Bush rebuffs attack on Rumsfeld ~... "full support" in the wake of criticism by retired generals.

BBC ^ | Friday, 14 April 2006, 22:05 GMT 23:05 UK | staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush rebuffs attack on Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld has been accused of ignoring advice from commanders

US President George W Bush has assured Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of his "full support" in the wake of criticism by retired generals.

In a statement, the president rejected calls for Mr Rumsfeld to step down.

Mr Bush praised Mr Rumsfeld for his "energetic and steady leadership" during his years at the Pentagon.

Six retired generals have spoken out against Mr Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and apparent disdain for experienced military commanders.

The defence secretary has also personally dismissed suggestions that he should resign.

"Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defence of the United States it would be like a merry-go-round," he told Arabic TV channel al-Arabiya.

Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period US President George W Bush

But he did admit to regrets over the abuse of prisoners by US troops at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.

He offered his resignation during the 2004 furore over Abu Ghraib, but Mr Bush refused to accept it.

Strong backing

In his statement, Mr Bush dismissed claims that the defence secretary has not worked well with senior commanders.

	CRITICAL RETIRED GENERALS Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, Army Maj Gen John Riggs, Army Maj Gen John Batiste, Army Gen Anthony Zinni, Marines Lt Gen Gregory Newbold, Marines Maj Gen Paul Eaton, Army

"I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions," Mr Bush said.

"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period," he added.

"He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

The president stressed that under Mr Rumsfeld's guidance the US military has undergone a period of rapid transformation and faced a series of major overseas conflicts.

"That kind of change is hard, but our nation must have a military that is fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st century."

The BBC's Jane Little in Washington says it is highly unusual for Mr Bush to issue a statement from his Camp David retreat, where he is on holiday - but pressure is mounting on Mr Rumsfeld and the administration.

Divided opinion

Mr Bush's unequivocal backing for Mr Rumsfeld came amid growing discontent among recently-retired senior officers.

The two most senior generals to voice their unease were Maj Gen John Riggs and Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, both of the Army.

Mr Rumsfeld twice offered to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal

In a radio interview Gen Riggs, a former division commander, said Mr Rumsfeld fostered an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership.

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign," he told National Public Radio (NPR).

Retired Marine Gen Anthony Zinni told CNN Mr Rumsfeld should be held responsible for a series of mistakes, beginning with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq".

But others have come out in support of the embattled defence secretary.

Retired Marine Lt Gen Mike DeLong, who was deputy commander of Central Command as the US military prepared to invade Iraq in March 2003, said Mr Rumsfeld was good at his job.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Oh this is GOOD:

April 13, 2006
Grumbles From the Griped
Future of Warfare
Hatched by Dafydd

*************************************AN EXCERPT ************************************

Unity of command and unity of effort

Literally, the first means a soldier (of any rank) has one and only one commanding officer above him; but when combined with unity of effort, it implies not only bottom to top heirarchy but top to bottom. That is, at each level, the soldier makes only the little decisions and leaves the big decisions to his CO.

*********************************************

This has more or less been standard military doctrine for centuries, from Julius Caesar through Washington, Napoleon, Eisenhower, and Westmoreland.

However, in the modern era with modern communications and intelligence technology, this doctrine sometimes leads to soldiers being "over-officered," as in Vietnam --

*********************************************************

And Finally

*************************************************

One of Secretary Rumsfeld's reforms is, without question, to bend this doctrine without actually breaking it. Thus, rather than have one fellow ultimately directing every operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld wants units to operate more or less independently and on their own initiative -- while keeping in contact with the other units around them and bearing in mind the ultimate goals. Rumsfeld believes that the lieutenant, captain, or major on the ground -- or in many cases, the first or master sergeant -- is in a better position to respond quickly and appropriately to situations that can literally change by the minute.

The Colin Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force

I'm sure the Powell Doctrine is what MG Batiste means by the principle of "enough forces."

The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated. [Emphasis in original]

Again, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush reject this doctrine as outdated with today's warfare/statecraft challenges... hence, though we used a half a million troops to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), we used a scant 200,000 troops to take over the entire country of Iraq -- though it would have been about 220,000 if the 4ID had been able to traverse Turkey and invade Iraq from the north.

[FreeReign]

In a radio interview Gen Riggs, a former division commander, said Mr Rumsfeld fostered an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership. "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign," he told National Public Radio (NPR).

NPR only talks to generals when it satisfies their aganda.

Defund NPR. Enough from the back-sass generals.

[Marine_Uncle]

This stuff is going to go around in circles for years. To many things are not discussed in detail as to why the JCS decided to give the go ahead for the invasion when they did.
CENTCOM had plan A,B,C. A did not pan out with the 4ID. Plan B was executed. It was a total success, we lost hardly any ground troops and I believe very very few pilots or aviators.
No one from our sources,e.g. Iraqi, mentioned that we would have to deal with an insurgency. If we erred in not putting additional monies in the budget for an additional number of units to go in from day one, then so be it. But lets not forget. The insurgency took many months to develop. Only the Sunni where offering resitance at first, and it was very minimal. To think an addtional 200K ground troops would have prevented the insurgency from coming to be is ridiculous IMHO. They would simply have done the same damn thing they decided on doing. You could have had 10 million troops on the ground. Heaven only knows where you would have placed them, but the various forms of the insurgency would have did the same thing. Try to pick off small units and plant IEDs.
So I continue to believe this is a politcizing, and meant to get back at GWB and Rummy for less then honorable reasons.

[johna61]

Those DemonRat Generals might as well be working for Bin Laden or Saddam. What a bunch of traitors.

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

As a 20 year retiree of the U.S. Navy (Fast Attack Submarines, Special Projects) and an enlisted puke, even I understand that the civilians (President, SecDef) make policy, it is the military's job to carry out that policy, provided that the orders are lawful. How stupid (more likely egotistical) are these idiot generals?

[onedoug]

Since when is Rumsfeld commander in chief?

One guesses the MSM knows they can't get to Bush, so this is their alternative.

These fifth columnists must really be stupid if they think they'd have their jobs for long if we lose this war. They'd be among the first to have their throats cut.

[RSM]

Who are these "Generals?" As a former enlisted man, I am stunned, why not take the stars off and hand them in and then speak? Remember Gen Johnson (CSA) during Vietnam? The greatest moral failure...

Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, Army- CG of the 82d Abn Div. Affairs with a woman not his wife "allegations" led to retirement.

Maj Gen John Riggs, Army- Improper conduct (contracting) Retirement

Maj Gen John Batiste, Army- Paul Wolfowitz top military aid, couldn't speak his mind? Getting third star but slipped away...President of Steel Company...money not war

Gen Anthony Zinni, Marines- Oh, USS Cole got hit where? Who approved that plan to port?

Lt Gen Gregory Newbold, Marines- "I'm looking forward to a job that doesn't have the intensity and lack the quality of life that this one has." What about the enlisted guys? Remember "the combat power of the Taliban has been eviscerated".

Maj Gen Paul Eaton, Army- David Hackworth wrote a critical column on Gen Eaton's leadership dealing with Rangers. He was not the man to train the Iraqi Army and had no idea of what he was doing. Look what that Iraqi Battalion did in its first firefight, guess that was SecDefs fault.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for that info!

[mystery-ak]

Very interesting post...as my 1sg hubby said..these guys have an axe to grind about something....now I see what they were...

[Rome2000]

Not all of our military has their heads screwed on straight.

[Rome2000]

Algore is very concerned about the rights of mooselimbs. From his "speech"

At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.

Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges.

According to the 2000 Democrat party Presidential nominee,apparently Bush has his own "interrogators" now, who are killing, breaking, and humiliating our barbarian raghead enemy.

Algore won the popular vote in 200 and tried to steal the Presidency

The "New York Times" and "Newsweek" are not monolithic faceless alien oracles.

They are run by the the likes of the leftist homosexual on the right, ARTHUR SULZBERGER JR, and the socialist crook on the left, DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post.

Every day these 2 enemies of the state unleash a horde of minor league propagandists on the American psyche in a blatant attempt to topple any GOP government that is elected by the American people.

They do not care if innocent civilians or soldiers die as a result and national security be damned.

2006 is the year they will be stopped.

They will no longer be able to hide unde a cloak of annonymity.

They will be exposed and their names equated with treacherous acts.

They and their komrades will be surveilled and brought up on charges.

OFFICERS

Chairman Emeritus: Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, age 71, $1,397,200 pay (prior to title change)

Chairman; Publisher, The New York Times: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., age 46, $960,200 pay (prior to promotion)

VC and SVP: Michael Golden, age 48

President and CEO: Russell T. Lewis, age 50, $882,235 pay (prior to promotion)

SVP Operations and Acting CFO: John M. O'Brien, age 54

SVP and Deputy COO: David L. Gorham, $796,000 pay

This is the face of the enemy.

His name is Donald Newhouse, billionaire democrat and managing director of the Associated Press, a leftist propaganda organ comitted to undermining the GOP at any cost, including the security of the nation.

Make no mistake about it.

The attempt to discredit the secretay of the WOT is being perpetrated by the individuals listed above and their allies.

They must pay for their crimes and must be arrested after the next attack on the homeland.

[Marine_Uncle]

The fact is these guys are all bitter. Our air and ground elements literally decimated more Iraqi divsions and entered the capital faster then any other army in the history of warfare. They are bitter, and as the articles point out, a bunch of guys that where resisting the call for modernizing the army as well as other services.
Mostly Clintonite appointes. And that says a lot. As for Marines. Look at Murtha. I can see he would have taken the same approach Zeni has. Old school. Powell Plan. Like he invented something.
This is all just rubbish. And real dirty rubbish at that. And I beat it is having practically zip effect on our men who are doing the combat. They probably are glad these guys left.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good comments.....I'm glad they left.

I'll bet Zuni is trying to follow Wesley Clark.

[rlmorel]

Have you ever met or been around Rumsfeld? How do you know I or anyone else would hate him from the get-go?

The troops hate his guts? Really? Do you have personal experience with all the troops, or a small circle of them?

I'm not being a wise guy, I really want to know. I have experience working for a hard charging Army Colonel who made bitter, bitter enemies, but accomplished a huge amount, more than anyone else could have in that position.

It has been my experience that people who come in and turn things upside down and don't rule by democratic consensus, generally incite a great deal of animosity.

On the other hand, people who come into a situation and go with the flow, don't rock the boat, and who may be incompetent, lazy or whatever, do not usually engender the type of hatred the go-getters do. But they don't get anything done either.

[nopardons]

bttt

[WOSG]

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda."

SHOCKING!!

Next, you'll shock us by saying that the President feels entitled to decide what's in the national interest.

Or horrors, that they dare have an 'agenda' that defends America's sovereignty.

[WOSG]

"It has been my experience that people who come in and turn things upside down and don't rule by democratic consensus, generally incite a great deal of animosity."

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR!

Rummy doesnt suffer fools lightly, that is why he is (a) A good CEO-type and (b) not well-like by clueless press corps and ego-driven generals who got their feathers ruffled by his style.

[RJS1950]

7-10 POS clinton generals. They're a pimple on the ass of time against the thousand+ living retired general officers who aren't raising hell.

[Grampa Dave]

"I continue to believe this is a politcizing, and meant to get back at GWB and Rummy for less then honorable reasons."

Also, another example of why many of us feel that liberals should not serve in our all volunteer military. They probably caused problems while on active duty because their loyalty is to the Democratic Party and not our country. After they retire, it obvious where their loyalties are.