Sec Def was fantastic and his generals hated the idea that he pushed them constantly to think battlefield of the future and light, mobile teams. Old school generals hated it, because they're from old school armor, artillery and infantry type units. He challenged GEN Shinseki daily to rid himself of cold war era linear battlefield thinking. He's an exceptionally demanding guy and challenges core assumptions daily. You might hate his politics and the war in general and they hated his meddling, but the guy did more to advance our military toward the future than almost anyone anywhere.
So how do you rationalize his lack of forward thinking for future battlefields when attempting to occupy Iraq after dismissing the Iraqi army?
pure politics. Do you think Rumsfeld, of all people on earth, was espousing the goofball occupation and dismissal of Iraqi army? Occupation isn't a military mission. Occupation is politics. Managing it is a day by day bow to the different players. It's a stupid mission. His job was the prosecution of the war. He inherited a disastrous occupation because the assumptions entering the war were ridiculous. Obama found the same problem.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/09/25/judge-denies-doj-request-to-delay-release-of-fast-and-furious-document-list-n1896621#!
The crazy websites have some interesting theories bouncing around. Every thing from a Sandy Hook hoax, their prof of the FBI crime report, to ISIS on the boarder. Good times
