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.

[MNJohnnie]

Right Let's just ignore Franks, Pace, Casey and dozens of other Generals to worship at the feet of 6 passed over has beens. Sorry the Cold War is over. Heavy Armor type Generals might as well make peace with that reality instead of staging Soros sponsored PR stunts to get even with Rummy

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"I'm not sure what the generals are trying to achieve.

They are choosing sides, hoping the DemocRATs will win. The fact that they harm the nation is less important than validating the RAT agenda that they bought into while being groomed by the clinton posse. Not many flag grade officers did, but that seems to be irrelevant to some.

Michael Frazier

[AntiGuv]

I originally read it in the Washington Post. Here's an article I just Googled up from The Nation:

The Generals Revolt

Batiste commanded an army division in Iraq and was offered three-stars as well as the No. 2 position there. He chose instead to retire rather than continuing to serve under Rumsfeld.

Here it is also at PBS and ABC News.

[operation clinton cleanup]

One issue I agree with is the the Bush Administration has done an abysmal job in regards to fighting the Home Front Propaganda War

Bingo! That is a major part of his job as CINC. He has failed miserably at this since the Summer of 2003.

[True Republican Patriot]

Considering your opinion, I know Secretary Rumsfeld is more Wonderful and a greater leader than ever! Go follow Kerry into oblivion and have a great time doing it.

[retMD]

If they had the balls, why did they not speak up when they were on active duty?

Several people on this thread have made comments that the generals in question should have spoken before they retired. Perhaps those who are more knowledgeable about the military can enlighten me - wouldn't that be seen as even more threatening to civilian control, and maybe even against the UCMJ?

[eskimo]

...a general who put himself above god and country.

Who, in hell, told you that?

[AntiGuv]

Here's the Washington Post article where I first saw it: Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals.

Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.

[Reactionary]

Rumsfeld is absolutely wonderful.

Go Rummy! You keep killing those Jihadi bastards by the bushel!

[G.Mason]

You like these guys also?

9/9/2004

Retired Pentagon brass seek independent abuse probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is under increasing fire for its handling of the prison abuse investigation, as some retired military officers call for an independent commission to get to the bottom of the four-month-old scandal.

The retired military leaders who wrote to Bush were: Rear Adm. John Hutson, Navy Judge Advocate General from 1997 to 2000

Brig. Gen. David Brahms, Marine Corps senior legal adviser from 1983 to 1988

Brig. Gen. James Cullen, former chief judge of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals

Maj. Gen. John Fugh, former Judge Advocate General of the Army

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, currently a consultant in international security

Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, Inspector General of the Department of the Navy until his retirement in August 2000

Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former commander of U.S. Central Command; Brig. Gen. Richard Omeara, who served in the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps.

Hoar is part of a group of retired diplomats and military officers who has said Bush should be voted out of office because his policies damaged U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the world. Gunn is among 12 retired generals and admirals who have endorsed Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry.

From ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-09-pentagon-probe_x.htm

[operation clinton cleanup]

Have any quotes of the General confirming this? The Nation and Mark Shields are not the most reliable sources.

[axes_of_weezles]

1. we need the right mix. Not all problems are fixed with Armored Cavalry and Field Artillery which takes 4 to 6 months to get in the AOR and extended support in the rear.
2. We need a right sized army for the missions and the tasks at hand. The Army refuses to change, heads roll. SF wins.
3. SecDefs and JCS perogative. I guess you have never heard of GCCS.
4. Who cares
5. State Dept was funded, DoD was not. He who has the money says how it goes.
6. BS.
7. Like the army never has accidents. How many persons were run over by trucks and tanks in convoys.
8. Shelton was a loser, along with Wussly Clark. If you screw up, you get replaced. I think we are still in Kosovo, arent we? What happened to the "We will be home by Christmas" quote from your bud Clintoon? That was how many years ago?

[kabar]

If you scratch the surface on these flag officers who come out to denounce Rumsfeld, you will usually find that the person has some personal grievance or is seeking a personal gain or both.

After a quick, cursory examination of Baptiste, I found a hint of both. There was some controversy about Baptiste being appointed to a heretofore non-existent job as a Second Deputy Commander Named for V Corps and the Army's unusual explanation, V Corps explains appointment of a second deputy commander. I found it interesting that the second article contained the speculation that, "Some observers of the chessboardlike movement of top generals had thought Batiste a contender for Sanchez’s job. King said nothing could be ruled out."

Was Baptiste unhappy about the way this was handled? Was he upset at Rumsfeld and the Army?

It is also worth noting that approx two weeks before Baptiste went public with his statement about Rumsfeld, he had been named President of Klein Steel. "The newest one is Klein's president, John Batiste. Batiste started just two weeks ago but is already looking toward the company's future. "We want to dominate the Rochester area,” Batiste said. “We want to dominate New York and then, beyond that, New England." Klein Steel

Could Baptiste's ambitious plans for Klein Steel include some free publicity and higher public profile for the new company president?

Baptiste did speak out against the war plan while in uniform in April 2004: US game plan in Iraq questioned. "Two US generals in Iraq have criticised the policy of excluding senior Baath Party members - including Iraqi army officers - from jobs in the post-war administration. Maj Gen John Batiste - commander of the US First Infantry Division - told the New York Times newspaper that it would be a good thing to harness their energies."

Baptiste has been very chummy with the press: " Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, now president of Klein Steel Service in Rochester, N.Y., was in Iraq until February 2005 and never turned down a reporter wanting to be embedded. He said that the stories those assignments generated were mostly "wonderful. You have to take a risk. We owe to the citizens of our country to tell them what is going on. You can't cover it from the Green Zone. I share everything with embeds. What we're after is balance. You have to open up; you're foolish not to. I never regretted taking them into my confidence."

The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq

[Reactionary]

Ooo. A single general doesn't like Rummy. Ooo. My.

What clownish idiocy.

[AntiGuv]

The ABC News link is a transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview of General Batiste.

[BonnieJ]

These guys sound like the retired "TV" generals and colonels who always seem to know what should have been done, in hindsight. They show up in their black turtlenecks and spew criticism at every move the military makes. It's a way of getting attention, like Hollywood actors.

[operation clinton cleanup]

It's not against the UCMJ to resign your commission on principal and then exercise your freedom of speech.

[Owen]

People, repeat, THIS IS ORCHESTRATED.

There was a leaked Dem strategy document for 2006 about 6 weeks ago. In it they explicitly said that the bare handful of leftist Clinton era generals available would be trotted out to trash the administration in whatever manner the DNC felt best.

This is all about November. EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE MSM FOR THE NEXT 7 MONTHS IS ABOUT NOVEMBER.

The proper Freeper response to this kind of traitorous maneuvering is to recognize that all politics is local and tactics trump policy every single time.

Find vulnerable House districts and send money and volunteer your time to the GOP candidate in that district. That is the response that will hurt them most.

[operation clinton cleanup]

sorry, that link required registration so I didn't bother.

[Yasotay]

1 & 2) You are as wrong as Rumsfeld. Many commanders have asked and been denied. General Abazaid is running cover for Rumsfeld on this issue.

3) No and most of the units were delayed the most famous case was the 4 ID but clearly the 101st also.

4) Garner was "Rumsfeld's" man .... he and Bremer reported to Rumsfeld. The military should have ran the occupation of Iraq and no it wasn't the President's decision. Rumor has it Garner asked for more troops.

5) As opposed to letting the military run an occupation.

6) General Abazaid publicly corrected Rumsfeld ... maybe you should read the papers.

7) Concur

8) Per Rumsfeld ... normal retirement and rotation.