Posted on 04/13/2006 4:24:49 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON – Crusty and unapologetic, Donald H. Rumsfeld is the public face of an unpopular war and a target of unrelenting criticism. A growing number of commanders who served under him say he has botched the Iraq operation, ignored the advice of his generals and should be replaced.
The White House insists the defense secretary retains President Bush's confidence. Few close to the administration expect him to be shown the door.
“The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history,” Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday as the administration circled its wagons around the embattled Pentagon chief.
Two more retired generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation on Thursday, bringing the number this month to six.
Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld fostered an “atmosphere of arrogance.” Retired Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN that Rumsfeld micromanaged the war. “We need a new secretary of defense,” he said.
Military experts say the parade of recently retired military brass calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is troubling and threatens to undermine strong support Bush has enjoyed among the officer corps and troops.
With public anti-war sentiment increasing, “the president and his team cannot afford to lose that support,” said Kurt Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Yet for Bush to try to distance himself from Rumsfeld “would call into question everything about the last three years' strategy in ways the White House worries would send a very negative message,” said Campbell, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Joining the criticism earlier this week was retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who served as an infantry division commander in Iraq until last November. He called for a “fresh start at the Pentagon,” accusing Rumsfeld of ignoring sound military decision-making and seeking to intimidate those in uniform.
Earlier calls for Rumsfeld's replacement came from retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.
The most nettlesome member of Bush's Cabinet, Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod since the war began in March 2003.
He was blamed for committing too few U.S. troops and for underestimating the strength of the insurgency. He took heat in 2004 over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. Army-run Abu Ghraib prison, and for a brusque response he gave to an Army National Guard soldier in Kuwait who questioned him on inadequate armor.
Republicans in Congress have offered Rumsfeld little in the way of public support.
Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said Thursday that Rumsfeld has not talked to the White House about resigning – and is not considering it.
As to the latest general to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, “I don't know how many generals there are. There are a couple thousand at least, and they're going to have opinions,” Ruff said. “It's not surprising, we're in a war.”
But it is surprising, especially because it's a time of war, said P.J. Crowley, a retired Air Force colonel who served as a Pentagon spokesman in both Republican and Democratic administrations and was a national security aide to former President Clinton.
“This is a very significant vote of no confidence and I think the president has to take this into account. The military is saying it does not trust its civilian leadership,” said Crowley, now a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Rumsfeld himself answered “no” when asked this week whether the march of retired generals was hurting his ability to do his job. “There's nothing wrong with people having opinions,” he said.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has become Rumsfeld's strongest defender in uniform. “He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld,” Pace said.
Clinton, a Vietnam war protester who avoided the draft, was mistrusted by many in the military, and some top-ranking officers publicly questioned his policies in congressional testimony. But Bush, a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, has counted on strong support on military bases, one of his favorite destinations.
Bush's dilemma, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution, is that Bush “shares a lot of the responsibility for the key decisions on Iraq.”
“Bush is implicated. For Bush to fire Rumsfeld is for Bush to declare himself a failure as president. Iraq is the main issue of his presidency,” said O'Hanlon, who supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq and said he still supports the war.
Isn't every war pretty much unpopular?
Looks like it's Rumsfield's turn to be "Target of the Week" again. They keep trying, hoping to find a weakness somewhere. I don't think they're going to succeed in drumming him out of Washington.
Every liberal rag has to have someone to demonize. It is Rummy's turn today.
Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the president, not a few ex-generals who are probably Democrats anyway.
I have a few ex-bosses that I never cared too much for. I guess its the same in the military.
More from the 'Saddam wasn't such a bad bloke' crowd.
We have a Commander in Chief. He's running the war, as he should. If he has confidence in Rumsfeld, so do I. On this subject I support Bush and Rumsfeld 100%.
Every war will have it naysayers, but when generals speak out, they MUST have an overpowering arguement. If there was an overpowering arguement, Bush's military advisors would let him know about it.
A person in Rumsfeld's position cannot fake it forever. If he wasn't doing his job, Bush would know by now and make a change. He hasn't, therefore Rumsfeld is doing a great job.
All these generals are doing is making it easier to destroy troop moral in the theater of war.
If Rumsfeld truly wasn't doing his job and our troops were suffering because of it, I'd be very inclined to support his removal.
To this day I dispise Robert McNamera. To this day I admire and respect Rumself a great deal.
I wish these generals would put a sock in it.
Two thousand or more generals in the Army and they think he should buckle under if six don't like him?? What do they think he is, French?
From the wikipedia:
The Center for American Progress is a liberal U.S. think tank and advocacy organization led and created by John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton. It is located in Washington, D.C. The Center for American Progress has a sister advocacy group, the American Progress Action Fund, and campus outreach group, Campus Progress. As those adjuncts indicate, the Center has a more activist and partisan approach than most think tanks. At its inception, most media noted its partisan mission; in the words of the Atlanta Constitution, "former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta has launched a liberal policy institute, the Center for American Progress, to drive the message for Democrats."
Center for American Progess - Wikipedia
Frankly, I think it is rather misleading for the author(s) of the article not to disclose such information to their readers. They give the impression that the guy works for some unbiased think-tank, when in reality, he works for an organization that was formed to "drive the message for Democrats." In other words, he is a paid shill.
You know, the thing about this administration that really drives the libs crazy is that they don't turn on each other to save their own behinds. They're a team and no amount of whining and tantrum on behalf of the media changes that. Drives liberals crazy. They're used to politicians who check the polls before they even order lunch. "Should I have the soup or salad... hm... WWZS? What Would Zogby Say?"
[said Crowley, now a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.]
Why does it not surprise me that he would say the military doesn't trust the civilian leadership.
[To this day I dispise Robert McNamera.]
I wouldn't even want to guess how many American military lives he cost us.
Of course not. They are. Heh heh heh...
Lyndon and Robert, military micro(mis)managment from the Oval Office...
The Democrats don't know how to run a war, or even show respect for the military.
Pathetic!
First fire all O-6s and above (Col/Capt and Gen/Adm). Then promote warriors. Any officers above O-5 (LTC/CDR) got their on politics. They sucked up to the leaders who sucked up to the SecDef who sucked up to POTUS. Almost all the "leadership" were promoted to O-6 by Clinton. Are you surprised that they whine? Frankly, I am surprised that we have as many halfway decent flag officers as we do. As for all the complaints about "boots on the ground", I have yet to hear one person say, "When I was asked by the President, 'What do you need?'. I told him MORE TROOPS." I have yet to hear it, because they did not say it.
Let those generals read this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614703/posts
Gee, wasn't the theme in the military during Clinton a choice of "Don't make waves"(Typical a**-kissers) or "Cut and Run(Somalia)"?
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.