The Generals' revolt

I have been reading about Tarawa, about 3000 US deaths in three days. Lots of bloody mistakes yet I don't recall a movement for Roosevelt's Sec. of War to resign.

I voted for Bush.

These clowns don't have the balls, obviously, because they waited until they retired to guarantee their pensions before they opened their pieholes.

IIRC, they can be court-martialled if they speak out before retiring.

I know, but it was in the opening excerpt before the cut.

MS. SAWYER: Joining us is retired General John Batiste. He is one of the six retired generals speaking out. In fact, this morning they're all lined up on the front page of The New York Times. By the way, Batiste led the Army's legendary 1st Infantry Division in Iraq and left the Army, deciding to do so in 2005 and passing up a third star. ...

Thanks for your responses. Wasn't the 4th ID delayed because Turkey got cold feet at the last minute?

THIS IS NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC. This is the way old military CO's conduct themselves in a banana republic. Rummy has reconstructed the Army, many old generals don't like it...these generals are shameful.

"Our military should never be placed in a nation-building role, they should be warriors. Leave peace-keeping, nation-building, etc. to someone else."

Copy that! Moreover I am disgusted to see "freepers" trashing our retired generals...I doubt not one of these stupid trashers would even qualify to shine their friggin boots.

We have had a politization of the military (and our diplomatic corps.) When was the first time you ever saw a parade of flag officers trotted out at a national convention nominating a President? When have you seen a petition signed by US career diplomats and flag officers urging Americans not to relect a President as was the case in 2004. Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change The answer is never until the Dems have pulled out all the stops to get back their power.

In the runup to the 2004 election, Kerry has called for the resignation of Rumsfeld repeatedly. Biden wanted him fired. In May 2004 Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, demanded Rumsfeld's ouster "for the good of our country, the safety of our troops, and our image around the globe." If he does not resign forthwith, the president should fire him," Harkin said.

The top House Democrat indicated she, too, wanted Rumsfeld out. Asked if she thought Rumsfeld should quit, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., replied, "Yes, I do."

In a Thursday editorial [May 2004], the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called for Rumsfeld to resign over the "botched handling" of the investigation into the prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and over earlier Iraq war decisions. And, a column in The New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman called on President Bush to fire Rumsfeld "today, not tomorrow or next month."

It is painfully obvious that there has been an orchestrated campaign to get rid of Rumsfeld for years. I venture to say that Colin Powell has had a hand in some of this. It really is an attempt to get Bush and admit that the Iraq war was a mistake and that it is not going well.

What is going on is a very disturbing trend that threatens the integrity and non-partisan nature of our military and diplomatic corps. I attribute much of it to personal ambition and the lure of making money after leaving government service. The MSM has been hiring them as analysts. They are asked to write books. Political parties curry their support and then give them plum positions in government as part of the spoils system. Others go into the military industrial complex with high level management jobs or spots on boards of directors. Some go into politics to capitalize on their new found fame. A few even make commercials. In many instances, it is more lucrative to be a contrarian and naysayer against the establishment using your insider information to lend an air of legitimacy to your views and gain a sympathetic hearing from a partisan MSM.

The drumbeat for Rummy's resignation or firing gets louder as we head into the mid-terms. The same tactic was tried in 2004.

it's not backbone to speak out AFTER you're safely retired with full pension and benefits .. it's backbone to resign openly over an issue where you feel strongly, and then to speak out, regardless of the consequences to yourself and your pension. I haven't seen that among this crowd, so it looks like sour grapes.

I would still prefer to hear it from the Generals mouth. Even so, it sounds like he retired to take on more lucrative civilian work (as per several posts earlier) with his retirement intact. A third star would have only increased his retirement pay by hundreds of dollars a month. A fourth star was probably not in his future, so why stay in?

"To: churchillbuff

You like these guys also?"

Well, doesn't it stand to reason that a Ward Churchill fan would like these guys too?

It's absolutely absurd to relate any of these generals' comments on the SeDef to Clinton. Except for when they cast a secret ballot in a partisan election, military officers don't care who's president or in Congress. Officers at the operations/execution level may have their own perspective of plans, events or policy. But, at that level, such as a divisional commander in the field, their training, orientation and fidelity to their oath, they do what Oliver North is often quoted as saying in his congressional testimony: ''I salute, say yes sir'', and carry out the plan. The same attitude is always present at the senior officer level where plans are developed and their advisory role in relation to the civilian authorities is played out. If there is a rational dissent from a plan or defense policy among the JCS or the staff of the JCS, it may be articulated in a counterpoint briefing or in a written memo that works its way up the chain. Once a decision is made relative to such a dissent, the author does the same thing, say: ''aye, aye sir;'' and have no motivation or energy other than compliance with the selected plan or policy decision. Having been at both operational and JCS staff levels, I've never known an officer who acted to the contrary---and it's for certain that no officer ever acts or publicly comments pursuant to a disdain for civilian authority.

That's the way it's suppose to operate and that's the way, with a single exception, I witnessed in my years in that environment. That, however, has not been the modus operendi during the Rumsfeld years. For whatever reason he, and his top level deputies following his example, have been open in their own disdain for the opinions of military senior staff and have made it clear internally that any level of dissent from their predispositions of policy or planning will be met with virtual exile or, in the instance of General Shinsicki, forced retirement.

It's clearly analogous to a corporate environment where, at the top levels, it is well known that suggesting a course of action contrary to what the CEO or chairman wants to hear, will get you sent to corporate Siberia, never to be heard from again. Thus, no such suggestions come from the advisory level. It's an environment of: since the boss wants to do it his way without our operational input or technical advice, we'll simply go-along-to-get-along. And, if you don't accept that as a Pentagon truism, well, I've got some waterfront land in the Everglades I'd like to sell you.

It shouldn't go as unnoted that the vernacular name for that attitude is known among historians as the: German General Staff Syndrome. No officer on that fellow's staff during the late 1930s or 40s would dare offer advice contrary to what the ''boys'' knew the boss had decided to do. While every officer, at some point in his training or being mentored as a junior officer, is specifically taught about how that infallible leader syndrome was a major factor in the defeats on both the Eastern and Western fronts. Similarly, each officer is fervently instructed that it is to be avoided because our oath is to the sovereign nation and the Constitution, not an individual. Nonetheless, the human nature to yield to the power over one's career and promotions may, and often is, as we have seen, too great.

The general officers now raising the issue, and these are critical issues of great importance, do so only after they retire in faithfulness to their oath and chain of command. This is a matter that should not be governed by setting of one's feet firmly in concrete and blindly accepting that the critical comments and suggestions of policy are unwarranted and deserve censure and disrespect. We shrug them off as disaffected politics at our peril. And, like many of us here, having been where the stuff flies and danger-close jeopardy is all around and, having been where policy has cost the lives of many friends and BOQ drinking buddies, we'd do a hell of a lot better by listening to these generals and examining their suggestions. Ad hominen attacks on them and otherwise misdirecting the issues does not address the issues neither does it answers the questions raised, all of which are legitimate for examination. It isn't merely rhetorical to remind everyone of last September when the supportive comment was made on national TV that: ''Brownie, you're doing a great job.''

And pat buchanan has been doing that for years.

Lots of people do not share your political fantasies, they actually pay attention to the reality history has taught us to recognize.

Copy that! Moreover I am disgusted to see "freepers" trashing our retired generals...I doubt not one of these stupid trashers would even qualify to shine their friggin boots.

When they venture into the world of politics, they deserve to be trashed. They are not immune to criticism if they advocate that a President not be reelected or a SecDef be removed. They are suffering from a gigantic ego and terminal hubris. I say that as a former naval officer and Vietnam veteran.

Isn't Batiste saying he was offered a leadership position from the man who doesn't recognize leadership, but turned it down. LOL this is really funny.

Good morning.
"These officers served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2."

These officers all got their commissions in the later years of the Vietnam war. They mostly made flag grade under Clinton and bounced around the DOD and Command units, like CENTCOM, in the clinton area. Most took part in clinton's war in Bosnia and some in clinton's destruction of the effort in Somalia. They formed their opinions while gaining field grade rank and up. They reflect the opinions of the administration that ruled at that time.

You are refusing to recognize that fact and you blame Rumsfeld for doing what clinton did. The unspoken inference is that Bush is to blame. The generals are supporting the DNC agenda. So are you and some others here.

Michael Frazier

Officers spit on enlisted men? You must ne mistaken! Never!!

Methinks this is part of a political plan.

Does anyone remember Harry Reid's strategy memo for their Easter break? "Use military personnel....."

What is obviously incompetent is the Cold War Dinosaurs such as these 6 Generals wanting to wage Iraq as a conventional ground war.

And remember that they were looking for cushy retirement jobs with companies manufacturing heavy armor for a reinvigorated army, only to discover that Rumsfeld woke them in the middle of their w**-dream.

Tip of an iceberg or a passing shower - time will tell.

One thing for sure, the Army is not going to accept 'mushroom cloud' Rice's strapping the 'mistakes' explosive belt around them.