Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jmc1969
Some background noise on what's possibly going on here:

June 4, 2005

John Riggs to Donald Rumsfeld: "You Can't Handle The Truth!"

Like Tim Cruise receiving such an acid reply from Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," supposedly rough and tough Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cannot handle receiving reality from those in his charge.

This is one of the bonafide trademarks of the Bush Administration--either swallow the Kool-Aid or be damned. Mistakes don't matter--loyalty does.

Previously, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki (whose replacement was then quickly announced over a year ahead of time) told a Senate committee that 200,000 troops would be need to control Iraq after Saddma's downfall. Ace military-meister Rumsfeld pooh-poohed such a number and crack(pot) troop expert Paul Wolfowitz added that Shinseki's estimates were:

"wildly off the mark...I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."

Protecting ammo dumps (explosives now used against our troops) and oil pipelines, plus the prevention of looting--naw, none of that mattered. At least not to those planners and visionaries tucked away in the safe confines of Washington D.C. Their errors don't count, even if such result in higher body and maiming counts. Remember, it's all about loyalty. Nothing else.

This time it's military man John Riggs who was given the bum's rush for allowing that the emperor had no clothes (again).

Unceremonious end to Army career
Outspoken general fights demotion
By Tom Bowman
Sun National Staff
May 29, 2005
WASHINGTON - John Riggs spent 39 years in the Army, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery during the Vietnam War and working his way up to become a three-star general entrusted with creating a high-tech Army for the 21st century.

But on a spring day last year, Riggs was told by senior Army officials that he would be retired at a reduced rank, losing one of his stars because of infractions considered so minor that they were not placed in his official record.

He was given 24 hours to leave the Army. He had no parade in review, no rousing martial music, no speeches or official proclamations praising his decades in uniform, the trappings that normally herald a high-level military retirement. Instead, Riggs went to a basement room at Fort Myer, Va., and signed some mandatory forms. Then a young sergeant mechanically presented him with a flag and a form letter of thanks from President Bush.

"That's the coldest way in the world to leave," Riggs, 58, said in a drawl that betrays his rural roots in southeast Missouri. "It's like being buried and no one attends your funeral."

So what cost Riggs his star?

His Pentagon superiors said he allowed outside contractors to perform work they were not supposed to do, creating "an adverse command climate."

But some of the general's supporters believe the motivation behind his demotion was politics. Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

"They all went bat s- - when that happened," recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, a one-time Pentagon adviser who ran reconstruction efforts in Iraq in the spring of 2003. "The military part of [the defense secretary's office] has been politicized. If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined."

Little-used punishment

A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and then usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or equipment.

Over the past several decades, generals and admirals faced with far more serious official findings - scandals at the Navy's Tailhook Convention, the Air Force Academy and Abu Ghraib prison, for example - have continued in their careers or retired with no loss of rank.

Les Brownlee, who was then acting Army secretary and who ordered that Riggs be reduced in rank, said he stands by the demotion. "I read the [Army inspector general's] report and made that judgment. I happen to think it was that serious. Maybe I have a higher standard for these things," Brownlee said in an interview. "I still believe it was the right decision."

Rumsfeld's office had no comment for this story, referring all questions to the Army, which issued a statement.

The two contracting infractions "reflected negatively on Lt. Gen. Riggs's overall leadership and revealed an adverse command climate," the Army statement said. "Based on the review of the investigation and Lt. Gen. Riggs's comments, the Acting Secretary of the Army [Brownlee] concluded that Lt. Gen. Riggs did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of lieutentant general."

Garner and 40 other Riggs supporters - including an unusually candid group of retired generals - are trying to help restore his rank.

But even his most ardent supporters concede that his appeal has little chance of succeeding and that an act of Congress might be required.

From the ranks

Riggs' rise to three-star general was heady stuff for a man who left the family's cotton farm in Missouri and enlisted in the Army in 1965, the same year America deployed combat troops to Vietnam. After three years as a soldier, Riggs went through Officer Candidate School and soon was piloting a twin-rotor Chinook above the central highlands of Vietnam.

On March 17, 1971, Riggs flew the lumbering, troop-carrying helicopter on a voluntary medevac mission to a base at Phu Nhon which had been under heavy attack from a battalion of North Vietnamese soldiers, according to Army records. On his first approach to the base he was forced back by enemy fire, but he tried another flight path and was able to set down on a small and dusty landing zone.

he young officer flew out 59 wounded soldiers, 30 of whom "probably would have died if Captain Riggs and his crew had not acted as they did," said Riggs' citation for the Distinguished Flying Cross, a top medal awarded for "exceptionally valorous actions."

After the war, Riggs worked his way up through the ranks in the Army, serving in Korea and Germany as well as a stint with NATO headquarters in Brussels. He commanded troops from the platoon level to the First U.S. Army, which is based in Georgia and is responsible for training National Guard and Reserve troops east of the Mississippi.

Among Riggs' accomplishments with the First Army was the largest rotation of part-time troops since World War II, when the Guard's 29th Infantry Division, which includes troops from Maryland and Virginia, deployed to Bosnia for a peacekeeping mission in 2001.

http://www.icogitate.com/~celticfolkmusic/blog/JohnRiggs.html

*end snip*

16 posted on 04/13/2006 3:28:38 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: demlosers

Obviously a traitorous malcontent and Clinton suck-up. </sarcasm>


25 posted on 04/13/2006 3:32:54 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: demlosers
Good post about heroic General Riggs. I didn't know the background on him. Thanks for filling it in.

My later post is about the men whon become generals....heroes, heroic, whatever. They remind me of former presidents.

#27: I don't know if a general ever "retires."
The ego that is involved in being "general" probably precludes ever thinking in the box of "civilian who is(slight change, as I re-read and correct) to privvy to squat and therefore knows diddly."

The same applies to former presidents (Carter and Clinton come to mind.) who aren't privvy to current intel but "armchair" quarterback with the rest of us civilians.

All the "formers" can only, ad infinitum, say is "Well, when I was in charge......"
Not worth a whole lot.

To "demand" resignation is beyond arrogant. But, then, that's PART of what got those men to general and president in the first place: supreme self-confidence (REAL close to arrogance).

45 posted on 04/13/2006 4:03:52 PM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: demlosers
Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

That'll do it.

48 posted on 04/13/2006 4:07:36 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: demlosers
It is of interest to note that most of the Generals who have complained in the past about there not being enough troops were of the faction that said it'd take 6-9 months just to get to Baghdad, with many thousands of KIAs. ...and then the occupation would begin. These Generals were pretty clearly shown to be wrong.

Shinseki was one of them, though IIRC he was graceful and pleased that the other plan worked out.

77 posted on 04/13/2006 8:00:44 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: demlosers
Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

Where I work that would be called insubordinate. I wonder if he would have tolerated that behavior in his own command.

104 posted on 04/14/2006 1:05:05 PM PDT by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson