[Mithras]

NYTimes summary:

F.B.I. memorandums portray abuse of prisoners by American military personnel in Iraq that included detainees' being beaten and choked and having lit cigarettes placed in their ears, according to newly released government documents.

The documents, released Monday in connection with a lawsuit accusing the government of being complicit in torture, also include accounts by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who said they had seen detainees in Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, being chained in uncomfortable positions for up to 24 hours and left to urinate and defecate on themselves. An agent wrote that in one case a detainee who was nearly unconscious had pulled out much of his hair during the night.

One of the memorandums... provided the account of someone "who observed serious physical abuses of civilian detainees" in Iraq.... It said the witness "described that such abuses included strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations."

The FBI's internal memos stressed
1. We're not permitted to do this kind of interrogation, but the DOD people are doing it
2. In several cases, DOD interrogators are pretending to be FBI agents. If reports of this abuse ever get out, it will look like the FBI did it.

FBI memo

These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee.

If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the "FBI" interrogators. The FBI will [be] left holding the bag before the public

FBI email

As requested, here is a brief summary of what I observed at GTMO

On a couple of occassions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18,24 hours or more. On occassion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. When I asked the MP's what was going on, I was told that interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved.

On another occassion, the AC had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor...

FBI memo:

[REDACTED] observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees conducted in [REDACTED] Iraq. He dsecribed that such abuses included strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings, and unauthorized interrogations.

NB The last one is not rock-solid, because they're only reporting that somebody alleged such abuse; the FBI agents did not themselves observe it.

But overall one has the clear impression that DOD interrogators were doing pretty unfriendly things, such that FBI agents were worried enough to report about it. Charming stuff.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Charming stuff.

Sure is.

On occassion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold... On another occassion, the AC had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees.

I used to so this to my roomate freshman year in college. He had a top bunk, and after a few all-night benders, he'd be passed out all day. I'd turn the heat way up, come back to the room 15 minutes later (bringing friends along) and find his blanket tossed on the floor. I'd then turn the a/c on high for 20 minutes or so. When we returned, he had the blanket back on him. I did this a few more times until the hilarity ceased.

Haha.. his hungover butt climbed down from his bunk to get the blanket, then repeated the act every 20 minutes or so - he was so hungover that he didn't think to check the thermostat.

As for the big expose, i find it odd that the ACLU is using emails as their proof. It's not so much that they are emails per se, but rather that they're emails that have been aged and battered to look "authentic" ... like the Rather-Bush Guard Documents.

I think this is a non-story. Prisoners of war get interrogated. Suspected enemy leaders even more so.

The real story is how the left and the liberal press (and a few pressured Republicans) are trying so hard to oust Rumsfeld, pulling out every trick they have up their sleeve.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The real story is how the left and the liberal press (and a few pressured Republicans) are trying so hard to oust Rumsfeld, pulling out every trick they have up their sleeve.

Indeed.

These sissies would self detonate if they lived in this country in the 40s during a REAL war.

Has this country turned into a bunch of wing tipped, whiney, gutless morons that run?

I sure hope not.

This is one of the most politically correct war ever fought.

But you'd think by the drama queen's reactions, it is the worst EVER!11!

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
1. As for the big expose, i find it odd that the ACLU is using emails as their proof. It's not so much that they are emails per se, but rather that they're emails that have been aged and battered to look "authentic" ... like the Rather-Bush Guard Documents.

Are you suggesting that these are not authentic? I would welcome any evidence you can offer to support that claim.

I think this is a non-story. Prisoners of war get interrogated. Suspected enemy leaders even more so.

Yeah, wimpy FBI agents objecting to torture. Pathetic, huh?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Are you suggesting that these are not authentic? I would welcome any evidence you can offer to support that claim.

Actually, I think he, and Zimp, are suggesting that torturing prisoners is ok and that liberals are wimps for being appalled by it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Are you suggesting that these are not authentic? I would welcome any evidence you can offer to support that claim.

I don't know if they're authentic. Can you prove that they are? You introduced them here, so the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah, wimpy FBI agents objecting to torture. Pathetic, huh?

Nope. You said "Charming", and I agreed.

BTW: Who are the FBI agents you speak of? Do they have names? Who is the supposed person who sent these aged and weather-beaten emails?

[Spliffdaddy]

I can't blame anybody for being skeptical of yet another leaked 'FBI memo'.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think he, and Zimp, are suggesting that torturing prisoners is ok and that liberals are wimps for being appalled by it.

Do yourself a favor and speak only for yourself.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure is.

I used to so this to my roomate freshman year in college.

From your description, it doesn't sound to me like your roomate was chained up. Seems to me he was able to move around and fetch a blanket, go to the toilet etc. The suggestion that this isn't torture is sick.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Prisoners of war get interrogated.

You have read the Geneva Conventions right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think he, and Zimp, are suggesting that torturing prisoners is ok and that liberals are wimps for being appalled by it.

No, what I am saying is, war is hell. There is no nice political correct way to go about it WITHOUT LOSING.

That this is the MOST PC war EVER FOUGHT, and the liberals are drama queening it out to be the worst.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, what I am saying is, war is hell. There is no nice political correct way to go about it WITHOUT LOSING.

That this is the MOST PC war EVER FOUGHT, and the liberals are drama queening it out to be the worst.

I suppose we should have just mowed them down, like the French.

[Twilly Spree]

We have such a stupid foreign policy. I could care less about some foreigners. Make America great for the Americans first and foremost. That's why this great land was founded in the first place!

"Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world."_- Washington (September 17, 1796)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I suppose we should have just mowed them down, like the French.

Yeah no doubt.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, what I am saying is, war is hell. There is no nice political correct way to go about it WITHOUT LOSING.

Which is exactly why many of us thought this wasn't a war worth fighting. If the US wants to invade nations based upon their human rights records, the US had better be prepared to have its own human rights record examined ... especially the record of how it treats those of the nation its "liberating"

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, what I am saying is, war is hell. There is no nice political correct way to go about it WITHOUT LOSING.

Actually there is a correct way to fight a war. There is a whole set of Conventions telling you what the correct way to fight a war is. Many wars have been won despite being fought according to those rules. The US Army actually believes that it is possible to fight correctly and win which is why the Conventions form part of their internal rules. But there are few psychos that always behave like lunatics. Unfortunately some of them are in very high places in the Bush Administration.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I don't know if they're authentic. Can you prove that they are? You introduced them here, so the burden of proof is on you.

RTFA

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Which is exactly why many of us thought this wasn't a war worth fighting.

I am not talking just about this war. ANY WAR.

If the US wants to invade nations based upon their human rights records, the US had better be prepared to have its own human rights record examined ... especially the record of how it treats those of the nation its "liberating"

Well good. Lets hope people take it within context, and compare the two.

Right now leftists drama queens aren't doing that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Actually there is a correct way to fight a war. There is a whole set of Conventions telling you what the correct way to fight a war is. Many wars have been won despite being fought according to those rules. The US Army actually believes that it is possible to fight correctly and win which is why the Conventions form part of their internal rules. But there are few psychos that always behave like lunatics. Unfortunately some of them are in very high places in the Bush Administration.

So Troll, show me an example of wars being fought exactly according to those rules.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So Troll, show me an example of wars being fought exactly according to those rules.

Are you seriously arguing that it is necessary to put cigarettes in criminals ears in order to win a war?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Idiot Americans.

They say Saddam is a threat and cruel because he tortured people now Americans are doing the same thing.

Real bright.

[James L]

Interesting debate...

The vast majority of the US soldiers over there have my utmost respect, and I wouldn't think to paint them all with the same brush. They do not have my respect because they invaded Iraq (which I still believe was a crock), they have it because they went and faught bravely. I have respect for any soldier, from any country, who does this.

Then, there a select few (hopefully), that are no better than the terrorists they are fighting. The losers from Abu Graebe that tortured the prisoners comes to mind. They should be held to NO higher level than the terrorists, and dealt with with the same severity. They should be punished for their actions, regardless of their nationality. In this case they WERE the terrorists, torturing and beating chained up people. And the bigger shame of it besides the abuse is how they make people lose respect for the majority of the brave soldiers who are just over there to do their job.

It does bring up a point, however. War IS hell. Fighting "insurgents" is even worse. How do you fight people willing to do ANYTHING to win? You pretty much have to play dirty too.

To me the bottom line is that if Bush wants to preach the moral high ground than this kind of stuff cannot be condoned... it is WAY to hypocritical. If America wants to be better than the terrorists and "insurgents" in this war than they need to prove it through actions, not words.

Having said that, if they want to do whatever it takes to win, which is pretty much what real war is all about, than they have to realize that in order to get the job done they will be breaching the moral code of conduct time and time again, acting LIKE the terrorists from time to time, etc. This IS war, and it is hell.

Fight it however you want, but don't fight dirty and preach moral high ground.

[Troll]

Originally posted by James L:
Interesting debate...

These charges relate to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. These people weren't picked up in Iraq and the people that are torturing them have probably never been to Iraq. You don't need to have any respect for them.

[Mithras]

Well-put comments on the conservative blog QandO:

Look, you can be as "unimpressed" as you want to be,but that doesn't change the fact that torture is just wrong. And it's not just wrong for moral reasons, it's counterproductive. The United States is supposed to stand for something. It's supposed to be a symbol of morals and freedom. No matter how satisfying it might be to make these bastards suffer (especially if we can can convince ourselves that we might get valuable intelligence out of it), there are just some lines we can't cross.

One of the key advantages that we have in the fight against terror is the idea that we're the good the guys. That we play by a set of rules that our values impose on us, and that its the terrorists who do the bad stuff. Torture, by official policy, or by unofficially ignoring it, just throws that away, and eliminates one of the key political advantages we have.

Maybe that's unfair, and maybe we shouldn't have to fight with one hand tied behind our back, but that's the way it is.

Even worse, torture just isn't that effective. You can never be sure that the tortured person isn't just telling you what you want to hear, rather than the truth. Our men were tortured for years in Hanoi during the Vietnam War, and the Viets were hardly ever able to break them. And when they did, the POWs usually just made up the most outlandish stories, just to keep the Viets happy, and to make the torture stop. I'm unconvinced that, I the long run, you get enough useful to make it worthwhile.

If you want to shoot these guys up with scopolamine, or some other inhibition-lowering drug, and interrogate them that way, well, then maybe I won't be too concerned about that. But I just don't think that you get enough of a return off torturing someone to make it worth the negative political effects.

Moreover, as a practical matter, allowing interrogators to use torture at their own discretion is an extraordinarily bad idea. Do you really want to have a government that comes to accept torture as an acceptable method of interrogation? Once governments get in the habit of doing stuff like that, it's historically been an awfully hard habit to break. The use of physical coercion to government is like two packs of Pall Malls per day. For some reason, once they start, they can never get enough of it.

But look, even if you are gonna argue that torture is needed, and that we have to do it sometime, you've still gotta think that allowing individual interrogators to make that decision is a bad idea. At the very least, if we're gonna do it, there should be some sort of oversight other than the discretion of local officials. Alan Dershowitz has suggested that we get "torture warrants" for cases of imminent threat or danger, with the proviso that prisoners receive immunity for anything they reveal during torture.

Now, several of you have argued that the ACLU is blowing this all out of proportion, and there's no real torture going on. It's just more weak-kneed quivering from the perpetually affronted. Let me be clear: if that's your position, then you're either a fool or a liar.

As soon as you relax the strictures about how prisoners are going to be interrogated, then you're going to get torture, either officially or unofficially. And everyone with an ounce of sense--or intellectual honesty--knows it. So let's drop the whole idea that, like Paul Henried in Casablanca, you're gonna be shocked--shocked!--to learn that there's something nasty going on later.

And you know what else? At the end of the day, torture is nothing more than a kind of begging. It's an admission of weakness. I'd rather we just prop these guys up in front of a military tribunal, declare them to be unlawful combatants, and then summarily sentence them to execution. Then, maybe, we can let them know that, because we're such good guys and all, we'll commute their death sentences if they give up some useful intel before we stand them up in front of a firing squad.

At least that would have a patina of legality about it.

[placebo1969]

But they played "extremely loud rap music."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
You have read the Geneva Conventions right?

Sure, though I don't recall which nation's uniforms these combataents were wearing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure, though I don't recall which nation's uniforms these combataents were wearing.

When a criminal breaks the law, do you condone the cops breaking the law too?

Besides, how do you know what uniforms these guys were or weren't wearing? There has never been a trial. We don't even know what charges they face.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
From your description, it doesn't sound to me like your roomate was chained up. Seems to me he was able to move around and fetch a blanket, go to the toilet etc. The suggestion that this isn't torture is sick.

They're prisoners. Of course they are going to be locked up in a facility or secured in shackles in some way.

Do you even know how these interrogations are going? For all you know, some of these imprisoned enemy leaders could be saying stuff like "Yeah, I know something that's going to happen, and I'm not telling you because i hate you and your people.".

Believe me, we're not wasting out precious "break-down" professionals and resources on unknowledgeable, piss-ant war participants. These combatants being interrogated are those who have information.

If you want to join them in their cause, go for it. In the meantime, I support my nation's goal of defeating the enemy.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
When a criminal breaks the law, do you condone the cops breaking the law too?

In general, no. But in rare situations, in the interests of public safety, I have no problems with expanded interrogations.

Besides, how do you know what uniforms these guys were or weren't wearing? There has never been a trial. We don't even know what charges they face.

Which guys? The armed-ones captured on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan? Or the Al Qaeda ones captured with plans and materials for future terror attacks?

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In general, no. But in rare situations, in the interests of public safety, I have no problems with expanded interrogations.

See in civilised societies, the law enforcers are NEVER allowed to break the law. Besides, do you honestly believe that making detainees stick cigarettes in their ears and pee all over themselves improves public safety?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Which guys? The armed-ones captured on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan? Or the Al Qaeda ones captured with plans and materials for future terror attacks?

The ones being held in Guantanamo were mostly captured in the Afghanistan campaign. But it doesn't matter where they were caught. At least until they have had charges put to them and had a chance to answer them, no one knows what they may or may not have done. This is what America has been arguing against any number of dictatorial, human rights abusing regimes. Now they behave like one.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by Troll:
This is what America has been arguing against any number of dictatorial, human rights abusing regimes. Now they behave like one.

Yeah, the US is a dictatorial regime, alright.

There will be an investigation and people will be held accountable for their actions. That does not happen in a "dictatorial regime." You and others believe this is some systemic problem. I don't believe it is.

But it's okay, because we're right.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
Besides, do you honestly believe that making detainees stick cigarettes in their ears and pee all over themselves improves public safety?

Do I believe utilizing such tactics in extreme situations when interrogating an enemy leader/organizer in order to prevent future attacks on Americans? Absolutely.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
You and others believe this is some systemic problem. I don't believe it is.

They also seem to conveniently forget that we're in a war, and that our goal is to win it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Yeah, the US is a dictatorial regime, alright.

When viewed internationally, yes, the US behaves much like a dictatorial regime. Sure, it's leaders are democratically elected by Americans, but the way in which it enforces it's will upon other nations is not much unlike the way in which a dictator enforces it's will upon it's subjects.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This is one of the most politically correct war ever fought.

But you'd think by the drama queen's reactions, it is the worst EVER!11!

Zimph,

I don't think any liberal "drama queen" actually believes that the Iraq war is the worst ever. I think you're insinuating that so you can ridicule them (by calling them drama queens). For clarity's sake, can you link to any credible source that is actually claiming the Iraq war is the worst ever?

This may be the most PC war ever fought, but that doesn't mean that the Bush administration's handling of it is above criticism. In the history of warfare, there are countless examples of political and military incompetence, incompetence that could have been avoided if politicians or generals have been smarter or less stubborn. British WWI General Douglas Haig is a prime example of this.

So liberals have every right to criticize what they see as incompetence in Rumsfeld's planning of the war. And it isn't just liberals that think Rumsfeld f**ked up. Many military folk do, too.

And maybe some liberals are pissed about torture by US troops because it makes America look bad to the rest of the world. Maybe some liberals actually want the US to win the war and to win it as cleanly and humanely as possible. That might be an idealistic dream, but it might've happened if Rumsfeld had initially sent more troops and better equipped troops than he actually did.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
From your description, it doesn't sound to me like your roomate was chained up. Seems to me he was able to move around and fetch a blanket.... The suggestion that this isn't torture is sick.

They were given Israeli flags to use as blankets. It's up to them if they want to keep warm.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Do I believe utilizing such tactics in extreme situations when interrogating an enemy leader/organizer in order to prevent future attacks on Americans? Absolutely.

[Mithras]

Question: is this such a situation?
Answer: No.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Question: is this such a situation?
Answer: No.

Therein lies the debate. I say tomato you say tomahto.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Therein lies the debate. I say tomato you say tomahto.

As quoted above, the FBI agent at GTMO felt as I did.

These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee.

[Zimphire]

Oh rrlly?

Zimphire thinks this all will be seen a lot differently in 20 years.

[ambush]

NEO-IMPERIALISM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

TORTURE THOZE TERRORISTS!!!

[Krusty]

There is a "Just War" theory in Christianity. The foremost living authority on what meets that criteria is the Pope. The Pope opposes this war. Any thought on why he and virtually every Christian outside the US is wrong, and a handful of pro-war Christians in the US are right ??

There is NO theory of "Just Torture" in Christianity. Under any circumstances. Care to explain why torture is "OK" in this instance, from a Christian perspective ??

spacefreak and Zimph. Some guys known as the FBI (who collectively have a LOT of experience with interrogation over the years) have stated that the methods being employed are not simply inhumane, but don't provide good intelligence. Any thoughts on why the opinions of two pro-torture forum geeks are right, and the FBI is wrong ?

Many of the detainees at Gitmo have now been there for nearly 3 years. Anyone care to explain WTF they could possibly know at this point that would help avert future terrorism ? They are 3 years out of the loop. Whatever they might know about the leadership, plans, or locations of terrorists is long obsolete by now. Any thoughts on what information they could theoretically know that would help prevent terrorist plans that were not even
conceived before their incarceration?

On March 18, 2003, a Vatican spokesperson said, �Whoever decides that all peaceful means made available under international law are exhausted assumes a grave responsibility before God, his conscience, and history.�

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Spliff:

So liberals have every right to criticize what they see as incompetence in Rumsfeld's planning of the war. And it isn't just liberals that think Rumsfeld f**ked up. Many military folk do, too.

What makes you think that Rumsfield "planned" the "war"? Come on....Rumsfield didn't plan sh*t. Sure, he may be in charge, but he sure as hell didn't plan the war. It was the military "folk" that planned the war, not the suit wearing Rumsfield...He just gave the ok. Just like Bush with the intelligence� he received...he had to listen to his "experts". I'm just saying, blame the system and not the man.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Do I believe utilizing such tactics in extreme situations when interrogating an enemy leader/organizer in order to prevent future attacks on Americans? Absolutely.

Well I'm sorry, but then you are totally cooked. As the FBI points out, sticking cigarettes in someone's ears doesn't persuade them to spill the beans on future attacks.

Besides, why anyone would even think that the type of foot soldier you pick up in Afghanistan is going to have strategic knowledge of future attacks I don't know.

[Troll]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Yeah, the US is a dictatorial regime, alright.

Did I say that or did I say that the US BEHAVES like a dictatorial regime? When foreign countries label people terrorists and jail them for years without charge or trial, does the US criticise the regimes? Yes they do. Now, what is the US doing in Guantanamo? Afghanistan has held elections. The war is over and these guys haven't even been charged

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I suppose we should have just mowed them down, like the French.

France doesn't have terrorists running airplanes into their buildings. Perhaps you should take a second look at U.S.' foreign policy instead of ridiculing France's.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by idjeff:
What makes you think that Rumsfield "planned" the "war"? Come on....Rumsfield didn't plan sh*t. Sure, he may be in charge, but he sure as hell didn't plan the war. It was the military "folk" that planned the war, not the suit wearing Rumsfield...He just gave the ok. Just like Bush with the intelligence� he received...he had to listen to his "experts". I'm just saying, blame the system and not the man.

No, I think Rumsfeld will largely be to blame if the war in Iraq goes completely "tits up."

Several senior war planner complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefly responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war�s operational details Rumsfeld�s team took over crucial aspects of the day-to-day logistical planning�traditionally, an area in which the uniformed military excels�and Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. �He thought he knew better," one senior planner said. �He was the decision-maker at every turn."

On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans�the Iraqi assault was designated Plan 1003�he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced. Rumsfeld�s faith in precision bombing and his insistence on streamlined military operations has had profound consequences for the ability of the armed forces to fight effectively overseas. �They�ve got no resources,� a former high-level intelligence official said. �He was so focussed on proving his point�that the Iraqis were going to fall apart.�

The critical moment, one planner said, came last fall, during the buildup for the war, when Rumsfeld decided that he would no longer be guided by the Pentagon�s most sophisticated war-planning document, the TPFDL�time-phased forces-deployment list�which is known to planning officers as the tip-fiddle (tip-fid, for short). A TPFDL is a voluminous document describing the inventory of forces that are to be sent into battle, the sequence of their deployment, and the deployment of logistical support. �It�s the complete applecart, with many pieces,� Roger J. Spiller, the George C. Marshall Professor of military history at the U.S. Command and General Staff College, said. �Everybody trains and plans on it. It�s constantly in motion and always adjusted at the last minute. It�s an embedded piece of the bureaucratic and operational culture.� A retired Air Force strategic planner remarked, �This is what we do best�go from A to B�and the tip-fiddle is where you start. It�s how you put together a plan for moving into the theatre.� Another former planner said, �Once you turn on the tip-fid, everything moves in an orderly fashion.� A former intelligence officer added, �When you kill the tip-fiddle, you kill centralized military planning. The military is not like a corporation that can be streamlined. It is the most inefficient machine known to man. It�s the redundancy that saves lives.�

Source: Offense and Defense

Those are just excerpts. Read the rest of the article for a lot more detail.

Rumsfeld appointed Douglas Feith his undersecretary for policy, and allowed Feith to set up the Office of Special Plans, which cherry-picked intelligence and forged a false case for war in Iraq. Rumsfeld over-ruled his officer corps by sending a tiny force of only 100,000 troops to Iraq, ensuring that they could not keep order in the aftermath. Rumsfeld was the one who tried to hand Iraq over to corrupt financier Ahmad Chalabi. Rumsfeld allowed the looting that began the deterioration of security after the war. Rumsfeld dissolved the Iraqi army, putting US troops on the front lines of the guerrilla war. Rumsfeld didn't order as much armor for US troop vehicles as he could have, exposing thousands to serious injury from roadside bombs. Rumsfeld didn't even bother to personally sign the letters of condolence to the families of deceased troops killed in Iraq, in some large part as a result of his own flawed policies.

Source

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliff:
No, I think Rumsfeld will largely be to blame if the war in Iraq goes completely "tits up."

If?

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Troll:
If?

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Covering my ass, in other words.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliff:
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Covering my ass, in other words.

Not bad, two posts and you mentioned both tits and ass!