IN DEFENSE of Rummy
I was disappointed to see Frederick W. Kagan misuse Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's remarks to the military on December 8 in Kuwait ("The Army We Have," Dec. 27). The media took Secretary Rumsfeld out of context. Kagan follows suit blindly.
Rumsfeld began his comments as follows: "I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being--the Army is--I think it's something like 400 a month are being done." And he added, toward the end of his response, "I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."
Rumsfeld's statement was neither callous nor irresponsible when taken in context.
Joel Reed
Parker, CO
Being a World War II veteran, when I read an article dealing with the military I always consider how our service people will take it. That's why Frederick W. Kagan's article really got under my skin. If an article so blatantly critical of the military's top civilian leader and our commander in chief had been published during World War II, it would have had a devastating effect on our troops in harm's way.
I am not an author or military historian, nor do I approve of everything our president and defense secretary say or do. However, I must remind Kagan that Secretary Rumsfeld's entire statement was the truth. American service people want and deserve the truth. The military we have is vastly improved over the military we inherited from the Clinton administration. Moreover, the military we have is the military Congress gives us, for Congress sets the funding levels that establish its size.
True, it was a mistake to temporarily hold back on cleaning out Falluja and other terrorist havens. But it was done at the request of the interim government of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld is not a callous or flippant man. He deserves better than he is receiving from much of the media and the Democrats.
William W. Bryant
Dothan, AL
Donald Rumsfeld was neither callous nor irresponsible in his declaration, "You go to war with the Army you have." As Frederick W. Kagan should know, being a military historian, the defense secretary was being quite factual and open.
The United States (including the Confederacy) entered the Civil War with an army trained to march in open lines against an opposing force that possessed weapons of longer range, greater accuracy, and a higher rate of fire. In the First World War, the cavalry tactics perfected in the Civil War were briefly and disastrously attempted against entrenched machine gun fire. The United States entered World War II in the Pacific with a Navy of aircraft carriers and a battle plan built around the battleships resting on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. The first U.S. soldiers sent into Vietnam were equipped with high-powered rifles designed to engage the enemy at a distance on the open, nuclear battlefields of Europe.
It is not surprising that the ground forces at the beginning of the liberation of Iraq were built around equipment and tactics that followed on from the first Gulf War: rapid movement of lightly armored forces, supported by overwhelming air power, that isolated and neutralized the uniformed fighting forces arrayed against them. And they did this successfully, initially validating the transformation of the armed forces begun by Secretary Rumsfeld.
Now, of course, we have learned new lessons on the battlefield. Perhaps it is better to confront and destroy the enemy completely with heavier, armored weapons in the field, and thereby decimate the pool of potential insurgents necessary for a sustained post-combat resistance. And, for the postwar fighting now raging in the Sunni Triangle, heavy armor and mobile but reasonably armored vehicles are required.
But just as surely as these lessons are taken to heart and incorporated in the latest military doctrine, we will still enter the next war with the Army we have, and probably be surprised that it is not exactly the Army we might wish to have.
James Heimer
Houston, TX
The Army we now have is a product of the 1990s. Those of us in uniform watched our Army be systematically dismantled during the Clinton administration. Many of those who comment and criticize now stood by in silence then.
Yes, our military (not just the Army) is too small. Yes, we need more troops in Iraq. But it will take another decade to rebuild the military I proudly went to war with in 1990.
Larry Crockett
Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Port Townsend, WA
Literally Nonsensical
Thanks to Stephen F. Hayes for writing about one of my pet peeves--the use of the word "literally" when the exact opposite is meant ("Literally Exasperated," Dec. 13). Rush Limbaugh is a frequent abuser of the word "literally" and it drives me up the wall--figuratively.
Plenty of other words are now frequently misused as well. "Reticent" is used to mean "reluctant." I don't know how many times I have heard a local TV reporter state that an interview target was "reticent to comment." "Enormity" is now used so interchangeably with "enormousness" that dictionaries are starting to offer that as an alternative definition. And then there is "compelling." Lazy journalists and art critics use it as a synonym for "interesting," ignoring the underlying infinitive "to compel."
Gregg Geil
Austin, TX
I am still chuckling at the idea of President Bush's "literally" steam-rollering Charles Gibson. Stephen F. Hayes's piece produced much laughter, and struck so many chords in my little literal world that I literally applauded as I finished reading. Then I mourned once again the loss of Edwin Newman, self-appointed guardian of the English language.
The concept of a "generic intensifier" is not restricted to learned thinkers and the odd dictionary. When my preteen twin granddaughters were about 3 years old, they were quite taken with the expression "soaking wet," to the extent that they then applied the word "soaking" to occasions other than bathing or swimming. I remember hearing one say to the other that she was "soaking mad at you!" Later they declared they were "soaking tired" and ready for bed.
If a 3-year-old can learn the appropriate use of a modifier, is there hope for the rest of us? I won't be literally holding my breath for the answer.
Lane Carlton Zatopek
Boerne, TX
Stephen F. Hayes's delightful piece on the misuse of "literally" reminded me of my favorite example, which I heard on NPR a few years ago: When FDR died, Harry Truman was "literally catapulted" into office.
That sounds like a tradition worth reviving. So much more entertaining than a stuffy oath-taking ceremony!
G.R. Paterson
Wilmette, IL
Getting Gaza Wrong?
Regarding Robert Satloff's "Getting Gaza Right" (Dec. 27): The only real litmus test that would demonstrate a change in Palestinian attitudes toward Israel is a willingness to accept Jewish settlements in areas--like Gaza and northern Samaria--that are being transferred to their control. The Palestinians' insistence that the very existence of 8,000 Jewish settlers in their midst is intolerable (while within the state of Israel there are more than one million Palestinian Arabs) proves that the anti-Semitism that has always motivated Palestinian nationalism remains unaltered.
It is unfortunate that both Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush are kowtowing to this most vile of prejudices. The Weekly Standard, as a champion of individual liberties, should be defending the right of Jewish victims of Arab terror not to be forcibly evicted from their homes to appease the hatred of those who, under the aegis of Abu Mazen, cannot bear the sight of Jews living among them in peace.
Jonathan Blass
Neve Tzuf, Israel
Erratum
In Reuel Marc Gerecht's "The Struggle for the Middle East" (Jan. 3 / Jan. 10), the interim Iraqi government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi was described as maintaining official power "until a new constitution is approved." In fact, the Allawi government will remain in office only until the January 30 election.