Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld (number 6)

CNN ^ | April 13 2006

[jmc1969]

The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is,".

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

[jmc1969]

He fired Brownie as well under fire.

[oolatec]

Going to Iraq with far too few troops, for one.

And his stupid idea that we don't need a large force anymore.

Ludicrous.

[roses of sharon]

Cut the drama, it does not work with me.

[NordP]

ExACTly!

[Sir Gawain]

It's been a while since we talked about it but I'll try to get some specifics for you tomorrow.

[mo]

IMHO, what is going on here is a bunch of canceled weapons programs the Clintoons put together, which these retired stars thought would be their seven figure retirement tickets....which is how and why the Dims can promise to exert pressure from the military.

[leadpenny]

Still have your head in the sand I see.

A reminder of what you and I said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614053/posts?page=36#36

It looks to me like it's open warfare IN the Pentagon now.

[airedale]

He's restructuring the military especially the Army. He's taking it from fighting large land wars against the Soviets toward a much more Mobile force. That is seen as a major attack on the status quo and the people who have supported it. They have to much invested in their world view of the military and its needs.

He killed a lot of weapon systems that those who want to fight a war against the Soviets wanted like the Challenger Self Propelled Gun. He promoted a Marine to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff instead of one of the 3 main branches. It wouldn't surprise me to find that that it should have gone to an Army general (which would have pulled them along to higher positions).

At that rank a good part of the job is politics (inside the armed forces and outside) and not fighting actual wars. They scrap and fight for assets, money prestige, etc. If you kill a program that they believe in or have built their career on believing is necessary you've made an enemy. If they see you as weak then they go out for the kill. They'll do that even if they gain nothing. Right now if they beat up the Bush administration and Rummy they have an excellent chance of getting paid consultant jobs from CNN, ABC etc. If they take Bush's side you can kiss those bucks goodbye. Also if they can get rid of Rummy their pet weapon systems and structures may return.

[jacquej]

I am a bit worried. My son, a true blue WP grad, served under Abizaid in GW1, in Vicenza. He seemed to have a few reservations about the "neo-con" strategy after leaving the Army, but had great confidence in Abizaid.

But, he is 82nd AB all the way, and this general's statement worries me. Unfortunately, he is out of the country, in the midst of moving, and I can't sent him the thread via email.

Geesh, I am praying that Rumsfeld isn't just a charming version of McNamara! Please, Lord, do not let that be the case!

One stupid try at "management by objectives" was enough!

[Publius6961]

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly..."

I have felt all along that this was a lapse, even going back to Bush41, but...
Although I still feel that way, there may be much I do not know. We are not fighting a war like any other previous one, and Political Correctness has never played a bigger role for better or for ill.

So... the Commander-in-Chief still is the only one authorized to select the means. The Generals may disagree, but only behind closed doors.

No recent "old-fashioned" war has not been micromanaged by the legitimate civilian authority from Korea in the 1950s to the the early 1990s. So this criticism is gratuitous and calculated simply to join the chorus of other critics, for diametrically opposed purposes. Those want the present struggle to fail.

Why this general chose to join that group may forever remain a mystery.

[narby]

As often happens at the pentagon, the "new idea" is that if you have a smaller, but deadlier force, it can travel faster with less support than a larger force. Basically the old German Lightning War on steroids.

There have been many in the Pentagon who don't like it because it means having to give up pet projects and old thinking.

Rummy has made a lot of enemies in that building. But I trust the guy.

All this grousing about "mistakes" in the occupation I think are just Democrat/Al Qaeda spin intended to replay our "defeat" in Vietnam several years after we left the battle. Only this time they want us to loose several years after the capture of Saddam. Unfortunatly the Big Lie still works just like it did for Goebels.

[Owen]

People HEADS UP,

The Democrats battle plan for this year was released a full 6 weeks ago and at the top of the list would be an effort to get the bare handful of generals they could find from the hundreds who are retired to chant their mantra.

This is all orchestrated. Where is the GOP counter? Mehlman should have his own set of generals out slamming the Democrats for their attempts to erode morale and for their efforts to contrain the President in his fight of the WOT.

This is all orchestrated and scheduled so that there would be one at a time speaking and getting press. When you're done the count of the total if they'd spoken up en masse, the numbers differential vs the opposite viewpoint would be humiliating to them.

[RobbyS]

Well, (1) where was he going to get6 those troops? and (2) WHEN could he have had them in place? In 1991 there were lots of bodies in Germany. No way coul;d he have had 300,000 troops in Iraq, Shinseki floated that figure because he didn't want them there at ANYTIME.

[napscoordinator]

You mean some members of the military are Demorats? And they place party above country? I never heard of such a thing!



LOL. (especially officers). I don't know why they can't just stay on the golf course.

[woofie]

Yep

[cll]

Excellent post. I was just trying to figure out how to string all that together. Transforming the Army while fighting a war at the same time. Only a few leaders can accomplish that and Secretary Rumsfeld is that leader.

[RobbyS]

We have the "long War? crowd verses the China crowd. When Rumsfeld came in in 1991, the China crowd was in charge, just aching to get a BIG opponent like China to stand up against. Special forces is not an attractive option to a lot of these guys. They want big contracts so at the end of their tours they can segue off into the military-industrial sector and make the money they couldn't make in the military.

[ClancyJ]

Remember, they were reorganizing the military to become more mobile, fast moving to handle the world of today.

There will always be people that do not see a need for change no matter what.

More mobile units could go anywhere in the world fast. Now, it is a major effort to go anywhere and they lose the surprise aspect. And, of course, we have traitors that will tell where the next assault will be - another reason for smaller and faster units.

[jmc1969]

You are right that I expect a lot more generals to start coming forward. I went on a hunting trip with a two star who told me that Rummy is absolutely hated by the generals.

I don't think that hate is entirely justified, but I do believe the hate is going to start coming out in droves.

[sitkaspruce]

guess the complainer didn't get his third star.