The Generals' revolt

WND ^ | Ap 15 06 | Buchanan

[churchillbuff]

In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.

This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment.

This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet under way, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war.

As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed.

The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war.

Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point:

"Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force. ..."

With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary.

Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies.

Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results."

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation.

Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war.

As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own.

But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher.

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them?

Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916.

And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired.

In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war.

Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu River, thanks to Harry Truman.

In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.

[spkpls4]

"Has anyone noticed that not one single Admiral or Air Force General has been complaining. Can a reasonable deduction be made from this coincidence? Is it possible that Rumsfeld's reorganization of the military which openly supports additional naval and air assets and a smaller Army and Marine Corps has anything to do with this?"

IMHO, you hit the nail on the head with this statement above. It is all about the restructuring.

[mkjessup]

Make no mistake, I consider MacArthur a patriot,
So do I, and he performed an eternal service by letting Americans know that Truman was sending their sons to die without a commitment to win the war.

That should have been obvious from the time that troops were first sent into the Korean peninsula under the U.N. banner. If there is blame to be assigned for the debacle in Korea which allowed the tumor now known as Kim Jong Il to flourish even today, that blame should be assigned to the U.N., which repeatedly proves itself as useless as it's former incarnation, the League of Nations. If Truman erred in Korea, he erred in allowing the U.N. to run up their motley flag over our own. If there was a nuke to be used at all (and again, knowing that we had only 13 nukes in our entire inventory), that nuke should have been dropped on Pyongyang which would have put an end to the accursed Kim Il Sung dynasty with which we are dealing with now.

[TalBlack]

"No, they've been commanding men in Iraq and they know that Rummy's policy of too-few troops, too poorly provisioned, was wrong from the beginning and has cost lives."

Hell, the stones in the street knew/know that but shooting off their mouths in this way ISN'T going to make the troops safer. Rather it will give heart to our enemies as well as embolden that psychopath running Iran to make his big I-am-allah's-great-servant-play.

[SC Swamp Fox]

[eskimo]

Pat cites another great general, MacArthur, who also had the courage to blow the whistle on incompetent civilian "leadership"

To many, history has no meaning. They have found it necessary to forget what happened yesterday in order to maintain their political fantasies, yet alone, throughout history.

[technomage]

OK, six generals don't come out in 2 weeks to speak against Rumsfield unless there is something more going on.

Are you accusing the antique media of collusion? How dare you!!

Just because one day every talking head on TV starts using the term "towel snap" does not mean they are conspiring, even though we never heard them speak that term before and now, miraculously all of the talking heads use it the same day. .

Just because one day every talking head on TV starts using the term "gravitas" does not mean they are coordinating after hours on what term to use the next day.

Just because every news (opinion) broadcast uses the exact same term or phrase on the same day, no matter how obscure the phrase, it does not mean the old lame media has an underground E-mail network giving them talking points.

So, how dare you accuse anyone!! This is just pure coincidence!! /sarcasm>

[mkjessup]

I Love It!

[roses of sharon]

LOL, Pat, FR's MSM droids, US generals, saddling up to perky Katie, girlyman Anderson Cooper, and the WP, whining about "mistakes" made in war?

How embarrassing for them, to be forever named as sniveling water-boys for the enemy.

[operation clinton cleanup]

What would Clinton do? Call them back up to active duty in order to court martial them or drum them out in disgrace, I bet.

Or worse... remember Admiral Boorda?

[The Sons of Liberty]

The military NEEDS to remain to support that nascent leadership ...

When we marched into Baghdad, we should've forced the UN to send peace-keeping troops within 30 days. Make Kofi Anon back up his bluster with action. We had accomplished our mission of "regime-change".

Now that we're there, we've got to see it through, but had we left after toppling Saddam, we would have been seen as liberators, not occupiers and in the long run it would've helped our image in that part of the world.

[Yasotay]

You are as wrong as Rumsfeld and as clueless.

[Incorrigible]

[operation clinton cleanup]

Please name 3 things "clueless" Rumsfeld has done wrong.

[hosepipe]

Just another distraction from the Mexican Border..
Probably will work too.. like the Port flap a few weeks ago..
Amazing how gullible "the Masses" are.. The Military chain of command will hold.. Its the Congressional and political chain of command threatened by the importation of multi millions of prospective democrats ON PURPOSE... THAT is the threat..to national security.. whatever "national" will mean in five years or so..

Thats why a "distraction" is needed.. and the masses bleat and socialist shear them..

[Diogenesis]

Google searches will identify who these people are.

For example, Gen Zinni was a contender to be Kerry's VP.
Zinni for vice president?

Ergo, this is just another MSM attack on America, all for the DNC.

[Joan Kerrey]

These Iraq WAr generals are showing more backbone.

Backbone would have been the proper term before they retired. I see no backbone here, just opportunism and possibly preparations for book deals and speaking engagements. Armchair politics is what I see here.

[HawaiianGecko]

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.

I'm having trouble believing that.
 

You are exactly correct. These Generals and people like Ignatius were foolish enough to stretch their opinions into the realm of ludicrous. To the point, in my opinion, that forces a thinking person to dismiss them completely.

Major General John Batiste (Ret) said on video that "we also served under a SecDef that didn't understand leadership. Who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team."

Well this can simply be written off as garbage and is obviously talking points handed to him. Don Rumsfeld has been a influential man in the leadership of the United States for 30 years. He is very well known. He has been a Navy pilot, a Presidential Chief of Staff (arguably the most important person in D.C.), Secretary of Defense twice, President and CEO of two large and successful corporations.

To say he doesn't understand leadership gives this man's General's motives away. It is factually provable that Batiste is incorrect. To say that Rumsfeld is arrogant, coming from a General is really really really funny.  Congress knew exactly who Donald Rumsfeld was when they overwhelmingly approved him as Secretary of Defense for the second time.

 

[Jeff Chandler]

>>they should have resigned and spoken out then, not wait for full retirement,and the benefits that go along with them.<<

[Echo Talon]

Meiers was just on Tony Snow on Fox and he pretty much said it is wrong what they are doing.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Rummy in uniform... 1961