Posted on 04/13/2006 3:55:30 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Sorry, guys, but the accounting here still doesn't warrant outright dismissal without even examining what's being said. Small percentage or not, fact is it's VERY rare for high-level officers to speak out publicly like this against a Defense Secretary.
Now maybe they are all a bunch of Democrat hacks; gosh knows there are plenty of those to go around. But I think it's a mistake to automatically blow off these comments without due consideration, especially when taking into account what they're saying and the way the war in Iraq is going. I fully supported the removal of Saddam. There's no doubt in my mind that he was pursuing WMD, and I never doubted that for a moment during all the proclamations that there were none.
But reality is that the war's not going well. Yes, Saddam's gone and lots of positive things took place, but it's blatantly obvious that the situation there now is in a deteriorating trend. Even worse, there's no end in sight.
MM
And his stupid idea that we don't need a large force anymore."
With the troops we have we are whacking the hell out of the insurgents. In January, 2004 Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said "U.S. and Iraqi forces had killed or captured 15,000 people last year." In May, 2005 Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned the killing of 250 of insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" as evidence of progress in Iraq.
As to the initial invasion, U.S. General Tommy Franks estimated that there had been 30,000 Iraqi troops killed as of April 9, 2003. Officials estimated that 2,000-3,000 Iraqi troops were killed in one day alone during a blitz into Baghdad on April 5, 2003, suggesting that a total in the tens of thousands KIAs during that six-week period of major combat.
This war effort may be expensive, however for our enemy, it has been more than expensive. There is one cost that is indeed more than one can bear. That is the cost of defeat. And for our enemy, make no mistake, that is one cost that they face daily in the land of Iraq.
And we are drawing the insurgents in from other countries like bugs being drawn to that big bug zapper like the ones people put in their yards to kill off bloodsucking mosquitoes. Yes, these are also bloodsuckers because they use terror against the weak and innocent to suck off their freedom.
So tell me
What is your expertise that I should bow to your superior knowledge?
Are you a historian?
Are you a Military Specialist?
Are you an Analyst for the Pentagon or the CIA?
Give me your credentials that makes your argument anymore valid than mine.
I have no great love for the perfumed princes in the penthouse/pentagon. But Rummy isn't looking at the big picture and neither is GW. If they were we would be beefing this Military up, not slimming it down.
Threats?
Iran, North Korea, China (with a 200 million man army) and if you think for one moment that Russia is our ally then you really need to go back and take a close look at what's going on there.
Let's talk about our neighbors to the south. Communists, all of them. Not our friends, being supplied by communist China, selling them arms and equipment. Why is that?
China is in essence taking over (if they haven't done so already) control of the Panama canal.
Think the EU are our allies? Better look more closely at the way that organization is setup. We are headed on an economical collision course with them that could very well turn into a shooting war.
No, he's not getting the job done because the job is far larger than this narrowly focused war on Terror. We have a border that leaks like a sieve. It needs to be shutdown NOW. That's PART of the war on Terror, defending the American Population from more attacks.
The old big green has not outlived it's usefullness, it's needed more today than ever. It does need to be retrained and refitted for a more varied form of mission, but it's not outmoded.
Yes our Military has done a magnificent job in the last 4 years and it continues to do so. But it needs a bit of fat to take it through the tough times ahead.
We've only seen the beginning.
"One is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
How many of those losses were unnecessary because we didn't have a good occupation plan? How much of the Iraq insurgency now (which, despite the White House propaganda, is made up of disaffected domestic Sunnis and NOT "foreign terrorists") could have been avoided by a larger show of force, and by us not propping up a puppet regime of expatriates the Iraqi people didn't support?
These men and women are willing to give their lives for our country. It is the job of Rumsfeld and Bush to make sure they don't die unnecessarily - and it is our job to ensure that Bush and Rumsfeld do their jobs. Our loyalty is not to Bush or Rumsfeld or any other personality - it is to the boots on the ground.
Haley Barbour is the answer---I think the Republican Party suffers from a major genetic defect. Every time I bellyache about this kind of stuff my husband likes to remind me, I quote, "Republicans are such good losers".
None if the nation was committed and the hurt shared. Based on WW II there were no restrictions on spending or manpower. The aim was to win as quickly as possible. The cost of Rumsfeld's doing equipment and manpower on the cheap can hardly be claimed as cost savings.
LOL! We had high ranking officers shooting their mouths off for political purposes and personal grudges since General Washington was in charge. The fact that only five or six of these dime a dozen high ranking officers is shooting their mouths off out of the thousands (THOUSANDS) that are out there is not unusual.
ruthlessly
"War is a series of calamaties that result in victory."
Disagreement on how to handle an insurgency is not new. We are doing more with less because most sucessful counter-insurgencies have used a light footprint and drawn support from the population most negatively effected.
Look at the numbers of Iraqi security forces. These billets are filled by people who volunteer even when the bad guys will blow them up while waiting in line to joinup. Do the Iraqis have a force as effective as ours? No, not yet, but look at our forces in 1778. We still had militia running from the battlefield. We were bringing in the Von Steubens and the Polaskis and Lafayettes to teach us to fight.
Loyalty to the boots on the ground means a lot of different things. Big picture it means keeping with a course of action that is accomplishing it's goals. Changing in midstream is not going to save lives. Judge our current situation with history as a guide. We have idiots running around saying 'We've been in Iraq longer than WWII' what a load of crap! If any of these nitwits wants to put forth the effort (use percent of GDP or any other measure) that we expended in WWII then we can talk. Rumsfeld and the President are running a marathon while still shopping for running shoes.
We are doing a good job in Iraq. Unfortunately selling that won't get as many points or attention as running our efforts into the ground.
When the number of whining ex-generals exceeds the basic moonbat population of about 10% I'll start to listen. Hell 5.4% of the population thinks that Elvis is still alive!
Who cares what these generals say. They are just PO'd because of the shake up or ship out at the Pentagon.
I realize that it would have been nice to seal the Iranian and Syrian borders with more troops. However, with all said and done, we are making good progress in Iraq and saving our powder for the Iranians and the Syrians. You don't want President Bush to spend us dry and force the nation to cough up more money for Iranians with nukes in their back pocket. You don't want more taxes do you? I would say that we have been very smart to economize this war. As for the World War II reference, my mom told me how they had to give up things you would see people today laying down in the freeway to keep. There was gas rationing, no nylon for stockings, no tires for cars, and a long list of stuff. Just a thought, would you give up your sugar so that your impatient self would be less frustrated over speed of progress with the War in Iraq?
Nothing, including 911 and all the rest of the crap going on has registered with the general public. We are at the point where we were in 1936 or so. Japan had wacked the Panay but no one cared. 911 was not 'Pearl Harbor' that event has yet to occur. We are not united, YET. Rumsfeld and the President are working with what they can get, not what they need.
Sadly, I fear that time will come.
Amen!!!
As a side note, My uncle was stationed in Alaska during WWII. He laughed at the 'Tire Drives' and the like. It seemed that at his base they had so many tires they didn't know what to do with them all. Could you see the congressional hearings with 'Snarlin Arlen' and McLaim enabling the dems as they highlight the suffering caused by Bushes needless and opportunistic rationing of rubber!!!!!
I would [did] and I think people would if they thought they were really threatened by Saddam or his successors, democratic or otherwise. The WW II urgent threat is missing today. It seeems that whatever urgency there is today is driven by the pundits not the military.
Attacking the country in a time of war....your right, Demorats never do that.
Yeah I know all that. But increasingly the politicians have bowed to poll numbers and screwed things up! Vietnam was a perfect example.
Stopping before Bagdad in the first gulf war was another huge mistake. All based on politics.
Why send these guys to the war colleges and then get in their way?
War is a terribly savage and ruthless business. The idea is to KILL the enemy, not spank him or be worried about his "civil rights".
If we have no stomach for it, then perhaps we should just roll over and each start bowing to Mecca.
I guarantee we will all be doing that unless we win this war and be equally as ruthless as our enemy.
Or be total pacifists and live with the consequences.
I prefer that we defend our country, and kill every last one who espouses hatred and a promise to kill us all!
Listen to your enemy, he is telling what he intends for you and he means every hateful, cult screaming, insane, religiously duped slogan he utters!
How about all the Arabs who live here and who could be helping us in this war, here and in Iraq to rid them of the subversives, bad guys in the Iraqi police force and army etc.
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.