What's-a BEHIND me... she's-a NOT a-important...
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.
I'm sure those retired Generals have twice as many of their subordinates criticizing their performances.
Most if not all the generals included in this article, 4
Army, 2 Marines, look to have entered service in the mid to late 60s and early 70s.
Every one of them looks to have been involved with both Middle East operations in Kuwait from invasion and then Iraq.
In some of the comments I just saw after doing a little net searching, they appear to see Rumsfeld as not willing to listen to their advice, having an arrogant or discountive attitude towards their advice and or planning, some plans that one general said were 10 years or more in the works.
They forget that Rummy also served as a Navy pilot in the 50s in his early days and is well aware of what it takes to make a military work. Maybe it's just a branch rivalry or authority thing, ya never know.
In Rummy's defense , while serving under President Ford as the youngest Sec'y of Defense in our history, a period when the Mayaguez incident was handled quickly and efficiently.
Perhaps as you remarked, some of them became so accustomed to having their way during the clinton years that they lost sight of needing to respect superiors, no matter how stars they themselves wore. They now see Rummy as a civilian when he has been there so to speak form the other side as well.
Re; present days goings on,,Perhaps they think they could have done a better job, saved more lives if their advice was heeded, etc. Perhaps they are just old farts that need to just step aside as you say after failing to rise to the very top.
In saying now what they say, they are just making the job tougher for all who are still doing what they can to get the job done and working together to do so.
Perhaps, they should just do a MacArthur and just fade away.
Sadly that is not likely in the current media and political climate we live in today.
Considering you are new here and hopefully a new donor to FR as well., let me just say you are certainly entitled to your opinion as is the Bloviator re; a former Naval Aviator.
You have to also take into account that these generals are likely not thrilled with changes that have been and continue to be made in our military, changes that Rummy is committed to.
I concur; the military transformation plan that Rummy is leading is making a lot of old generals and senior military angry.
correction to previous post #22.
should read
in Kuwait and then Iraq.
Let me guess,, you drew the short straw, huh?
Gen. (in his own mind) O'Really got ya,, again. ;-)
I will respect the opinion of a General who resigns in protest of a policy. When they stay until retirement and then go on CNN, they have no credibility with me. Fifteen minutes of famers.
You've got all the rat talking points down.
Hang in there Mr. Rumsfeld, you're doing just fine, quite a few notches on that belt of yours!
A wartime army is different from a peacetime army, and the kind of guy who rises to the top during peacetime isn't the same kind of guy who rises during war.
The Wesley Clarke political types will find themselves pushed out over time, because a warfighting army has no need of them, and they just get in the way. The ones who will stay, and thrive, are the ones who can quickly adjust to the particular challenges of the new war, and quicly fashion a force to meet them.
They say that an army always prepares to fight the last war, and that is probably true until the new war starts; then comes the pain of building the new force to meet the new enemy. Some guys have the right talents for the new war, and some guys have the right talents for the previous war, and need to go home and enjoy their well-earned retirement.
What's-a BEHIND me... she's-a NOT a-important...
In time, you'll catch the jist of what I offered. If ya last that long. lol
have one for me and Lent ;-)
Sounds like one of those deals where they'd blame him no matter what. If he'd put more troops in they'd have claimed that it looked too much like an occupation and that's why the resistance was so vigorous.
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.