Posted on 04/15/2006 8:14:44 AM PDT by 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.
It is genuinely funny to hear officers make statements like, Rumsfeld is authoritarian, and intimidating. These twits should try being an enlisted type being supervised by authoritarian and intimidating superiors. It's the nature of the military, and they obviously don't understand that.
Critics of Mr. Rumsfeld, who agree with the former generals who have derided him as wrongheaded and arrogant, may see General Pace's endorsement as fulsome flattery. After all, some officers contend that the 73-year-old defense secretary has promoted top leaders based largely on their fealty to him, his management of the war in Iraq and his ambitious plan to remake the military.
But the comments by General Pace of the Marines were more than a public plug for a boss under fire. Scholars who study the armed forces say they were a public restatement of a bedrock principle of American governance: civilian control of the military.
"This is what the chairman of the joint chiefs is expected to do by tradition and law," said Dennis E. Showalter, a military historian at Colorado College who has taught at the Air Force Academy and West Point. Short of submitting his own resignation, General Pace had little choice but to offer a public show of support, Mr. Showalter said.
"If he had not spoken out, he would have been making a very strong statement," he said.
The idea that civilian leaders, as representatives of the people, should have the ultimate say in how the country's military power is wielded dates to colonial resentment of British rule and is embedded in the Constitution.
Tensions between civilian leaders and the military brass are routine and occasionally erupt into public view. But the principle of civilian supremacy has never been seriously challenged; the last plotters of a military coup d'état in American history were disgruntled officers faced down by General George Washington at Newburgh, N.Y., in 1783.
In fact, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribes court martial for any commissioned officer who "uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense" or other federal or state officials.
That prohibition, of course, does not forbid serving officers from speaking candidly in private when asked for advice on military matters. Some of Mr. Rumsfeld's critics also fault General Pace and others for not being more forceful in questioning the guidelines put forward by Pentagon civilians that have kept American forces relatively lean in Iraq, and which led to the quick disbanding of the Iraqi Army.
Neither does the prohibition on "contemptuous words" apply to retirees. And the propriety of the onslaught of attacks on Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership from recently retired senior military leaders, including some who served in Iraq, is a matter of intense debate.
"It's certainly very unusual to have even retired military officers being this public about their opposition," said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist and co-author — with Peter D. Feaver, now a White House adviser — of a 2004 book on civil-military relations. "But I don't think it's improper at all. They've been careful not to violate the core tenet of civilian control — none of them has said these things publicly while on active duty."
A few days ago there was an article of FR that said the Army was having a hard time getting new officers.
IMO, the war in Iraq is an amazing success. More than enough troops were committed. We can't garrison the whole country with troops to eliminate crime and sect conflicts.
Before we leave, the hierarchy of the Islamists need to be reprogrammed. If we leave without giving that guy Sahr his due, I consider it all a waste of money.
Good point. I initially read that as getting disgruntled grunts returning from Iraq on camera, but I suppose disgruntled Generals serve the same purpose!
Turkey at first approved and then stopped it .... the argument can be made that had the 4ID been there sooner it would have happened ....
One wonders how much you need to offer a general, to get him to do something unethical.
How big was the bribe Zinni?
IMHO writers simply make up 80% of statistics, and probably more.
The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war.
A quick search gave me seven, count them, seven active duty generals who bolster my own opinion. My generals outnumber and outrank Ignatius'. My generals have sent an unmistakable message to the WaPo: Get rid of Ignatius, or you will lose the war.
General Abizaid said he's optimistic about Iraq, noting, "If we stay the course, things will turn out well."
General George Casey Jr In the end, Iraq will succeed. Its success will help transform the wider Middle East and give even greater meaning to Iraqi Freedom Day.
Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey we've had some great successes with Iraqi Ministry of Defense
Lieutenant General John Vines The solution to the situation in Iraq is not more U.S. troops, but more highly developed capability of Iraqi security forces
Major General Thomas Turner II The high voter turnout is a clear indicator that the citizens of Iraq not only have a strong desire for democracy, but they also have an increased sense of security, security that during the latest election was provided entirely by Iraqi security forces.
Major General Stephen T. Johnson USMC In the coming year in Al Anbar province, I think you're going to see continued progress in four key areas.
Brigadier General Rebecca Halstead we are seeing huge success
You never know. If the political lunitics can replace enough military leaders with their own "suicide bomber" mentalities, insanity will be the next political reality.
Yeah, right, that only happened under Rumsfeld. The Penatagon is the world's largest bureaucracy. I have worked as a government bureaucrat for 36 years, almost 8 years in DOD and 28 years in the State Department. This is the way government bureaucracies work and have always worked.
...or, in the instance of General Shinsicki, forced retirement.
Not true, Shinseki served his full term and retired on schedule.
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. <
That is the way they would like to be perceived, rather than be seen as petty bureaucrats with bruised egos or bent on personal ambition. Admiral Crowe received his ambassadorship to London and Wesley Clark ran for President and will do so again. Zinni is selling books after his own failures at CENTCOM and as a middle east envoy. Swartzkopf made commercials. Many are receiving speaking fees and acting as analysts on TV. Some prance around at the Dem national convention acting as shills and potted plants for John Kerry. Very few are really dealing with great issues. It is all about me, me, wonderful me.
Your "facts" are wrong and blaming Clinton for Rumsfeld's mistakes is wrong. That is a really tired excuse.
You suppose ol Red Harry got a heads-up that these Gens were going to bash Rummy and Bush?? How hard would it be for the DNC to cross reference their voter list for Gens and ask if any were disatisfied with Bush?? Your onto something.
Pray for W and Our Troops
IMHO, regardless the thinking, decisions, or behavior of either the generals or the Bush Administration, the article attempts to advance an agenda of doom.
On one hand, the article attempts to present the stance of protesting generals as a report with veracity.
On the other hand, if that report is acted upon in the fashion a veritable report is received, then the author claims the results will be dishonorable.
It reads to me that either the general officer protest is sound in reasoning or it isn't. If it isn't, then it should not be considered nor respected by senior political leadership, including the author. If the general officer protest is sound, then it should be considered with an appropriate course of action.
Assuming such an appropriate course of action is defacto inappropriate merely attempts to disqualify the protest from any recognition.
IMHO, the author is accusatorial, searching for those whom he can attack, frustrated with individual persons rather than policy, and seeks to share his self induced misery with as many who will read his lament.
So many? What? Four or five? That cannot be honestly described as "so many." "A few" would be accurate.
Patton was right. If we finished the war against Stalin it would have saved 40 years of Cold War as well as Korea and Nam.
Pray for W and Our Troops
The Army has a hard time keeping officers when the economy is booming. I left after Reagan's election, not because I disagreed with Reagan, but rather because I was used up, and knew that help was on the way. The men who came after me are much more competent officers than I was. How could they not be, since I spend most of my time playing administrative games to get what few repair parts and training for my guys that were available.
I was appointed by Ford, and served through the Carter Administration. We couldn't get spare parts for our tanks, so we ginned up sprocket re-manufacture shops. Training ammunition was nil. Two units went to the range, and didn't have enough ammunition for everyone to take a single shot. There was a "mix up" and they ended up using each other's basic load for training. To punish the units, they didn't get a replacement for the basic load for 6 months. Yes, it was bucked all the way to the whitehouse and back down.
Clever. To punish who ever made the mistake by having two tank battalions be ready to defend their position in the line with empty ammuntion bunkers in their tanks.
That was how the Carter Administration worked, or didn't work. That was the precursor to the debacle in Iran when they tried to get the hostages out.
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.