I did think he took heat unfairly for that comment; he's an interesting figure. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 09/05/2011 06:02:01 PM
How many people have been Defence Secy. twice, let alone a generation apart? I think (hope) he mellowed in the interim; nothing he did under Bush disturbs me as much as his write up on "weaponization of space" under Ford (particularly since it WAS under Ford; no one who can't even safely leave an airplane should control thermonuclear kill satellites. 
) Regardless, he was right that it's hard to be "knowledgeable about your ignorance", and it was unreasonable to ask him for a precise measure of how much we don't know. Unless the answer is "nothing" there's no way it can be accurate. Do we know if terrorist x is preparing to do y? Of course not: That's the problem. 
It offended people who thought the Iraq war (unlike the Afghan war) one of our choosing because it suggested our lack of regional allies and preparedenss for an Iraqi occupation was due to our hand being forced, and our hand wasn't forced. We could've spent additional months or even years training and mobilizing for a full scale occupation and diplomatically building regional networks that would've made any guerilla campaign far less effective than that we faced--we just didn't. We could at least have waited for the Senate to READ the Iraq War Resolution before voting on it. That's why even staunch allies criticized our "rush to war" and we were nearly overwhelmed by a large and robust Iraqi "insurgency" hiding behind every corner.
That's the long answer: You only have to go to war with the army you've got rather than the one you want if you HAVE to go to war. In the case of Iraq (not Afghanistan) most don't think we HAD to do anything, so IF we did we could've and should've waited until fully prepared.
) Regardless, he was right that it's hard to be "knowledgeable about your ignorance", and it was unreasonable to ask him for a precise measure of how much we don't know. Unless the answer is "nothing" there's no way it can be accurate. Do we know if terrorist x is preparing to do y? Of course not: That's the problem. And the times he was right is when he offended the most people. Liek when everyone got their panties in a wad because he said you fight with army you have. How such a simple statement of truth could offend so many people baffles me.
It offended people who thought the Iraq war (unlike the Afghan war) one of our choosing because it suggested our lack of regional allies and preparedenss for an Iraqi occupation was due to our hand being forced, and our hand wasn't forced. We could've spent additional months or even years training and mobilizing for a full scale occupation and diplomatically building regional networks that would've made any guerilla campaign far less effective than that we faced--we just didn't. We could at least have waited for the Senate to READ the Iraq War Resolution before voting on it. That's why even staunch allies criticized our "rush to war" and we were nearly overwhelmed by a large and robust Iraqi "insurgency" hiding behind every corner.
That's the long answer: You only have to go to war with the army you've got rather than the one you want if you HAVE to go to war. In the case of Iraq (not Afghanistan) most don't think we HAD to do anything, so IF we did we could've and should've waited until fully prepared.