Posted on 04/15/2006 8:14:44 AM PDT by churchillbuff
In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.
This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment.
This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet under way, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war.
As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed.
The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war.
Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point:
"Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force. ..."
With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary.
Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies.
Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results."
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation.
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war.
As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own.
But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher.
Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them?
Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916.
And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired.
In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war.
Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu River, thanks to Harry Truman.
In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.
MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight
Are these generals hold overs from the Kinton regime and have some sort of axe to grind? What general worth his salt dosen't think that he knows better than the next guy up the chain of command? If they had the balls, why did they not speak up when they were on active duty?
Bring back trench warfare./s
Not true. Bush and Rummy were warned by the generals that they'd need many more troops for post-invasion stabilization of Iraq.
And speaking of revolting, why, heeere's PAT!
No, they've been commanding men in Iraq and they know that Rummy's policy of too-few troops, too poorly provisioned, was wrong from the beginning and has cost lives.
Doesn't mean they're not Clinton holdovers. It's not as though a new president is going to purge all the old generals. This isn't Russia. (yet)
Pat cites another great general, MacArthur, who also had the courage to blow the whistle on incompetent civilian "leadership"
Czar Nicholas was deposed and then executed by the Bolsheviks. Wonder why Buchana picked him to compare to Bush?
BUsh and Rummy were publicly warned by more than one general that they weren't sending enough troops. I'm glad that these (different) generals, aren't letting the public forget that, because it was a monumental mistake.
Most I believe are holdouts from the Klintonista days. These are the new Wesly Clarks and the left are going to do their best to make hay with them. Just like Cindy SH!t-han they will be discarded once they have outlived their usefullness to the MSM. They now have book deals and speaking engagements to promote and are saying what the MSM want to hear so they can promote them. These clowns don't have the balls, obviously, because they waited until they retired to guarantee their pensions before they opened their pieholes. Don't get me wrong, I admire their service to this country just as I do Murtha's but just like him they have "jumped the shark". I'll stick with Norman and Tommy when I want a general's opinion. They are proven winners.
Not all generals are great military men....just good pentagon politicians....
5 generals out of several hundred retired generals/admirals is hardly an issue....
This is much ado about nothing except that the liberal media wants so deperately to have the military agree with their anti-war stance they'll grab at a few malcontentents as validation of their misguided and innapropriate stance.....
It's laughable at best....
These generals just spit on our troops in the field; if they thought this, they should have resigned and spoken out then, not wait for full retirement,and the benefits that go along with them. These retired generals get no respect from this citizen.
Ah, the drive by media's job is almost done.
As usual, Pat hops on the bandwagon of these loser general officers. CNN loves these guys and good old brainless Pat loves anyone who knocks President Bush and his cabinet. Pat should stick to his day job of being the comedian on the McGlaughlin Group.
I haven't heard of generals with this much spine since MacArthur. In Vietnam, the White House micromanaged the war and kept us from winning it, but he generals (who must have been furious) kept quiet. These Iraq WAr generals are showing more backbone.
According to you and several other Bush-haters.
Let's ask the liberals in the drive-by media who've fabricated this little exercise, shall we?
What it sounds like to me is, someone didn't like being passed over for that extra star.
"5 generals out of several hundred retired generals/admirals is hardly an issue...."
____________________________________
Actually its a few thousand.....
Rumsfeld himself had about the same reply to these Generals....basically...its big deal what they say.
Monday morning quarterbacking is all it is......useless, except to aid and abet and enourage the enemy...and the democrats.
I'm glad Bush is supportive of Rumsfeld and caving to these self aggrandizing idiots.
"Losers"? THey presided over the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Are you saying it's a loss? That's what your statement implies -- that they lost the war.
Since this is, by your estimation, a "botched war," perhaps you should tell us who else has been able to take two countries with under three thousand casualties.
The idiocy of this meme is illustrated by the fact that even in the ancient world it didn't happen.
Maj. Gen. John Batiste was offered three stars if he returned to command in Iraq, but refused because he didn't want to 'work with' Rumsfeld anymore.
Correction....
Rumsfeld himself had about the same reply to these Generals....basically....its NO big deal what they say.
Yes, he hasn't been so supportive of an administration official since he said "Brownie" was doing a "Great job" at KAtrina.
Care to define what you mean by "spine"?
So do I, and he performed an eternal service by letting Americans know that Truman was sending their sons to die without a commitment to win the war.
One hundred percent correct!
Courage. The courage to tell hard truths about the mismanagement of this war -- knowing that they'd be ganged up on by Bush-bots.
Bush cannot afford to fire Rumsfeld. Nor will Rumsfeld resign.
I'm not sure what the generals are trying to achieve. It could be to let the public know that a lot of senior military on active duty despise Rumsfeld and do not trust his judgment.
It could also just be disgust venting.
Rumsfeld at this point is already a lame duck SecDef. Congress doesn't respect his opinions enough to care about what he says on acquisition. The brass are digging in their heels to slow any changes he wants to make until after he leaves. He's already lost the fight to 'transform' the military - look at the QDR.
Rumsfeld was good for the military during his first 3 years or so - there was a lot of shaking up to do. However, he's outlived his usefulness. Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that.
Well, this implies that every retired general will be right when talking about 'war' as you say. That, of course, is not realistic. These generals may be right, time will tell.
But, there are something like 9,000 retired generals of all stars as reported by FNC. So, 6 out of 9,000??
Also, have you seen any reporting on retired generals that support the war, the approach and Rumsfeld? No? Does that mean there aren't any? Of course not. That means the antique media is not reporting on them.
I know it appears that hundreds of generals are against this because the lame stream media has had these 6 on camera hundreds of times. Do not get suckered into the antique media game plan.
Courage? LOL! He's selling a book.
"BUsh and Rummy were publicly warned by more than one general that they weren't sending enough troops."
Too bad you cannot read the meaning of the demand for more troops. It is WASHINGTON SPEAK!!!! Get It?
It means that we needed a draft. We do have have sufficient forces in the services to field the ARMY the Shinsheki's and Zinni's were demanding. That means, NO WAR!
A draft, training, coordinating, logistics....DEFEATISM BEFORE WE START!
Got it? A WASHINGTON RUN AROUND!
Our military should never be placed in a nation-building role, they should be warriors. Leave peace-keeping, nation-building, etc. to someone else.
And that's the right way to do it, which is the huge dilemma as I see things. Rumsfeld is manifestly incompetent (and I've been saying that since 2003) but it's not right for the civilian leadership to be overthrown at the demand of the military..
My personal opinion is that the damage in Iraq itself is already done, and replacing Rumsfeld won't help now, so Rumsfeld should stay because civilian rule is paramount. Even incompetent civilian rule is better than a military coup, IMHO.
PS. Yeah, I know my opinion is in the definite minority here, so that's all I'm gonna say about this.
A typical excuse that holds ZERO truth. These officers served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2. The problem is Rumsfeld ... he was and is .... WRONG! Active duty Generals did speak up and Rumsfeld insulted them and the army .... publicly and often. People here on FR would claim that they knew nothing .... that they were Clinton hold overs ....
Rumsfeld is trying to complete the mistakes he many over thirty years ago. Then he left the military in a shambles and those "Hold overs" took that destroyed military and made it into the best in the world. We don't need Rumsfeld to destroyed it.
Can't speak of the particular officers, but I have heard some things.
The military has a lot of trouble retaining O2s and O3s.
There is a reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.