Dear FRONTLINE,

I am shocked and dismayed that such a wonderful program is only marginally noticed by the general public. You have so poignantly reported what many of us have sensed for so long. We have more than suspected that Rumsfeldís war was long in the planning and that 9/11 only provided the necessary pretext.

Just this morning I was engaged in what I can only describe as a disappointing discussion with someone who still maintains an undecided opinion on who to vote for. I just cannot understand how anyone can be uncertain on the vices of rewarding the current administration with four more years.

And by the way, I must also thank you for restoring my once tarnished reverence of Colin Powell.

Dan Parkins

Dear FRONTLINE,

It seems many of the viewers think your show was Democratic propaganda aimed at attacking the Bush administration just before the election. Those people may have a point. If this were a balanced program it would have at least mentioned the fact that there would have been no action taken in Iraq if the Senate and the House of Representatives had not approved the "Use of Force" in Iraq resolution. This omission made it look like the blame for this war lies soley on Rumsfeld and the Bush admistration.

I think the blame also lies with the senators(John Kerry included) and congressmen who abdicated their responsiblity to declare war and gave Bush full authority to go to war with Iraq when Bush felt it was required. Your program showed Colin Powell making the case for war to the U.N. but omitted the case for war that was presented to the U.S. Congress. The congressional approval for the "Use of Force" in Iraq was a more important event in the road to war than Colin Powell making the case to the U.N.

I realize this was not a program about the 2004 election, but it seems a bit unfair to air this program just one week before an election and fail to mention that the preemptive Iraq war had the approval of most of the U.S. Senate including John Kerry.

G S

Dear FRONTLINE,

I find it funny that some people respect most of frontlines reporting, but not on this issue. I also beleive that FL is a good source of indepth, comprihensive reporting which I view regularlly. Again I think FL did a good job in this program. This show has backed up what I have been saying about the war for quite sometime. I just think that the people who would benefit from this show most are watching the wrong media outlets.

steve deville
boise, id

Dear FRONTLINE,

Very informative piece. I agree with Rumsfeld's idea on a lighter, faster response army. Furthermore, I adhere that civilian control over the military is necessary to preserve democracy. My only criticism is that Rumsfeld should be more careful that he doesn't alienate the armed forces, we still need them. Now, though I don't consider myself a neo-con, I agree with the idea of pre-emptive strikes. The world is changing and I think the greater powers should take a more active stance in creating world stability, instead of letting latent threats build which result in another blindside like 9/11. However I believe armed force should be used in conjunction with other methods i.e. economic, political, and even social initiatives; And America should be very careful at going at this alone. It's time America started taking steps to making the costs of policing the world diffuse so we do not expend ourselves while the rest of the world benefits from the security we provide. Which brings me to my final point, if we were going to shun our allies in such a blatant fashion; this war should have been better planned. If we were going to squander our world credibility capital on this Iraq issue, you would think this administration would have put more thought into it. What is at stake for the U.S. in Iraq is an exponential increase in the erosion of our global influence. We cannot afford to let this happen. Some may accuse me of being slightly ethnocentric but I truly believe that only America can lead the way creating a better world for the rest of the globe.

Bajo Sonubi
Athens, Ga

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am again baffled that the tremendous success of what we have accomplished in Iraq is being overshadowed (or attempting to) by a one sided "documentary." Our troops have done great things for that country. In addition, what is wrong with having fewer troops on the ground if you can still march across a country within a short period of time. Common sense would say that if you have more troops on the ground, there is more probability of soilders being wounded or killed. We are dealing with an enemy that knows no boundaries of traditional warfare.

Lastly, I am truly ashamed that you have portrayed Don Rumsfeld in such a one sided and negative light. He has transformed the way our military operates into a lighter and more effective force. That is the only way we are going to defeat the enemy we now face.

I am disappointed that my tax dollars actually funded this program. That is an issue that should be up for debate.

J L
N, IN

Dear FRONTLINE,

When I tuned in, I hoped for a serious discussion of Force Transformation. Instead, I got a detailed description of political wrangling.

Itís as if Frontline presented the history of Toyota vs. the Big Three and ignored the concept of Lean Production.

For those who are interested in the intellectual battle that is underway in military circles, I recommend becoming familiar with such concepts as OODA, Net-Centric Operations, and Sensemaking. The Office of Force Transformation web site (www.oft.osd.mil) has a number of briefings and white papers that are a good point of departure.

Maybe, just maybe, thereís someone at Frontline whoís interested in creating a program about the fundamental shift in military strategy that is underway, instead of a chronicle of personality clashes.

Walter Smith
Rockwall, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

I recall meeting Don Rumsfeld in an elevator in the early 1990s. He was leaving a conference at then ATI, a defense contractor. He spoke very briefly of his agenda and I (along with another contractor) assured him that we contractors were an extension of the DoD, and were behind whatever structure became doctrine. We were, after all, mostly veterans.

His agenda to reduce military size fit well with the end of our global mission, the imparative to control world affairs as an international cop, as dictated by the cold war. Downsizing and peace dividends seemed good for America.

Recent events have proven that he went too far. Logistics, as I think Napolean said, are the backbone of the Army. Furthermore, we must maintain an army of occupation. The smaller, nimbler attack phase has merrit, the rest has failed.

The neo-conservative agenda holds that we must now act unilateraly. It suggests that this is our moment to control world affairs. As an old fashioned conservative, and not a neo-conservative, I cannot find any support for this foreign domination in the Constitution nor in the desires of the American people. While I agree that we must end terrorism, we must live within our means and either create an army of occupation of sufficient size, or stick to surgical strikes, containment and disarmament. The former is expensive.

In the end, I believe, the Generals will be proven to have been right. All that study and lifetimes of dedication were not wrong, to be swept aside by Rumsfeld. Furthermore, the nature of economics will also prove the neo-conservatives wrong. I fear the trip back from this dead end vision of U.S. power will be painful if it is slow. We, the people, have failed to support our Generals as they served us, and we may just owe them an apology.

Matthew Kern
falls church, va

Dear FRONTLINE,

I was very disappointed with your less-than-objective presentation on the Secretary of Defense and the Iraq war. I've come to admire Frontline's straightforward analysis on past issues, but it's clear your production team harbors deep anti-Bush administration/anti-Iraqi Freedom views that permeate this production.

Case in point - Secretary of the Army Thomas White was asked to resign not because of his or Chief of Staff of the Army Shinseki's opinions on troop strength levels for Iraq; he was relieved because he circumvented Rumsfeld months earlier in lobbying Congress behind the scenes to save the Crusader mobile artillery system, a Cold War-era weapon system out of touch with needs of the modern asymmetrical warfighting environment. Your production mentioned nothing of this - nor, of course, did Secretary White in his interview. Viewers are left with the impression that he was fired solely because he was not a team player concerning Iraq. That is simply not true.

Another instance - Rumsfeld's appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee in the wake of the Abu Ghraid prison scandal. Indeed, it was a low moment for the Department of Defense, as the actions of these soldiers stained the honor of all soldiers and inflamed anti-American opinion in the Arab world. Rumsfeld's performance, though, contrary to your narrator's assessment, was strong, decisive, and persuasive, and left no doubt that the individuals committing these acts were wrong and would be swiftly punished. Again, your presentation insinuates that Rumsfeld's "rush to war" was responsible for this breakdown in order, that he pushed to fight the war on the cheap and take shortcuts that resulted in these soldiers doing the wrong thing. This was not the case, but you'd think it was after watching your presentation.

Go back to your prior objective "documentaries", and I'll think twice about sitting out the Frontline presentation.

Pete Bilden

Dear FRONTLINE,

Secretary Rumsfeld's plan of liberating Iraq was a succeful in the extent of liberating the country from the tyrant. However, better plans could have been made to stablize the country after the fall of the ex-regime.

A country of a quite large size area an population, rulled by a butcher, definately requires time and patiense to recover from the fall of Saddam, reorganize its resources, reorganize new humane security appratuses, create a democratic government, and ultimately create a civilized society that is based on the rule of law.

In general, the process is in the right track but requires time.

Butan Amedi
Atlanta, GA

Dear FRONTLINE,

First, I want to congratulate you on an excellent report on the Rumsfeld defense cadre. After watching the program, I feel both sickened and vindicated. As a former Reserves officer and prior service enlisted person, I had come to understand that one of the greatest strengths the Americans had over our cold war enemies was the fact that we would feel free to report the truth as we believe it to be to our superiors, whether civilian or military, unlike the Soviets who feared severe reprisals. Now we learn that the shameless dismissal of General Shinseki and Secretary White (not to mention General Zinni) came about as the direct result of their truthful testimony. In the course of time, the Assistant Secretary of Defense demanded their resignation. But, although these events sicken me, I am left vindicated by my own resolution to tell the truth of my convictions under difficult circumstances, and I thank God for the freedom of speech and the Press. I sincerely hope that this broadcast will lead to a review of the tragic facts of the deaths of the more than eleven hundred American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and contractors whose deaths were the result of Mr. Wolfowitz's miscalculations, and I call for his ouster.

Kathleen O'Connor-Bater

Dear FRONTLINE,

Rumsfeld's War is a strong look at the strategies and bureaucracy that occurs when we engage in conflict. If we are to exert our values and beliefs of democracy on countries, all while the world watches, it is important that we include the advisement of top military personnel. Men of combat experience and strategic knowledge should be allies not alienated. Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, Chenney and President Bush may have stirred a bee's nest.

Chris Setzler
Philadelphia, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,

As an objective independent, I appreciated the analysis of the behind-the-scences view of the Afganistan and Iraq engagements. I am especiallly concerned about the radical views of Mr. Wolfowitz. On the other hand, I understand how the entrenched military bureaucracy will resist new approaches. However, I find the scheduling of this piece prior to the election curious. Can I also expect an equally rigorous analysis of Mr. Kerry's actions to be aired? Some have charged PBS with liberal bias. The follow-thru of my PBS pledge hinges on your actions.

Dick Taylor
Travelers Rest, sc

Dear FRONTLINE,

The decision by Rumsfeld to push for a smaller more nimble military and to "transform the military" was probably a good idea. As some of the interviewees stated on your show, the Army was preparing for the wrong wars. But apparently the baby went down the drain with the dirty water.

Certainly nothing more could be at stake for the Army and for our nation than is in Iraq. The war has failed in planning, it distracted the U.S. from fighting Al Queda, and has created a deadly quagmire no one has a plan to extract us from constructively. Rumsfeld's and the administration's unwillingness to admit the errors is most frightening for the future of our nation and the world.

The program discussed the possibility that the all volunteer army will reach a breaking point. More is at stake: the disproportionate spending by the U.S. on military is driving us to the brink of economic, and eventually environmental, collapse. Certainly some figures on spending--which now often goes to totally useless equipment--would have been useful.

With our Iraq occupation, the global hatred of the United States has multiplied, and most of all in nations outside the wealthy OECD nations who have been left behind after nearly 60 years of "the development project". Fighting terrorism requires understanding foreign cultures and addressing the desires of people around the world for not just "democracy" or "freedom" as we define it.

Until fair rules and real equitable development begins to happen, and as long as we bomb and shoot, a thousand Bin Ladens will grow in the ripe fields of disgust with our national arrogance.

J.T. Roberts
williamsburg, virginia

Dear FRONTLINE,

I find it disheartening that so many viewers are misguided or choose to ignore the truth. The leadership in this White House, the Pentagon and the CIA failed to provide, plan or listen to experienced men and women in uniform in conducting this campaign. The end result being that the American military has taken an unnecessary risk at defeat and loss of young American lives.

The Pentagon needed more troops, better supplies and material and most of all a Commander in Chief with the knowledge and experience to listen and act on sound advice, not ego or raw emotion or theory. They should be fired for their incompetence!!!

Clayton Aarons

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have been a closet Frontline fan for long enough. this time you have truly outdone yourself. I am absolutely shocked by what went on behind closed doors over the last few years. This should change some minds before Nov. 2nd. I fear for a draft, but more importantly I fear that the military has crumbled.

It is amazing how in four short years, 225 years of military dominance is rescinded. Thanks to frontline. I am proud to live in America where we can analyze the actions of our leaders.

Kara Jackman