Last week, our Max Boot wrote to disagree with a New York Times column that supported Pentagon budget cuts and praised former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s position on transformation of the military. Mr. Rumsfeld has written us to reply:
I was amazed to read in Max Boot’s blog post, “Technology is No Substitute for Troops,” that “Rumsfeld was actually planning to cut two divisions from an army which had already been cut by one-third since the end of the Cold War.” That is flat wrong. There was not any plan to cut the size of the U.S. Army that I was ever aware of. No such plan was ever presented to me. Further, I would not have supported it if such a plan had been brought to me. Nor have I ever uttered the words that “technology is a substitute for troops.”
When I arrived at the Pentagon in 2001, my focus was on increasing the budget for the Defense Department to undo the damage that cuts in the 1990s had inflicted on our Armed Forces. That included investing in technologies such as UAVs and precision guided munitions, and considerably strengthened our special forces—in numbers, equipment and authorities–but also increasing the size of our ground forces as necessary. Indeed, in 2004 and 2006, we increased the end strength of both forces by tens of thousands of troops.
Boot, apparently with no documentation to support his misguided allegations, then attributes a view to me that is preposterous: “Slash ground forces to the bone, they argue–we’ll never need to fight another major ground war again.” His assertion flies in the face of the facts. During my two tenures as secretary of defense, I never advocated reducing the size of ground forces, nor was I ever asked to approve a plan to do so. In the process of writing my memoir, I have scoured hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which have been made public at www.rumsfeld.com, and not one even hints at the idea that I favored cutting ground forces.
Donald Rumsfeld
It seems Max has sunken to a new low and his credibiltly is badly damaged. Next stop, a NYT byline.
Army chief: Scrap divisions for smaller brigades n nFrom Jamie McIntyre nCNN Washington Bureau nFriday, January 23, 2004 Posted: 7:42 PM EST (0042 GMT) n n WASHINGTON (CNN) — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker is suggesting a reorganization of the Army, replacing its structure of 10 active-duty divisions with 46 smaller, but more capable, brigades, Pentagon sources told CNN on Friday. n nDespite congressional calls to add two divisions to the Army, Schoomaker is not asking for any more troops, Pentagon officials said. n n"Schoomaker does not want an increase the Army's end strength," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Instead he wants to find a way to use the current force more efficiently." n nSchoomaker was scheduled to meet late Friday to discuss the reorganization plans with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who also is on record as opposing any increase in the overall size of the military. n nUnder the concept Schoomaker advocates, current Army divisions, which consist of three brigades, would be split into four or five small brigades, each capable of being deployed independently. n nAlready, sources say, the 3rd Infantry Division is being reorganized into five smaller brigades to serve as a prototype for the rest of the force. n nThe idea, said one official, is to have self-sustaining "modular" fighting units that will streamline the need for combat support, and eliminate some headquarters staff and other overhead. n nAlso Friday, the Defense Department announced that it would send a budget request of $401.7 billion to Congress for the 2005 fiscal year, a 7 percent increase over fiscal 2004 funding levels. n nThe budget request "supports continued transformation" of U.S. military forces, the Pentagon said. n n"This budget builds upon past work to provide for a ready force made up of the talents and skills needed in our new national security environment," Rumsfeld said in a statement.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the plan to transform the U.S. military thus: n n"Over the next decade, a portion of the force will be transformed. It will serve as a vanguard and signal of the changes to come. Ground forces will be lighter, more lethal, and highly mobile. They will be capable of insertion far from traditional ports and air bases and will be networked with long-range precision- strike systems. Naval and amphibious forces will be able to overcome anti-access and area-denial threats, operate close to an enemy's shores, and project power deep inland. Aerospace forces will be able to locate and track mobile enemy targets over vast areas, and in combination with land and sea forces, strike them rapidly at long ranges without warning. The joint force will be networked in order to conduct highly complex and distributed operations over vast distances and in space."
Why let facts get in the way of spreading a (false) narrative. Press motto: History is constantly being (re)written.
Kudos and praise to Contentions for posting Mr. Rumsfeld's rebuttal. While Mr. Boot may want to reply to Mr. Rumsfeld (and I hope he does not do so, there's no need to fight about this) it is to the credit of Contentions that they published Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks. n nContentions has taken to heart its name and is doing a great job of posting arguments and comments about national affairs. Its readers, myself included, should be happy to see that not only do past policy makers read this blog, but a few have taken time to respond to its postings. n nGood job, Contentions! n