Another dissenting general is retired Army Major General John Batiste. Batiste says Rumsfeld is a disaster and has called him “contemptuous, dismissive and arrogant” toward career officers. But that’s not what he told his men when Rumsfeld visited them in Tikrit in 2004: “This is a man with the courage and the conviction to win the war on terrorism.” Sure, Batiste wouldn’t have criticized Rumsfeld in front of the troops, but why the flip-flop from courageous to contemptuous?
Here is how Batiste explains this in the WSJ:
"...Just weeks before his troops left Iraq, the general had an opportunity to confront Mr. Rumsfeld publicly. The secretary, who was making a 2004 Christmas tour through Iraq, came to meet with him and take questions from his troops.
Gen. Batiste introduced Mr. Rumsfeld to his soldiers as a "man with the courage and conviction to win the war on terrorism." The general says he was disillusioned with Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership at the time, but felt he needed to pump up his soldiers who were in the final days of a grueling, bloody deployment."
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB114748270803051995.html
It is one of the core principles of leadership that you never, ever, are dishonest to your subordinates. You don't lie, you don't ommitt unless absolutely necessary, you never shade the truth at all. You shoot straight, period. My 11 year old is a patrol leader in Boy Scout troop and he already knows this. And all of this goes double for military leadership.
I'm just a guy with a two year college degree who never rose above the rank of buck sergeant, and I could sit down and write Batiste 10 introductions that would have been properly respectful of Rumsfeld without compromising his integrity.
I think this guy's a suck-up. I know he either isn't telling the truth or is such a crappy general his advice is worthless.
Sure his name isn't "MacNamera?"