Freedome, she was 21, now she’s in her 40’s and she broke down crying about him when I brought it why I learn about the military and their people because the men who fought deserve to be remembered. 20 years later and she still cries.
Your therapist cries front of you? Odd.
3:06 ngl, that water bottle and glass goes so hard idk why
Bro wtf, it does
the first gulf war did quite a bit of damage in terms of convincing people that lighting fast, shock and awe would always win out - as if an entire army could swoop in like special forces. Politicians in particular want an easy in and out with no long term quagmires but that isnt realistic.
I think those people forget that part of why the ground campaign went so quickly in the 1st Gulf War was due to the nearly 6 week long air campaign leading up to it that degraded the Iraqi air and ground forces. The coalition also included nearly a million military personal from 42 countries. Only about a third to half that number took part in the 2003 invasion.
Terrific video!
when you said the "CIA said" i nearly pished myself laughing
thinking back too all those episodes of generation kill, you can see how the decisions and struggles during the planning in these phases affected the marines in that unit. Reservist pressed into duties they weren't cut out for, shortages of manpower and supplies everywhere, an inability to take advantage of opportunities due to a constant need to 'Push, Push, Push' so the war is ended as quickly as possible, the list goes on.
Didn't know Rumsfeld fkd up that much!! What a Gomer
As an Iraq war veteran I spent most of the video shaking my head at the naivete behind many assumptions and goals expressed in this video, this is a textbook reason why politicians should have minimal input in the operations of the military.
It sounds like Rumsfeld was conflating Reserve Military Units with Military Reservists.
Reserve Units, operate as you describe, being held in reserve, out of the line of battle, to serve as rearguard and reinforcements.
Military Reservists, on the other hand, at least in the US, are a separate military formation. They serve the same way levies and conscripts did in the past: they muster for training and drills on a periodic basis [a couple weekends a month] after basic training, but maintain civilian jobs the rest of the time, only activated during war time to replenish or reinforce active duty personnel [it replaced the draft for the most part, and is also voluntary service].
Reservists, while they can get deployed into reserve formations, are not the same as Reserves, which in the planning stages are active duty personnel [as in their job is the military, they do not hold civilian jobs].
During WW2 the British Home Guard are an example of Reservists: they were given basic training and muster locations, but only ig the Germans actually invaded. The German Osttruppen were for the most part Reserve Forces, being used as garrisons as the SS and Heer advanced. The Volkssturm were both: Reservists pressed into defensive combat.
This is like a great college research paper
The true armchair general.
Military Plan was incredibly simple and effective namely go in with the ground forces without air support. I don't know if that was part of the plan or in defiance of a lack of plan but because no one expected the United States to attack prior to an Air Campaign complete tactical and strategic surprise was achieved and compelled the US Air Force to be supporting of the ground Campaign as opposed to "winning an Air War" and ending that effort at that. I want to say the F-111 Aardvark played a huge role in Operational Iraqi Freedom that few know about or have addressed which is unfortunate if true. Either way the USA has been cutting War spending to the bone ever since this invasion which has turned out to be a great way to "win the Battle"(Iraqi Freedom) but "lose the War"(entire War on Terror USA defeated.)
The fact that the USA thought Irak would simply hand over their country in gratitude for removing Saddam is so... so typically American. "We are the USA, bow in gratitude that we occupy your country".
This scenario keeps playing out where ever the USA starts a war; they go in, expect the enemy to basically just give up when they see a US flag, and then act all indignant when the enemy starts fighting back. Remember the whole IED thing? The US thought that was extremely cowardly for these peasants to build IED's and dig them into the road. Meanwhile they were observing these peasants from their attack helicopters 2 miles away, pressing a single button to launch a $60k missile to destroy said peasant.
When it comes to war, the US's biggest problem is ego.
Thats a fairly gross misrepresentation of the history. The admin was very stupid, but you could at least identify their mistakes accurately.
@@RobespierreThePoof Except it hardly is. Hubris was fundamental reason behind debacles with which US ended up in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.
@Necromass-us3xm Not at all the case.
This is rich coming from the Dutch who thought they could defeat the Japanese one on one and got their asses kicked off of Indonesia
Nice, a new upload 😄
Iraq was perhaps the US's worst failure in the 21st century, despite it being an overwhelming victory. This war still has terrible consequences till this day, and only further fuels the hate for Americans in the entire middle east
Libya was worse. Iraq was disgusting but Libya was worse. Libya used to have the highest standard of living of any African nation, and now it has illicit slave markets and violence that never ends
Overwhelmingly victory is when essentially surrendering and handing over the country to your rival
Nice Video man
I never understood why people hated rumsfeld so much. after hearing this, I see they had valid reasons.
This video covers only one of Rumsfields failures
It doesn't take much to realize why he's loathed unless you simply just never knew much about him and/or were too young back then.
15:19 - Is that a phone buzz in the background?
The failure to consider logistics reminds me of a very old quote, "They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way." Now Arthur Wellesley was speaking about the failure of the French to innovate their tactics at Waterloo, but I feel the same can be said about not considering the logistical requirements of an army. The Germans had that lesson forced upon them in World War II. Sure the panzers look pretty (mean), but they run on gasoline. No fuel, no kiss kiss, no bang bang.
I remember folks busting at the seams to reelect GWB after this mess.
is that the narrators phone buzzing at 15:18 ? :D
Hahaha
I legit thought that my headphones were about to die.
Rumsfeld was an example of "I want it that way, I dont know how but you do it how I want"
USA: Hmm sure is nice having the world's biggest military, would be a shame to use it.
15:19 Text Message!!
If I remember correctly, the original name of the operation was Operation Iraqi Liberation. Gotta be some irony in that lol.
America is great at fighting and winning on the battlefield. It is the peace and withdrawal that we are really bad at. That is NOT the military's fault! American politicians and media are the world's worse at closing out a military operation. Like leaving people behind, Biden and Afghanistan come to mind. I spent 30 years in the Army and saw it first hand.
maybe that just goes to show that we shouldnt have been involved there in the first place.
@@MattMajcan Speaking as an Army Retiree, my retired Marine Son, and my USAF Grandson, I totally agree with you
@@ralphgreenjr.2466respect.
This is exactly right. They dismantled the entire security apparatus in Iraq.
Imagine if in Japan and Germany, they put all police, all civil service people associated with the regimes out of jobs. It would have been chaos.
Paul Bremer purging Baathists from even menial security or administrative jobs was so dumb.
If you are a former cop out a job because of an invading army, what is gonna happen?
Why does Biden come to mind? Look at the withdrawal, it was doomed from the moment Trump signed for it.
“You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” -- Donald Rumsfeld
So Doug MacGregor was as wrong about Iraq as he is about Ukraine?
It all makes sense now. He truly is a moron and has always been
Who would have thought, right?
I think I heard a phone buzz at 15:19...