Dear FRONTLINE,

I retired from the Air Force after 20 years and served in the field of counter intelligence and counter espionage. The administration never produced any proof, as far as I was concerned, which made their case for war. The civilians in the Defense Department, and others in the Bush administration, should have stuck to policy making and let the military experts develope the battle plans. They tried to wage war on the cheap and failed. This misadventure has further de-stablized a very troubled region. Unfortunatley we cannot leave it this way and will have to pour more troops and money into it before we can leave.

I have a personal stake in this, my oldest son is currently serving there. He was also there during the Gulf War. Hopefully with the leadership of a new President things will be put right and we can get the hell out of this mess.

James Watkins
Redmond, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Rumsfeld's approach to "transforming/transitioning" the military is a good idea, it needs it to a certain extent. I have listened to him speak on C-Span and agree with several of his ideas and plans for the future of America's military force.

There is a time and place for everything, and this was NOT a time to put an idea in it's infancy up against the consolidated knowledge of several upon several years of TRUE military experience. And to further alienate and stifle the experience of America's miltitary is, to this American, NOT truly supporting our troops in the best means possible. It is arrogant and dangerous and, tied in with Rumsfeld's sidestepping of the Geneva Convention, is close to, if not, illegal.

And even though he did not get his 50,000 troop depoloyment the 140,000 troops was still a complete miscalculation for the WAR AS A WHOLE. Comprimise of ideas is the ONLY way anything is accomplished successfully. An idea a wresteler will not get if he is forced to play a team sport.

Further, if Cheney started this DOWNSIZING of our military in Bush 41's term, and Rumsfeld continued this in Bush 43's term as this new quick strike force miltary, WHY is ANYONE saying that Clinton OR Kerry is not supporting the troops by wanting to "DOWNSIZE" the military. Clinton was only continuing what Cheney started and further emphasized technology in the military and intelligence. Isn't this the same tact that Mr. Rumsfeld is taking, less spending, more technical and streamlined military?

Nobody is perfect, no administration has gotten it "RIGHT" every time. However, to ignore and even stifle experienced opinions that may not agree exactly with your own, and to do it so many times on so many different aspects of this administrations policies leaves a very bad image in many Americans political, moral and ethical minds.

Dan Miller
Marysville, Ohio

Dear FRONTLINE,

The experts said they needed 520,000 troops to win in Iraq and predicted thousands of casualties. The war was won with 150,000 troops with far fewer casualties than estimated. It does appear that there were too few troops for effective control after we won the war.

I think that scores two rights and one wrong for Rumsfeld and two wrongs and one right for the military experts. There is a often quoted phrase that says: generals are always fighting the last war. The History channel has chronicled the many mistakes made in past wars. This terroist war is like one we have never fought before.

Dick Eckstein
Portola Valley, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a former criminology researcher, your excellent documentary reminded me of the police training rule: never enter a situation (eg arrest someone with inadequate backup) you cannot maintain control of, or you invite violence to yourself and/or the other party.

Your interviews are a clear illustration of how breaking that rule and ignoring tried and true advice in the process of seemingly reasonable innovation led to the current disaster in Iraq.

While bending too far backwards to highlight positive aspects of Mr. Rumsfeld, it was overall a fascinating and clear eyed portrait of Rumsfeld and the neocons strengths which gave them influence and their hubris, literally fatal to many others if not their careers yet.

Levi Berkowitz-Salutin
Vancouver, British Columbia

Dear FRONTLINE,

A wonderful program, albeit a thought provoking and disturbing
one. Much of the information has been available in one form or
another, but I believe this is first time all of it has been
presented in one forum. I believe that you presentation was as
fair as could be expected considering the 'mess' that the vulcans have left for the next President to solve.

The problem, however, can not just be laid on the desk of Rumsfeld...Remember he works for Bush and the buck is suppose
to stop in the White House. These gentlemen had the opportunity
to do this right, if at all, and they rushed into Iraq without
a comprehensive plan and we and the people of Iraq are suffering.

Good job and keep up the good work.

Jim Groom
Grass Valley, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thanks for helping make my mind up on who to Vote for, Kerry or Bush.

The Washington Post has endorsed Mr. Kerry, maybe they can tell us what he stands for or what he has done in the last twenty years instead of telling me how bad Rumsfeld is, you know fair and balance. It looks like to me that PBS and the Wastington Post can only ride in the back seat of the war and tell us how bad it is in Irag. I did not hear one positive comment. Bottom line, united we stand divided we fall thereby I am voting for President Bush. Oh by the way did Runsfeld have anything to do with us not being attacked again since 9/11 or did we send a message via Irag, that another attack wouldn't be a good idea. It's nice to know that no WMD's are coming our way from Irag! I'am sleeping better thanks to President Bush.

Get positive, fair and balance.

Harvellee Sannella
Escondido, Ca.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Frontline did an excellant job of explaining Powell's actions to me. I had wondered why he stayed on and why he seemed to "dance with the devil".I did not like thinking of him as a sell out and I could not figure out why he was letting this administration drag him so far down in the mire, but I can see now that he stayed to protect those he had worked with and a military that he graced during his career.

It is sad that Rumsfeld has thrown away the Geneava principles. I am glad that my father who worked at the Pentagon while he was in the military has not lived to see this.

ALee Jones
Snohomish, Washington

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thanks for the honest documentary on Rumsfield. It pains me to think about Rumsfield on the news every night, gleeful to the point of exhuberhance, after the so-called "victory". He proved his point up to a point. A smaller, more nimble war machine can be effective. Like many military leaders over the centuries who overeach (Napolean and Hitler come to mind) without thought of long-term consequences we are in a quagmire of Viet Nam proportions. When ideology usurps thoughtful questioning, poking, and deep analysis of potenttal consequences, and the military cannot openly question their superiors, as diplayed by this Administration, we are destined to fail.

I'll never forget the nightly newscasts right after the war. Rumsfield was acting almost childlike with glee in the success of the war. When the Iraqi's realized the Americans had no follow up plan, looting immediatley ocurred and post-war rule of law was not established by Rumsfield. It has degenerated ever since.

You don't see much of Rumsfield on the news anymore, with the excetion of Abu Ghari. He is now viewed as a hindrance in the election campaign of George W. Bush. If Bush wins, I am sure Rumsfield can take his plae within the Administration because Bush needs him. Iran is the next Middle East country on the neocon agenda.

Patrick Carano
Tallmadge, Ohio

Dear FRONTLINE,

I would like to congratulate you one more time on an excellent program. It would have been good to hear Mr Rumsfeld's comment on the decisions that have been taken with regard the military deployment in Iraq. I am disappointed that he declined to be interviewed or comment.

I fear that this administration has been the voice of the chosen few, and I hope that this country wakes up to this reality on November 2nd. The "War on Terror" is a global war, and requires a global solution. (All countries cooperating and acting in accord to counter terrorism)

Richard Keyes McDonnell

Dear FRONTLINE,

The military is still in transition and the initial conduct of the battles in both Afghanistan and Iraq seem to prove the point that less than massive forces were required to "defeat" the enemy. This documentary clearly shows that the initial defeat was only a part of the overall objective and that apparently this administrations defense civilian leaders and the white house itself, have miscalculated what it would take to complete the tasks in both theaters.

My only concern is that this material will be viewed by a limited (albeit important audience), but will not be seen by the broader population. Is there any way to have this show again on PBS television and other cable outlets prior to the election? A wider viewing and discussion beyond the PBS website is critical to a more comprehensive debate that could bear on our future conduct of the War on terror.

Earl LaMothe
Oceanside, California

Dear FRONTLINE,

It is difficult to condense my reaction to Rumsfeld's War in a few words. The one word that comes closest is gutwrenching.

My son is an Officer in the Army and he is about to be deployed to Iraq for the second time. I am truly concerned that he will be returning there at a time when the process of "transformation" is clearly ill-defined and under the supervision of a group of neo-cons who have not served in the military themselves and seem bent on disregarding the direction of the military leaders who have.

I certainly value both transparent and civilian oversight of military matters. I feel powerless to impact the "numble efficiency" vs. "safety in strength and numbers" debate which your program describes as being played out in real time with our troops in Iraq in harm's way on a daily basis. At this point the only way I might have an impact is with my vote next Tuesday. At least Kerry is willing to bolster the numbers by attempting to re-engage our former allies.

As an ardent student of military history my son is fully cognizant of the complexities of the arena into which he is stepping. He is ready and willing to go, as I suspect most young men throughout the history of wars have been, not in the service of tactical "transformation", but to use his acquired knowledge and skill honorably to protect the backs of his fellow soldiers.

Maryann Rollie
Alexandria, Minnesota

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you. It's nearly impossible to watch TV these days without being subjected to spin--either from candidates (both parties) or from the news.

Frontline is one of the few remaining programs still trying to keep reporting bias at bay. I'm a Republican and I cherish Frontline's journalistic purity.

The Rumsfeld story reminds us that few issues are simple. And the people involved always have both strengths and inevitable weaknesses. We should learn from both.

Mark Trampe
Lincoln, NE

Dear FRONTLINE,

Wile the transformation of the military in and of itself is an interesting and important, the personalities under and context in which those transformations occur are vital for understanding that transformation.

The future of American military doctrine will be shaped not just by policy wanks, but the eccentricities of its architects (in this case Rumsfeld and Franks,) its (perceived) successes in various test cases (Afghanistan and Iraq), and ñ yes ñ the bureaucratic infighting between institutions that are reluctant to change. In short, personality conflicts do matter, because ñ like it or not ñ they will shape the future of the military. Not to mention that Iraq (and how we got into it) is a timely issue in this election.

Bob Villa
Portland, OR

Dear FRONTLINE,

After reviewing this report, I have renewed my faith that in America all voices/perspectives can be heard. Every story; No! Every fact will have the perspective of interpretation.

I have read all of the posts so far listed on this website and am amazed that many have forgotten that facts will never be presented without some perspective and interpretation. My concern is that we throw out facts because we don't like the lense by which the fact is presented. There are some facts that are presented in this story that should not be ignored.

I don't care what lense you look through, it appears more and more everyday that we are still involved in a "war" that has been labled "won" and where everyday our men and women are being killed. As a democratic nation we have an opportunity to look seriously at the "facts" and vote or continue to argue about perspective and bury our heads in the sand. Just yesterday Colin Powell (as reported in USA Today) stated that N. Korea is a "terrorist state" that shows "no repect whatsoever for human rights."

With more than 20 of our active battalions involved with Iraq what are our resources for other world areas? When do we decide to do something different than what we are doing now? Perspective has its place, but not to ignore what is becomeing "self-evident."

Thank you for your very thought provoking presentation of some historical and current facts.

J Frame
Nampa, Idaho

Dear FRONTLINE,

It took a lot to keep me from watching the World Series tonight, but an interesting NOVA program on evolutionary 'missing links' and then your very engrossing FRONTLINE show kept me so enthralled that when I finally tuned back in to the game in the later innings I felt like I had hardly missed a thing. The drama was that good. The reporting was that intense. The subject matter was that important. Thank you for helping me keep my eye on the ball!

Stephen Smalley
Hutchinson, Kansas