(Another)Retired US Iraq general demands Rumsfeld resign

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1835067 | April 12, 2006 | Reuters

[gunnedah]

"lack of sacrifice and commitment on the part of the American people" to the war, with the exception of families with soldiers fighting in Iraq.
This is the most true statement that has been made about this war since its start. The politicians know it and so does the rest of the world. America is known as a nation of laws and rules and we are getting our behinds kicked because of those in this country that sell out for the almighty dollar and the average American has about as much get staying power and patience as a 110 year old. I am truly ashamed of the liberals in this country and of any politician who turns their back on our troops.

[the invisib1e hand]

Will they break Saddam out of jail?

...or protest the Moussaoui death penalty...

[PISANO]

I think that our executive and legislative branches of government have a responsibility to mobilize this country for war. They frankly have not done so.

You are HALF right General. CONGRESS has DONE NOTHING to mobilize this nation as a matter of fact they have done just the OPPOSITE!!!

This President and his SOS & SecDef have done an awful lot to get this nation behind the effort and IT WORKED for a few years UNTIL the constant drumb beat of negativism by the MSM and Dims in Congress finally took root.

Should the POTUS have told us to NOT live our lives as normal? To hunker down, burn a few mosques, stock up on ammo, food and cipro? What could the Executive Branch have done without just SOME backing from the MSM and the "LOYAL" [my as.] opposition........that would have made a difference?

[himno hero]

i doubt the general has the breadth or depth in general management, knowledge, assessment and political savy that Rumsfeld has.nor does he have access to the toolboxes of knowledge, resources etcetc. they are of two different leagues. i doubt that america has a finer man to fill the post.

the general, too, has his skills and knowledge base. let him and the one trick ponies have their opinions

[quantim]

It didn't work for Weasel Clark either.

[OBone]

Seems to me that too many generals are willing to say anything to earn their "news analyst" pay.

OB

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"standing by them", as you say.....at least provides for our presence in the Gulf region, which is necessary for the Counteroffensive th Jihad (WOT). Since 2003 we have somewhat rejuvinated our previously pathetic HUMINT, not only in Iraq but in the whole area.....we have also established a widespread "beaxhead" in the gulf region which is likely to become more of an asset for our national security that most dare to imagine.

I don't give a ratzazz about the iraqi's, because they are turning out to be equal in every way to the S Vietnamese/ARVN's. And like with Vn, the American left is endeavoring to serve them up the reward thet served upom the S Vietnamese. Hopefully the left will fail this time, but the pathetic performance thus far from the Iraqi's is deja vu to me. But whatever they do, we are in position now to better deal with the wider problems that exist for the US in the region. The Iraqi's can be or choose their own master....I really don't care.....

[kabar]

There are some in the Pentagon who don't accept civilian control over the military. They are so used to having civilian bosses who are just figureheads and go along to get along. Rumsfeld is on his second tour of being SecDef and is both the youngest and oldest in history. He knows how the building works and is not snowed or cowered by the bureaucratic politics. I hope Bush keeps Rumsfeld on through his administration.

[leadpenny]

Two star generals who are given a division usually aren't candy asses and usually on their way to three or four stars. Do you base you comment on personal knowledge?

If he missed getting his third star, it'a probably because he locked horns with Rummy or others over the war.

He's right about the country not being mobilized to fight the WOT, btw.

[dakine]

What you said...

[SevenMinusOne]

Two star generals who are given a division usually aren't candy asses and usually on their way to three or four stars.

BS. There have been plenty of Two star and higher candyas$es throughout our Mil -

Do you base you comment on personal knowledge?

Yes.

If he missed getting his third star, it'a probably because he locked horns with Rummy or others over the war.

Neither here nor there - The matter is the guy is flat out wrong on how to fight the WOT and he doesn't like be told so by others....and when he is he reverts to calling it "intimidation". We don't have the time to pacify such concerns today.

He's right about the country not being mobilized to fight the WOT, btw.

No he's not. Our military continues to fight the most successful unconventional war in the history of man. And here in the States for the most part the citizens of this Country are doing exactly what they should be doing....being Americans every single day and rolling along.

Do I wish the public was a little more informed. Of course (but that is always the case). Do I wish the public understood the negative level that those weak-kneed types at State and Pentagon are having on our efforts. Of course.

But on the whole we are just fine.

[leadpenny]

Well, what's the personal knowledge you have that would tell us that he is a candy ass?

The country being informed is one thing. Involved is quite another. If the WOT is worth fighting (and it certainly is), a universal service law could have been passed before the end of Sept 01. Of course it wasn't, and the opportunity to do so passed quickly. If it were proposed now, we'd be at war with ourselves.

BTW, from what I'm hearing from a number of my sources, this general going off the reservation will not be the last.

[MikefromOhio]

The Iraqi's can be or choose their own master....I really don't care.....

I care. Because if we don't get it right, we'll have to do it again......

[gathersnomoss]

ooofa.

[MikefromOhio]

:-)

[SevenMinusOne]

a universal service law could have been passed before the end of Sept 01. Of course it wasn't, and the opportunity to do so passed quickly. If it were proposed now, we'd be at war with ourselves.

A completely silly and ineffective idea that is the last thing we would have wanted to do - Our military does not need those that don't want to voluntarily put their as$ on the line. Nor is there the dire need for more soldiers (at a quicker pace) then what we are growing now as.

BTW, from what I'm hearing from a number of my sources, this general going off the reservation will not be the last.

Again, that is neither here nor there to me. Who gives a bleeping bleep what a few ex-Gen's say. There are plenty in the old dinosaur Big Green that needed to be put out to pasture (and have been or in the process of being put there). If their last spineless act is to criticize our current efforts. It reflects on them, not our warriors and not our leadership.

[CCPlanner]

The "not enough troops" debate will go on for years. There were people who recommended more troops and there were people who recommended fewer troops. Someone was bound to be right. Who exactly that is has not been determined. So far we have met all of our strategic objectives more or less on the timeline anticipated before the war (at least here at CENTCOM HQ). The "more troops" camp believes that more troops would have quelled any possible insurgency sooner. Even if more troops had been a logistics possibility, that may not have been the case. The enemy had a plan that we were not privy to and stockpiled munitions throughout the country. Would more troops have convinced the Iraqi people that we really were there to occupy their land? What about troop rotations? As it is, we are able to maintain troop rotations with the 1/3 rule (1/3 forward, 1/3 refitting and 1/3 preparing to go). With more troops we would not have been able to sustain this tempo and would have been forced to send troops home.

As for the Iraqis, they are perfectly capable of embracing democracy. In many towns the Baathists running the town ran away. The citizens of the towns elected new leaders - without the UN or anyone else telling them how to do it. They understand the concept and how it works. The current deadlock in the formation of the government is little different than our Senate (still I give the Iraqis hope). They have several days to meet the timetable and even if they miss it by a week or two it won't be a big deal.

The SecDef tends to ruffle feathers but, as far as I can tell, has usually been right. He demands that people provide support for their arguments - "in my experience" doesn't count. Unfortunately, many in the military advance by making snap decisions that work out in the short run - then they leave before the full consequences can be appreciated. The SecDef tends to take the long view. The same goes for the President. Mobilizing the country for a war that will take decades doesn't mean bringing everybody to a fever pitch and then charging in. We are playing chess not football. In order to win in the long run we need to put the correct policies, procedures and strategies into place and pass them on to those who will follow us.

[darkwing104]

I am trying to remember if anyone said this during Bosnia and Kosovo campaigns?

[MikefromOhio]

I am trying to remember if anyone said this during Bosnia and Kosovo campaigns?

You may be trying to remember for a while. I don't remember anyone either, although it's quite possible that it got buried (the MSM being the MSM after all)

[HawaiianGecko]

Good Grief, there are probably about 3,000 retired flag officers in this country. A dozen are screaming for Rumsfeld's hide. Big deal. It's comforting to me to know that of the other 2,988 Generals and Admirals they either agree with the Secretary of Defense or have the class to remain quiet, knowing that animosity towards this level of the chain of command simply causes more troop casualties and higher costs overall.