NY Times: War on the Cheap

[Boxlicker101]

Hey box,

That's a pretty impressive list of 36+ countries to which the Brits or Americans have brought democracy since WWII.

What you've done, in part, is add many colonies from which the Brits withdrew or were forced to withdraw. Assuming for the sake of argument that democracy followed British *withdrawal*, in certain cases, that's an odd way of arguing the democratic influence of Britain. Hell, in that sense the Russians brought democracy to Latvia and E. Europe.

Rhyming off names cannot substitute for facts; and some care must be taken to avoid the most obvious fallacy the _B follows A_ means _B was caused by A_. To take a case with which I'm quite familiar, Kenya. Which I'm certain would be on your list.

After the Mau Mau uprising, and the insurgency against the Brits, during which they *jailed* Kenyatta as dangerous, the Brits left, and a somewhat democratic 'national unity' government existed for a time, under Kenyatta. That's a kind of 'backward' (negative) British 'contribution' to democracy, I'd say.

Your list has become so laughable as to not be worth further dissection. You apparently believe there are several dozens of democracies in the world, whereas I doubt the number exceeds about 2 dozen. You apparently consider the Egyptian elections--not unlike the last Ukrainian ones --as signs of democracy.

According to your own figures, the ruling party of Egypt, last time, got 90+ % of the legislature in which 10 members are appointed by Mubarak.

Box [legislature] where Mubarak's National Democratic Party (NDP) held 94 percent of the seats, including 10 filled by presidential nominees, after the last poll in 1995.

This is a situation Reuters describes as holding from 1995 to at least 2000. Box, what does "94%" tell you? Duh.

(The Egyptian system is like giving Bush five extra appointments of Republicans to the US Senate, after the elections.)

What you might do also, is list the countries to which the US has brought or greatly strengthened dictatorships, since WWII: here's a few--Burma, Iran, Iraq (strengthening Saddam), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nicaraugua, Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala;--and at times past, Spain, Portugal.

Further, you might consider the UN-democratic direction taken by Russia, for some time, esp. in connection with Bush and the war on terror. No doubt you believe the US freed the Russians from the communist yoke, but you neglect to mention that the US is contributing to imposition of a nationalist/fascist 'state security' yoke.

What I have done is make a list of nations that, largely because of Anglo-American activities went to democracies from something else. I did include former possessions or colonies, such as India or The Philippines because they went from that status to democracies. I did not include other former P. or C., such as Libya, Morocco, Angola or many others since they are not democracies. I also did not include Kenya on my lists.

I am aware that it was seen to be in AA interests to support certain dictatorships because those who were insurgent against them were frequently clients of the USSR. From the end of WW2 through the late 1980's, the primary effort of foreign policy was containment of the USSR. This did not always work, and maybe the worst example of not working was Cuba, where Castro overthrew the Batista dictatorship and installed his own brand of totalitarianism. Besides ruling the Cuban people, he spread Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere, notably Granada and Nicaragua. American efforts reversed these successes and those two nations have once again held elections in which the Cuban-Soviet installed governments were unseated.

As a result of AA Cold War efforts, the Soviet empire has collapsed and they have released those nations that had ben held in thrall. Some of these, such as Poland and Latvia are counted now as democracies but some, such as Ukraine and Belarus are not. My lists are not intended to be comprehensive, by the way.

As for those dictators we formerly supported, The Shah has fallen, Pinochet has fallen, Marcos has fallen, and the others who were named by Cantdog and others have fallen, hopefully, but not always to be replaced by democracies. Since there is no reason any more to support them, we don't do it.

This brings up another question. Some of the posts on this thread loudly object to the support of dictatorships. However, now that we have deposed the worst of these dictators, Saddam, people are complaining even more.

As for Egypt, the government is popular and was elected. There are opposition parties which have been ineffective so far, but they do run candidates and some of those candidates get elected. Even a party which has supposedly been outlawed has placed their candidates in office. This sounds like a democracy to me although not a perfect one.

 

[cantdog]

The objection at the beginning of the thread, Box, was that the war was done for no reason. No reason that a civilized world could accept. Unprovoked aggression is a poor bandwagon to hop upon.

Nothing could dissuade the war advocates, however. The war was on. Our generals and planning staff at the pentagon prepared the plans, which were rejected by the civilian leadership, whose changes-- involving less material support, fewer troops, no contingency plans-- have now proven to be a disaster. The invading armies, of course, rolled the essentially defenseless country flat in no time, as everyone expected. Just the same, we preceded and surrounded this easy defeat with massive and deliberate civilian slaughter, called "Shock and Awe."

Naturally, the civilian leadership said, the wanton slaying of civilians, the widespread use of persistent poison-- depleted uranium-- will cause the country to love us all the more. Particularly when the horror of the deformed births and the radiation sickness begins.

There was no plan for an occupation. The country we invaded was supposed to hand itself to us. Chalabi said so, once we paid him enough an offered him postwar power.

But it did not woirk like that, did it? And of course, the army had extensive, almost exhaustive, plans for what to do if perchance that doesn't happen, or this doesn't happen. They always do. The trouble was, none of the steps needed for those plans had been authorized. It would have cost more. The plan was going to work, and the contingency stuff was a costly extra...

They were very wrong. Stupidly wrong. Powell told them that, their CIA people told them that, the generals told them that. But they did the war on the cheap and rejected all contingency plans and exit strategies as defeatist.

That's the objection, Box. Since you asked.

 

[SummerMorning]

As for Egypt... well, no. Death squads in the night do not sound like democracy to me. But they do sound like something H. Mubarak does.

 

[cantdog]

Mubarak, to be fair, has been under a lot of pressure. He has enough domestic problems to wish a cessation of hostilities with the Israelis, and that policy worsens his domestic difficulties.

The country has a large, widespread fundy insurgency, has had for decades. The Brotherhood have from time to time held significant proportions of the south of the country, so that only a determined and numerous government force could even go down there to enforce order or to police things. These Islamists have been hell on the Copts, who are Christian. The government in Cairo was willing to sacrifice some Copts so long as a certain level of rebellion wasn't exceeded, but then they began hitting the tourists come to see the ancient wonders, who had hitherto been sacrosanct.

Mubarak had to get serious about them then, and the tourists are escorted by troops allthe time now, and more effort and money has poured into operations against the Islamists. Jamaiyat al_Islami and some other groups, some of which funded with deep pockets from abroad, and the more so when the stiff stance against Israel has softened.

Even so, his internal enemies within the army and the government, within the universities, are just as worrisome. freedom of the Egyptian press is never complete, not even close. But the Web versions of the papers are more open, reporting more and publishing opinion more. Periodic crackdowns characterize the Mubarak government in this sphere, as in so many others.

And they have extrajudicial executions frequently enough, especially in the south, although for decades there has never been a time when every part of Cairo itself could be said to be in the firm control of the government. All this makes the hard line get that much harder.

 

[SummerMorning]

Cant - I agree completely. But this is a police state, not a democracy.

 

[amicus]

One has the right, of course, to be anti american and anti war and even to dislike a sitting President and his administration.

But Cantdog, you take the cake, the icing and the candles all at once.

"...The objection at the beginning of the thread, Box, was that the war was done for no reason. No reason that a civilized world could accept. Unprovoked aggression is a poor bandwagon to hop upon..."

You are speaking of Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Right? The same Iraqi dictator that raped, pillaged and plundered Kuwait? The same Iraqi dictator that used poison gas on civilians? The same Iraqi dictator that ignored UN sanctions and refused to cooperation with weapons inspectors authorized by the UN to inspect Iraqi facilities?

The same Iraqi dictator that supported terrorism, harbored terrorists and paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 as a reward for terrorism?

The litany could continue with the brutal treatment of his own people, mass murders, mass graves, genocide by definition; entire families wiped out in cruel and intentional pogroms similar to the Stalin era. "...the war was done for no reason..." ?

Perhaps after the fact of a biological weapon dropped on the Saudi's or on the Israeli's? Would that have been sufficient grounds for war? Or would it take a nuclear weapon lobbed into Europe somewhere. Would that do it for you Cantdog?

you also said:

"... Just the same, we preceded and surrounded this easy defeat with massive and deliberate civilian slaughter, called "Shock and Awe..."

I suppose you have forgotten that Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world fully equiped with Soviet arms?

It was an easy defeat because US strategists planned and executed an operation to destory the command and control facilities of the Iraqi military. That same war department created an amazing plan of forcing straight through to Baghdad, something all the pundits said could never be done.

Shock and Awe....do you think those who read this forum are unaware, do not read, did not follow the early days of the war? The shock and awe went to those command and control centers, the communications centers, the radar facilities and as you well know did not create massive civilian casualties.

They used precision weapons which not only were accurate enough to destroy the specific target, but to even impact with a few feet of the intended area.

you also wrote:

"...the widespread use of persistent poison-- depleted uranium--..."

I rather suspect 'depleted' means just what it says, no longer radioactive and used because of its density and ability to penetrate thick armor.

also:

"...There was no plan for an occupation. The country we invaded was supposed to hand itself to us. Chalabi said so, once we paid him enough an offered him postwar power...."

I am certain beyond a doubt that no outcome would have pleased you and your anti war compatriots. There is no perfect plan, there are however contingency plans by the roomful of what might and could happen in any given situation.

I tend to think that US Military Strategists did a fair to good job in assessing the possibilities facing them.

I also think your assertion that the 'warmongers' in the Bush administration had always planned to go to war in Iraq is sheer fabrication created in the fertile minds of the pacifist wing of the democrat party.

As I said in the beginning, you have every right to believe and speak as you wish. But most of what you write is transparent propaganda of a political nature offered as mean criticism to not just a President, but to an entire people attempting to liberate an oppressed people.

During the cold war, there were apologists for the Soviets, saying much the same thing as you have. As with the Soviet Union, which rotted from the inside, the Middle East will one day be free of tyrannical dictators and a better place for the people who live there and the world in general.

amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Cant - I agree completely. But this is a police state, not a democracy.

Assuredly. Amicus is wrong again.

 

[SummerMorning]

I think I'll go stoke some neocon fantasies, listen to hippie music, smoke pot and make love not war... no, wait. I'll just smoke pot and not make love or war. Ooops, out of pot. OK - very politically incorrect, but I will listen to hippie music and drink good wine.

 

[thebullet]

Information on Depleted Uranium:

What is Depleted Uranium?
The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium 238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term 'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by producing deadly weapons.

Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human health and the environment.

Depleted Uranium at War
In the 1950's the United States Department of Defense became interested in using depleted uranium metal in weapons because of its extremely dense, pyrophoric qualities and because it was cheap and available in huge quantities. It is now given practically free of charge to the military and arms manufacturers and is used both as tank armour, and in armour-piercing shells known as depleted uranium penetrators. Over 15 countries are known to have depleted uranium weapons in their militaray arsenals - UK, US, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan - with depleted uranium rapidly spreading to other countries.


Depleted uranium was first used on a large scale in military combat during the 1991 Gulf War, and has since been used in Bosnia in 1995, and again in the Balkans war of 1999.

A sub-commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed a 'rapporteur' to investigate the use of depleted uranium weapons among other types of weapons, after passing a resolution which categorised depleted uranium weapons alongside such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, napalm, and cluster bombs as a 'weapon of indiscriminate effect'.

Depleted Uranium at Home

 

[cantdog]

You are speaking of Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Right?

Right. Never did a thing to us for better than a decade, but call us names.

The same Iraqi dictator that raped, pillaged and plundered Kuwait?

That's the boy, but we had that war already. You don't get to go back ten years later, and fight the man all over again for that. Especially under the circumstances. He was defeated. Half his country was being kept out of his control by "no-fly" patrols from Turkey and from the Gulf fleets and bases in S. Arabia. Whenever a credible amount of technology went on line, we bombed the plant. We bombed his water treatment plants every time he fixed them, we blockaded trade. We hammered his military with bombs for ten years, ad libitum. He was so cowed he allowed his every military secret to be probed by foreign military experts, in the international inspections. This is a gross lowering of expectation of sovereignty. We would certainly never allow a collection of scientists and military men from other countries to go through all of our defense R&D establishment! And the rationale was that he might have the capacity to develop a bomb. Those inspectors would find we had that capacity, but they didn't in his case, ever. Meanwhile his conventional forces were a shambles. Even the working parts of it were known with millimeter precision, because we overflew the country at will, and because we had detailed reports from the international inspectors. There was not one part of his military establishment we didn't know the location and capacity of.

The same Iraqi dictator that used poison gas on civilians?

That was even further back than the first war about Kuwait, dude. Rumsfeld sold him the weapons and shook his hand afterward. When Reagan was president. I repeat, we already had that war. Over a decade before. Different place now. Pay attention.

The same Iraqi dictator that ignored UN sanctions and refused to cooperation with weapons inspectors authorized by the UN to inspect Iraqi facilities?

Bullshit, they inspected over and over. You know better.

The same Iraqi dictator that supported terrorism, harbored terrorists and paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 as a reward for terrorism?

Wrong. No such thing. Republicans in Congress found this to be true and published a report from the committee they appointed to investigate it. This isa false now, just as it was false then. The fucking report of the 9/11 commission has been for sale in every bookstore. Your denials can not possibly convince anyone! They sold many hundreds of thousands of them, amicus. This is really pretty purblind, even for you.

The litany could continue with the brutal treatment of his own people, mass murders, mass graves, genocide by definition; entire families wiped out in cruel and intentional pogroms similar to the Stalin era. "...the war was done for no reason..." ?

Now you got something, although they didn't have to do a lot of mass graves, usually. That's an exaggeration. He wiped out a lot of Marsh Arabs, and we watched him do that. It happened directly after we pulled out of the country following the first Gulf War. He was freshly defeated, then, and he did a really quite genocidal attack to his disaffected South, whose political leaders we had assured of US support against him. We supported them not at all, but sat on our hands and watched him drive south and crush them.

I rather think we had our chance to have a war about that one, right then while we were still half-deployed in the region with ground forces and international support.

Remember international support? Bush Senior was internationalist enough to bother to secure it. Shrub wasn't. Shrub wanted to hit the place anyway, illegally, unilaterally, pre-emptively. He used those last two words to propose it. He told the UN that he would act on his own if he got no support, and then he did. Illegally.

Perhaps after the fact of a biological weapon dropped on the Saudi's or on the Israeli's? Would that have been sufficient grounds for war? Or would it take a nuclear weapon lobbed into Europe somewhere. Would that do it for you Cantdog?

Sure. Why not? Except that he lacked the delivery systems to reach any further than Israel. He didn't survive that long by being stupid, amicus. Israel had much better armed force than he had after ten years of sanction, surveillance, inspection, bombing, and defeat. Israel would crush him like a bug. Israel had our full and unconditional support, and he had none. Even the Arabs around him hated him for opposing the Islamists.

You also said:

"... Just the same, we preceded and surrounded this easy defeat with massive and deliberate civilian slaughter, called "Shock and Awe..."

I suppose you have forgotten that Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world fully equiped with Soviet arms?

Maybe during the era of the Iraq/Iran conflict. That was a long time ago, amicus. Have you forgotten it's not the Reagan presidency any longer?

Besides, what does the size or lack of it of his armed forces have to do with OUR attacks on a populous urban area of millions? And did any of these Soviet arms (there was no more Soviet Union when we had THIS war, amicus, or even when we had the one under his Dad. Dude! Soviet arms! How cutting edge!!!)did any, I say, of those arms impede the Shock and Awe attacks in any way? No. They were incapable. Did his air power do anything...? No. He had no credible air power. What about the SCUDS he hit Israel with last time...? Nope. No such difficulty.

In fact no "pundit" of any kind expected the war to be anything but a cakewalk. The US does not attack anybody but defenseless places. We complain about Pakistan, but we attack Grenada. We bitch about the axis of E Vil in Korea, but we attack Souq al- Gharb. We whine about Iran but we attack a bombed-out husk in Iraq.

The part there was disagreement on was what happened AFTER the easy defeat.

 

[amicus]

The Bullet...


Q. What makes depleted uranium a potential hazard?

A. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.

A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.


The source for this is the first item listed searching 'depleted uranium toxicity'

Somewhat different than your version, but I can understand why.

amicus

 

[cantdog]

Gulf War vets have had the symptoms nevertheless, amicus. The mechanism is inhalation. The stuff turns to dust on impact, and everyone breathes it. Its half life is less than a hundred million years, and there are confidently expected to have been someone in to clean up the dust by then.

American babies have had the other symptom, too. And Iraqi ones, although what the fuck has your kind ever cared about that?

Gulf War syndrome-like rad sickness was reported in Kosovo too, but the tonnage used there was dozens of times less that the tonnage used in the two big wars here. Proposals to outlaw DU have been vetoed by the US every time.

You must have gone through a lot of sites to find one which was so blind about the inhalation thing.

 

[amicus]

Well Cantdog...we are getting no where...you use every possible means to put down this country and everything it does, I defend it as best I can. I suppose the twain shall ne'er meet.

 

[cantdog]

I'm a citizen here. It's a citizen's duty to watch over and influence his government. That's what republic means. The citizen has the ultimate say, so it behooves him to stay informed and involved in the republic's doings.

Becoming so ignorant as to imagine it's still the Reagan presidency is not being a very good citizen.

Advocating attacking Saddam all over again after a decade or so because he attacked Kuwait is like Washington sending a tank column with air support to crush Milledgeville because the state legislature there voted to secede. We already had that war. Things are different now.

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

Besides, I spent most of my time putting YOU down, amicus you ass, not the fucking country. The country has some bright people working for it. You, on the other hand, are a purblind fraud.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As for Egypt... well, no. Death squads in the night do not sound like democracy to me. But they do sound like something H. Mubarak does.

To me, they sound a lot more like Islamic Fundies. These are tactics used in Algeria and Morocco by Islamist terrorists and there is no reason to believe they aren't being used elsewhere.

 

[Boxlicker101]

To me, they sound a lot more like Islamic Fundies. These are tactics used in Algeria and Morocco by Islamist terrorists and there is no reason to believe they aren't being used elsewhere.

Although we can discuss and even argue on this thread and others, there's no reason we can't be civil to one another. Merry Christmas, all you guys. I am probably going off the air until tomorrow but I will be back.

 

[Liar]

To me, they sound a lot more like Islamic Fundies.

The first thing I thought of was assorted south american dictator regimes during the last 40 years. Guess I'm just bored with hearing muslims being singled out as having the monopoly on evil practices.

Whatever. Merry Christmas.

#L

 

[cantdog]

Yeah! I can be evil too. Gimme a fucking death squad, baby! I'll show ya how this shit gets done in my camino!

And I'm no muslim, baby; believe it.

cantdog of the death squad of Camino Real, Camino Unreal

 

[cantdog]

and you're right. There's no reason to be uncivil. I just got uncivil without a reason.

Oh well. Maybe next summah.

In the meantime, I don't feel particularly repentant. Deliberate ignorance is off-putting.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When we're talking about Saddam's use of posion gas against the Kurds and the Iranians, let's not foregt where he got it: the USA. We gave it to him during the Iran-Iraq war, and I think we knew what he was going to do with it.

As for the contingency plans for the occupation of Iraq, this is a matter that has been exhaustedly reported on in and article in The Atlantic by James Fallows. There were plans for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, something like 20-21 binders filled with plans, prepared by the State Department. However Powell and his State Department were relegated to the back burner in the run up to war, as were the occupation plans. They were totally ignored by the administration, who were convinced that democracy would spontaneously break out once Saddam was brought down.

Why did they believe this? Who knows. Wishful thinking and the whispering of Chalabi, most lilkely.

In any case, the fact that they just threw away the occupation plans has been very well documented, and you won't frind anyone--excpet maybe for Rumsfeld--claiming that the occupation has been handled well.

---dr.M.

 

[amicus]

I would personally prefer to call it 'liberation' not occupation, but I understand why you choose the word.

I wonder if you and Cantdog and Bullet really realize the degree to which your politics color your reason?

The decision to liberate Iraq was made after much deliberation, not only within the Presidents cabinet, but by the Congress of the United States and dozens of committees that studied every aspect and approved and funded it.

I am the last person in the world to support the government of the United States as I think the constitution has been corrupted since the passage of the income tax in 1916...I feel we have gone down hill and away from liberty ever since.

But in a time of national crisis, the 9/11, the threat to peace around the world, I am appalled that many do not have a clue as to the necessity of moving aggressively against the terrorists.

Perhaps this little left leaning coterie at Literotica has or had a better plan to confront the terrorists over there instead of over here, but I have not heard that offered as yet.

I have for several months asked that instead of attacking the Bush admininistration that you promote your own agenda. No one has...all you folks do is piss and moan and criticize.

blah....


amicus....

 

[thebullet]

Amicus said:
I am the last person in the world to support the government of the United States

If that's true, why do you have George Bush's dick up your ass?

I wonder if you and Cantdog and Bullet really realize the degree to which your politics color your reason?

But your extremist politics has nothing to do with your reason, does it Amicus?
When it comes to foreign policy, I am a strict pragmatist. I am apolitical in foreign policy. Unfortunately the Bush Administration allows their politics to color every aspect of their rule. Politics has no place in foreign policy. But Bush and fiends dance to a political agenda in everything. They don't have enough objectivity to see the conscequences of their actions. They pre-sold themselves that an Iraqi war would be a cake-walk. They are still in denial as they are going down in flames.

 

[cantdog]

Au contraire you blitherer, we've proposed alternatives. What shit!

I wonder if you realize how much your beliefs or some damn thing has made you just plain miss half the stuff that goes by? Is it blinders, like a draft horse?

You mean all this time, weeks of talk on the boards, and you never heard anyone propose an alternative?

Well, it happened, dude.




Jesus's arse.


cantdog

 

[Pure]

To return to the point of the thread. Bush thinks he can fight a major war without raising taxes or bothering middle class kids (or their voting parents). THAT's the problem.

I submit the Americans arent like the Brits, ready to fight for empire. They want a few technocrats running a 'smart bomb' campaign to solve problems like those in Fallujah.

Remember the odd scene in Moores movie where he asks Congress persons if they'd like their sons to sign up for Iraq.

Perhaps the US has sufficient technology to run a 1984 security state internally, with enough cameras, ankle bracelet locators, finger print scans, etc. What I doubt if whether the overseas reservists and guardsmen, fighting on a shoe string, can subdue a wily and unconventional enemy--in dozens of venues. Israel, with probably a better army, can't do it in the Israeli and immediately adjacent Palistinian areas. How is the US going to do it in Kazachstan and Afghanistan?

It's really weird that with Macnamara going around admitting he did quite have it right in Vietnam, that the new Pentagon and Rumsfeld are claiming the same efficiency and effectiveness in prosectuting the present war.