US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

bd popeye said:

More on D. Rumsfield.

This is what the generals are saying about old Rummy.....I wonder if his little feelings are hurt???..Who cares? I agree with the generals on most accounts.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

THE GENERALS SPEAK OUT

Quotes from the retired generals who are calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:
"We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team."
— Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results."
— Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."
— Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."
— Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is."
— Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."
— Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

Click to expand...

But its not that simple!! Bever before in U.s history has there been an outcry from the generals like this. Its not just 2-3 guys, its 6. And most of them had worked for the army just befor the 2003 iraq invasion. Some disagreeed with rumsfeld on how to fight the war, and retired as a result.

Click to expand...

ASHINGTON: The United States is shifting its military might to the Asia-Pacific region and equipping its forces for high-tech warfare as a hedge against China's military buildup, a Pentagon spokesman Thursday.

"It is US policy to encourage China to emerge as a responsible international partner," said Bryan Whitman. "However, there is also a lack of transparency and some uncertainty surrounding China's future path."

"Therefore, we and others have to naturally hedge against the unknown," he told reporters here.

His comments came as Chinese President Hu Jintao was at the White House to meet with President George W. Bush on a range of trade and security issues, and to assure US leaders they have nothing to fear from China's rising might.

His visit played out against a backdrop of US concern about China's intentions as it pursues a major military buildup that the Pentagon believes threatens the military balance in region.

The United States also has been modernizing and reorienting its military forces in recent years, shifting its weight from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region and south Asia.

It has revamped its military alliance with Japan, and moved to strengthen military ties with India and countries in southeast and central Asia.

Guam is being transformed into a hub for long-range bombers, intelligence and surveillance aircraft and logistics support. The military plans to move 8,000 Marines to Guam from Okinawa, Japan by 2012.

The US Navy, meanwhile, is building up its presence in the region.

It is adding a sixth aircraft carrier to the Pacific Fleet and has decided to home port 52 attack submarines -- 60 percent of its fleet -- in the Pacific theater by 2010.

The navy also is changing the way it maintains and mans its warships to be able to deploy four aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific at a time.

This summer it is holding its largest aircraft carrier exercise in the Pacific since the Vietnam War, a navy spokesman said.

Three aircraft carrier strike groups will take part in the war games near Guam along with air force and Marine Corps forces, said Lieutenant Trey Brown.

The air force is investing billions of dollars to acquire costly F-22 fighter aircraft capable of cruising at supersonic speeds and to develop a new long range bomber, all with an eye on China.

"We're looking at changing from being a garrison military to being a globally expeditionary force, shifting the strategic balance, enabling the military to be more agile across the spectrum of challenges that exist out there," Whitman said.

"So DoD (Department of Defense) continues to prepare for unforeseen eventualities, from full-spectrum combat operations to counter-insurgency operations, stability operations, and homeland defense while creating the best structure to train and equip forces for those missions," he said.

Pentagon and US military officials in the past have insisted that the US military realignment was not directed at any specific country, or aimed at containing China.

But Whitman's acknowledgment that the changes were a "hedge" against China indicates Washington is opting for a more candid approach in spelling out the consequences of Beijing's military buildup.

The change in tone began last June when US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned at a international security conference in Singapore that China was spending much more on its military than officially acknowledged.

"Since no nation threatens China, one wonders: why this growing investment?" Rumsfeld asked.

A major Pentagon strategy review made public in February singled out China as having "the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that over time offset traditional US military advantages absent US counter-strategies."

The extent to which the concern about China is driving military budgets, weapons requirements, war games and other activities is "fairly significant, and I think it's fair to say that it's growing," Admiral Michael Mullen, the chief of naval operations said last month.

"There are just a lot of questions about the significance of the Chinese investment in missiles, in submarines, in ships, in technology, in capabilities, that make you wonder why so much so fast?"

"And clearly, putting ourselves in a position, what I would call a strong deterrent position, is very important," he told defense reporters.

Click to expand...

Much of the force enhancement involves naval weaponry. For example, the Navy is reorganizing the operating methods of aircraft-carrier battle groups in ways that will double their ability to project power. Once transformed in two or three years, the Pentagon can dispatch four carrier battle groups at once in Asia. In the past, because of maintenance schedules and crew limitations, only two carriers were battle-ready on short notice. Other planned naval enhancements in Asia include the deployment to Guam of attack submarines and the addition of two strategic missile submarines, and perhaps as many as four. The converted boomers, as the missile submarines are called, each will be outfitted with up to 150 cruise missiles.
The large missile submarines also will play a key role in moving special-operations forces covertly to conflict areas in Asia. The Pentagon is considering the deployment of the 1st Special Operations Group to Japan, officials said. Marine commandos also are being readied to be able to counter the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations, said concerns about China are "fairly significant, and I think it's fair to say that it's growing."
To meet the challenge, the Navy will add one more carrier battle group to its Pacific Fleet. Additionally, it is shifting 60 percent of submarine forces to the Pacific and Asia in the next few years.
"Obviously, the outcome I seek is one of peace and security and stability," Adm. Mullen said during a recent breakfast with reporters. "There are just a lot of questions about the significance of the Chinese investment in missiles, in submarines, in ships, in technology, in capabilities that make you wonder, 'Why so much so fast?' And clearly, putting ourselves in what I would call a strong deterrent position is very important."
The buildup by the Air Force in Asia includes plans to upgrade Anderson Air Force Base in Guam so strategic bombers, including B-2 and B-1 bombers, can be based there for faster deployment. The bomber forces will be part of Air Expeditionary Forces that are moved there routinely on temporary but regular deployment.
The defense official said the bomber forces, which are equipped with a large number of precision-guided bombs such as cruise missiles and Joint Direct Attack Munitions, are "creating a capability that is exponentially more powerful in a new location."
"I don't think that is missed by people [in the region]," the official said, noting that North Korea already has protested bomber deployments in Guam.
Additionally, the Pentagon plans to build a new long-range strategic bomber in the next 15 years that will have the capability to conduct deep strikes in Asia with a large number of precision-guided munitions.
The U.S. ground forces' role in the Asia strategy will include repositioning forces in the Western United States, Japan and Guam. The Pentagon plans to dispatch the headquarters of the Army's I Corps, now based at Fort Lewis, Wash., to Japan in the coming years to be ready to fight in Asia.
The Marines also are moving the headquarters element of the Marine force from Okinawa to Guam. The transfer is part of a force realignment in Japan, but a Marine general revealed last year that the deployment to Guam will have the added benefit of protecting the headquarters against a decapitating missile attack from China or North Korea.
Missile defenses also play a role in the strategy. The current system -- designed to stop long-range missiles from North Korea -- will be adapted in the coming years, both through U.S. enhancements and development of a Japanese missile defense system.
The force restructuring has been accompanied by public statements by high-ranking U.S. military and civilian defense officials who have tried to minimize the U.S. activities and emphasize that China, which itself is involved in an aggressive arms buildup, poses no immediate threat.
The low-key approach is similar to China's strategy of building up its forces in ways designed to avoid provoking the "hegemon," what China has used as code for the United States in its internal military and Communist Party writings. Outwardly, China continues to insist that its military and economic growth pose no threat.
"The Chinese, tragically, have brought this on themselves," said Michael Pillsbury, a China affairs specialist who first identified China's covert anti-U.S. strategy for the Pentagon several years ago. "Their history and culture make it impossible for China to accept American leadership and forces them to use secrecy and subterfuge in their buildup, while ignoring Secretary Rumsfeld's appeals for openness."
Other elements of the hedge strategy include development of systems that will be capable of countering Chinese space weapons, which are viewed as a future threat. The Pentagon also has directed the military to develop Chinese-language skills and to have a cadre of Chinese speakers available if the military needs to "surge" its ability to communicate in the language. The requirement was couched in terms of learning several other languages as priorities, as well, including Farsi and Central Asian languages.
Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, declined to directly address the China elements of the hedge strategy. In an e-mail exchange, Adm. Fallon said the force "transformation actions presuppose neither a specific potential adversary nor discrete threat."
Military exercises in Asia also will play a key role in the hedge strategy. The Navy this summer plans the largest aircraft-carrier exercises in the Pacific in decades. Naval maneuvers slated to begin in June in the western Pacific will include three carrier strike groups. Each group includes at least three warships, an attack submarine and a support ship.
Two carrier groups then will participate in Pacific Rim exercises in July near Hawaii. Those will include forces from Australia, Japan, South Korea, Chile, Peru and other nations. An August naval exercise will include an Atlantic Fleet carrier.
Additional military exercises are being held with U.S. friends and allies. For example, the Navy's 7th Fleet currently holds 100 exercises per year and will increase that number. It will include exercises with India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Australia, the Philippines, South Korea and Japan.
"The Chinese or anybody else has to ask themselves: 'What is it the Americans are doing differently now with their carrier battle groups ... that allows them to do this now and will allow them to do it any time they want to?'?" the senior defense official said.
The answer is different operating procedures, including a changed maintenance schedule and "crew swapping," in which crews on ships are replaced with fresh, land-based sailors to allow for longer deployments.
"You're creating a capability that you didn't have before just by the way that you're operating the same basket of assets you had before," the official said. "So this is a big signal. Now is this a hedge? I guess it's a hedge that says we can't predict where we're going to have to fight, so we're going to have to be organized differently."
All branches of the U.S. military also have been conducting secret war games that use China as an adversary. The war games have been kept secret to avoid alerting the Chinese.
Officially, the branches are told to conduct exercises at higher rates than they did in the past and to consider a range of adversaries, including China. The true purpose, however, is to be prepared to respond to a Chinese military move against Taiwan, an attempt by China to seize oil-rich territory in Russia or Southeast Asia, or to control strategic sea lanes from the Middle East to Asia, defense officials said.
Mr. Zoellick said his talks with the Chinese have been helpful in trying to persuade China to become a responsible "stakeholder" in the current U.S.-led international system but that Beijing's doubts remain.
The Chinese are wary of the current international system and recognize U.S. leadership of it but have not accepted the sole superpower role.
"I don't get a sense that they don't feel they can work with the United States," Mr. Zoellick said. "But I think they, of course, want to assess under what terms and whose rules." China's questions "really go more to stakeholder in an international system and who defines the system," he said.

Click to expand...