How can you take anything seriously after this opening?
|
|
How can you take anything seriously from Time? |
(Great song though...)
Posted on 04/09/2006 9:00:05 AM PDT by Leisler
Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006
Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:
In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
How can you take anything seriously after this opening?
|
|
How can you take anything seriously from Time? |
(Great song though...)
A cursory review of this thread indicates that this guy was part of the military professional "elite." Cut from the same cloth as Mcpain. Rummy has been breakin many pentagon rice bowls and the princes don't like it.
The other possibility is that some things were being done for a reason, and Rumsfeld was too arrogant to ask why.
Interesting that you chose HR McMaster .... I'll assume you are talking about 73 Eastings and 3ACR fame .... now there is a stud. I did not know him .... but another named Dana Pittard. You are correct about Rumsfeld's judgments going into Iraq and yes Rumsfeld sure looks like the micro manager from hell. I just hope Rumsfeld makes the right decisions about Iran.
You have made a classic mistake here, assuming that I too, am a Rumsfeld booster. Wrongo, bubba, but I think you make your case when it is your responsiblity to do so. Not happy with the results? Go pout like this so-called General did and write the crap he wrote. Rumsfeld et. al., have made numerous mistakes, but unlike you, I don't expect 100% mistake free results from the military in times of war. Has it been executed as well as I would have liked? No way Jose, and that's the rub. I want to learn from mistakes, and this idiot General thinks it is all a mistake. Hogwash!
Whatever this guy earned from the military was a waste as far as I'm concerned, and his logic is suspect as well.
Nope.
have made numerous mistakes, but unlike you, I don't expect 100% mistake free results
I don't expect 100% mistake free results either, I do expect results. When you set the expectations and then can't deliver, you should be held accountable.
this idiot General
I have a much different opinion of him than you do.
it is all a mistake. Hogwash!
If the result is another country with a constitution based on Shia law and also an ally/satellite of Iran, you bet, it was a colossal mistake!
Some comments....
I think Zinni is wrong. The strategic thinking and planning was very good and will work .... if given time. I call Bush's strategy Convert Light [Convert(l)] vs Convert Heavy [Convert(h)]. I personally like Convert (h) but I'm not President....
The biggest problem I see is that we are no longer on the Offensive .... we should have overthrown the Iranian government right after our Presidential elections in 2004. Iran is now stopping our Convert(l) option and may have or get nukes. Four years ago the President IDed the enemy .... it is time to finish the job.
As for Downing, he is a team player and VERY good at what he does ... his plan to take down Iraq was .... different. The major problem with SOCOM's new role is it violates a Principle of War called "Unity of Command". Commands and Commanders are responsible for what happens in their area. Getting bypassed by SOCOM can be and is many times wrong. Bypassing CENTCOM and Franks during Afghanistan was another Rumsfeld error.
I don't think the President tried to mislead anyone either. I accept his reasons for going into Iraq and think he was correct (I also can accept the fact that others think he was wrong and have good reasoning to support their position). It is the results that I have a problem with.
A stable pro-western democracy was the goal - we are no where close to that. The end result could very well be a Shi'ite based government that is allied with Iran - a completely unacceptable result.
Your guesstimate is incorrect here. Iraq will form a non-Islamic gov't. sometime soon. The USA took quite a while to establish our form of government, what's the rush in Iraq? Just because the MSM wants it done yesterday isn't much of an excuse to hurry in the formation of a democratic form of Iraq. I think Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush understand that and are acting accordingly. Time will tell.
Very true. The problem I have is that the Iraqi constitution states that the law is based on Shia. Also, the Shi'ites are the largest voting bloc and their leaders (Sistani, Sadre, etc..)are allied with Iran.
BTW - Even though we disagree I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussion. It's nice to be able to have a reasonable discussion that doesn't revert to name-calling.
Don's has two other characteristic that was obvious to everyone who worked around him. First, he was that he was NOT a micromanager. Just the opposite. He tended to vest responsibility and hold then hold one responsible - - in a very tough way. Second, while very tough, he is also very loyal. His loyalty here clearly goes up to the President.
I suspect what happened to some extent was that when he went about trying to see what needed to be changed in the military, he did so in his typical manner. He sought information, not advice. What he probably got was advice and not information. In short, from his perspective, the very people he asked to do the job were part of the problem.
You get one strike with him and he has no problems making decisions. Once the lines were set from his perspective, he simply cut out those who didn't perform as he expected.
I think that is way there are such differing opinions about him from the retiring generals. No general likes independent and competent Secretaries. This one simply doesn't care.
Well, I have to "disrespectfully" disagree with this clod. Go sit in your arm chair and SHUT UP!
In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again.
How can you take anything seriously after this opening
Many of the brass hated Rumsfeld from the git-go. Clinto had left them in charge of the cooky jar, and they felt entitled to call the shots. If we were short of men after 9/11, it was owing to the stewardship of men like Shinseki, who was more interested in berets than in bodyarmour.
Why I think retired Generals should STFU
Agree or disagree..retired generals are the only ones that should speak out in this manner.
_________________________________
It's not the speaking out, it's the timing. A general's first duty should be to his men, not to his career. If the situation was as bad as this guy suggested, then he should have spoken up, quit and made his point. Now, everything he says is suspect. Along with a lot of others, I spent a year in Viet Nam commanded by some idiot who years later tells me it was all a mistake? -- (Another reason not buy a Ford)
Many of the brass hated Rumsfeld from the git-go. Clinto had left them in charge of the cooky jar, and they felt entitled to call the shots.
What's wrong with the military being in charge of itself and calling the shots?
Maybe Rumsfeld is still reviewing the troop deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom .... maybe Rumsfeld still thinks there isn't an insurgency going on in Iraq. The national emergency declared after 9-11 ends this September ...What is Rumsfeld's plan in Iraq WITHOUT using the National Guard? Maybe that's also Clinton's and Shinseki's fault ....
:)... admitedly, he is the kind of guy you either like him, or hate him :)... He does not allow you a neutral position. My God who can predict a war!...especially when everything is changing so rapidly... and with these wackos terrorists?... sure mistakes happened... but all in all you need someone with ba--s in his position... and he's got them! :)
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.