The Army You Have

A Philomedy Satire

Published on January 22, 2005 By philomedy In Humor

January 22, 2005

Washington, D.C.

In light of recent, hastily made comments, Donald Rumsfeld has volunteered to open his world up for a day, hoping to dissuade the popular opinion that he is a crass and unfeeling old man, the likes of which chase little boys off their lawns for disturbing the garden trolls.

Mr. Rumsfeld awoke at 9 in the morning, about an hour later than he should have, and shuffled to the dining room in quite a disheveled state. Being late, he did not have time to eat anything but a bowl of Special K. He seemed disappointed that they were out of Total, which as we all know has a full day's supply of vitamins and minerals, but he took it in stride, saying "You go to the table with the cereal you have."

After breakfast, Mr. Rumsfeld rushed around trying to find a suit to wear, a search that turned up a back issue of Playboy, 2 Nike headbands, a Kiss album, "The Fast and the Furious" on DVD, and a copy of the Necronomacon, but alas, no Giorgio Armani. An agitated Rumsfeld called his wife, who informed him that the dry cleaning was to be picked up that afternoon at five. Rumsfeld, as he often does, made lemons out of lemonade, finding a blue polo shirt on the floor and throwing it on, along with a pair of khaki slacks.

"Sure, I'd like to have my suit, but what can you do?" Rumsfeld said. "You go to work with the clothing you have, not the clothing you'd like to have. Have you seen the new Sean John line, by the way? Or the latest from RocaWear? That's the clothing you'd like to have."

Rumsfeld's day at the office was a rather uneventful one, filled with stamping his name on condolence letters and going online to find a recipe for bouillabaise. At 5, he decided it was time to head home.

As he was strolling through the parking lot, Rumsfeld noticed a sheepish (or shall I say, chimpish) looking President Bush standing next to his car. There was a sizable dent on the door. The two talked in private, after which Rumsfeld came back smiling from ear to ear.

"He's a sweet kid, he really means well." he said. "Just sometimes, I don't know...Anyways, you go to work for the president you have, not the president you wish you had. I mean, sure we'd like someone who knows that the Warner Brothers' female bunny is just Bugs in drag, but what can you do?"

Comments (Page 3)

philomedy

on Jan 23, 2005

Does it take every policeman and detective in the department to drop everything and focus on the bomber alone? It better not. Otherwise that's a piss poor police department.

The analogy was talking about the allocating of resources. The resources should be allocated to the bomber, or in the larger sense, the more imminent threat.

No, I'm not making the argument for you. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Unless your idea is that South Korea and Japan must face a savage retaliatory attack in order to keep North Korea from attacking South Korea and Japan. That doesn't make sense? It wan't supposed to. But that's what you are suggesting. Here's what it seems you are missing. North Korea has a lot of firepower aimed at South Korea. Right now, at this very moment. Kim Jong Il is paranoid. Unless the United States can locate, attack, and destroy all of North Korea's offensive weapons directed at South Korea simultaneously as a first strike, South Korea is gonna take a real beating. And since North Korea may already have missiles that can reach Japan, and can most likely be armed with nuclear warheads which they probably already possess, we would also have to, at the exact same time, locate and destroy all missile launchers and/or silos. If Kim Jong Il believe he will be killed or removed from power, I highly doubt he will restrain himself from going out in a blaze of glory.

I was not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting an invasion of North Korea. However, by plunging into war in Iraq, we spent valuable strategic resources that could have been used to devise a plausible option in Korea. Now, we can't concentrate on Kim Jong Il's imminent threat until we fix our mess in the Middle East.

I respectfully disagree. I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic

You haven't pointed out the flaw in anything. You said I was self-righteously posturing. That doesn't prove anything, just that you have an opinion about me.

Eastern Diamondback

on Jan 23, 2005

You haven't pointed out the flaw in anything. You said I was self-righteously posturing.

Your entire argument is that the United States shouldn't undertake multiple simultaneous operations because anything other than activity in Afghanistan is a diversion of resources. Of course what you don't acknowledge is Afghanistan is not meant to be a large scale operation in the way that Iraq is now. Our search for Bin Laden is not hampered by the resources in Iraq as it is because of Pakistan's uncooperativeness in allowing US Special Forces to cross the border to conduct operations. That is the first flaw. The only practical course of action to take against North Korea is diplomatic (economic). Iraq is not usurping strategic resources from North Korea. Kim Jong Il probably assumes we are not going to take preemptive action against him, so if we were to move military hardware into the region, it would be for retaliatory purposes. If we are in a situation where we are retaliating, we're in trouble. Second flaw exposed. Your self-righteous posturing comes from your implication that these ideas of yours expose hypocrisy on the part of the Administration. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Iraq War policy; this isn't one.

philomedy

on Jan 23, 2005

Your entire argument is that the United States shouldn't undertake multiple simultaneous operations because anything other than activity in Afghanistan is a diversion of resources.

My argument with this article was that Rumsfeld put his food rather deeply in his mouth. From the tone of your responses, it doesn't appear that you read the original article though. That's fine. My argument with you is that the most pressing issue should be dealt with first, with the majority of resources. That is not Iraq.

Of course what you don't acknowledge is Afghanistan is not meant to be a large scale operation in the way that Iraq is now. Our search for Bin Laden is not hampered by the resources in Iraq as it is because of Pakistan's uncooperativeness in allowing US Special Forces to cross the border to conduct operations. That is the first flaw.

Maybe Afghanistan should be a large scale operation considering that's where we were attacked from. Remind me again who in Iraq attacked us?

And Iraq is a large scale operation NOW??? What did it start out as? It doesn't matter. It didn't warrant being a large scale operation then, nor does it now.

The only practical course of action to take against North Korea is diplomatic (economic). Iraq is not usurping strategic resources from North Korea. Kim Jong Il probably assumes we are not going to take preemptive action against him, so if we were to move military hardware into the region, it would be for retaliatory purposes. If we are in a situation where we are retaliating, we're in trouble. Second flaw exposed.

Strategists that could be working on Korea are being wasted on strategizin Iraq. More resources should be expended on the larger threats. Korea is a larger threat than Iraq, and Kim Jong Il is a larger threat than Saddam ever was.

And what exactly do you want in Korea? You've said that we shouldn't threaten because Kim Jong Il is paranoid, but you just said that waiting to retaliate is dangerous too. I suppose that we should just hold a stalemate and trust that as long as we do nothing, he won't either, right? More strategists means more ideas, more progress, and perhaps resolution.

Your self-righteous posturing comes from your implication that these ideas of yours expose hypocrisy on the part of the Administration

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the opposite. I never heard the administration pledge to fix Korea before Iraq before going for Saddam, so whatever implication you think is in whatever it is that you read can't be hypocrisy.

My implication is that the administration handled the wrong things at the wrong time in the wrong way. They made mistakes. They screwed up. Bin Laden is free. There is a psychopath with nukes. But wait!!! Let's be happy because we got Saddam!!! Can you remind me where his nukes were again...

Moderateman

on Jan 24, 2005

Can you remind me where his nukes were again...

I can tell you, but I am sure my reply would be construed as a bit Rude... tee hee hee

philomedy

on Jan 24, 2005

I can tell you, but I am sure my reply would be construed as a bit Rude... tee hee hee

Fear not. I am here to absorb your rude comments like a sponge.

Moderateman

on Jan 24, 2005

Fear not. I am here to absorb your rude comments like a sponge.

nope not gonna go there, not on your site anyways..

philomedy

on Jan 24, 2005

nope not gonna go there, not on your site anyways..

I admire your restraint. I'm sure I'll return the favor someday.

Eastern Diamondback

on Jan 24, 2005

Maybe Afghanistan should be a large scale operation considering that's where we were attacked from. Remind me again who in Iraq attacked us?

My first response to you had nothing to do with Rumsfeld, and neither did the statement of youra which I responded to.
The most pressing issue is global terrorist networks which threaten the United States, of which one is al-Qaeda. "Greatest threat" does not always correspond with "requiring the greatest amount of resources." Afghanistan does not require the deployment of 150,000 troops. We need enough to feed, supply, and repair vehicles and aircraft for the field operatives in the SpecOp's
If Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government refuses to allow American troops to cross the border, what difference would it make if we put 15 million people in Afghanistan?

BR>

And Iraq is a large scale operation NOW??? What did it start out as? It doesn't matter. It didn't warrant being a large scale operation then, nor does it now.

How do you invade a country that's the size of California, has 25 million people, and has an army of 325,000 men without it being a large scale operation?

Military strategists are usually in the military. Leave the negotiation to the civilian negotiation strategists. It's not that I have a moral objection to threatening North Korea, it's just that any military threat is doomed to be seen as a bluff. The goal is to convince North Korea that they have more to gain by abandoning their weapons programs. If the country is on the brink of economic collapse and that fact should be exploited at the bargaining table.

Saying one thing and doing what's contradictory, that's hypocrisy. In your case, it would be saying it's hypocritical to attack Iraq for suspected WMD's while ignoring North Korea when it openly flaunted the advanced state of its program.

My implication is that the administration handled the wrong things at the wrong time in the wrong way. They made mistakes. They screwed up. Bin Laden is free. There is a psychopath with nukes. But wait!!! Let's be happy because we got Saddam!!! Can you remind me where his nukes were again...

1. The administration did shoddy work in war planning. They made a lot of mistakes. While all wars are filled with mistakes, sometimes catastrophic ones, the mistakes of the administration have become glaringly obvious.
2. Hiding in a cave, restricted to communication by passing notes carried by the mule express is not what I'd call "free."
3. North Korean nukes are mostly Clinton and also partly Bush 41's, along with the UN weapons inspectors fault. They fell asleep on watch duty.
4. If Saddam already had nuclear weapons, we probably wouldn't be able to take action against them. Nuclear blackmailing.
5. If this is to be a fight against global terrorist networks which threaten us, then al-Qaeda is but one of many to destroy.

philomedy

on Jan 24, 2005

"Greatest threat" does not always correspond with "requiring the greatest amount of resources."

But it should correspond to "requiring the greatest amount of attention from influential world leaders."

How do you invade a

country that's the size of California, has 25 million people, and has an army of 325,000 men without it being a large scale operation?

The size of the country in question does not warrant it being a large scale operation. We could invade Canada tomorrow, and we would probably need a sizable group to do it. That doesn't mean its warranted.

The goal is to convince North Korea that they have more to gain by abandoning their weapons programs. If the country is on the brink of economic collapse and that fact should be exploited at the bargaining table.

I think we agree on this so I don't know why we're fighting. The only problem I can see with it is that Kim Jong Il is not on the verge of financial collapse, and I don't see him caring one way or the other if his people are.

In your case, it would be saying it's hypocritical to attack Iraq for suspected WMD's while ignoring North Korea when it openly flaunted the advanced state of its program.

Not really hypocritical, because that would have required them to pledge some sort of effort to fix Korea first, which the administration never did. It was stupid, and it proved pretty quickly that WMD's wasn't the real reason that we were in Iraq, and it was really shoddy PR work on the part of whoever runs PR for the administration. Not hypocritical, though.

2. Hiding in a cave, restricted to communication by passing notes carried by the mule express is not what I'd call "free."

I will grant you this, as my original statement was unclear. I meant he is free to do the planning and organizational work to attack us again.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!