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.
These people who are critizing the loss of life should remember that the Brits lost about 20,000 killed in a single day at the Battle of the Somme. In a few weeks the U.S. had about 1,121 KIA at Peleliu, 1,500 KIA at Tarawa, and 6,800 KIA at Iwo Jima. I don't consider the deaths of any sevicemember as insignificant, but historical perspectives reveal that conquering two nations with less KIA that what was incurred in only three of the battles of WWII is profoundly successful.
2) Rumsfeld is not giving America the right size army. The SF officers I knew wanted to be part of the army, not let Rumsfeld divide it and destroy it.
3)Rumsfeld's "discussions" with CENTCOM were sick.
4)You should.
5)Wrong.(like Rumsfeld)
6)Wrong again.(maybe Rumsfeld is still in denial...like you)
7)Flying Top Secret aircraft to hostile counties is NOT an accident.
8)Shelton is not a loser ...BTW Shelton won in Afghanistan ...not Rumsfeld.
Revisionist history. Shinseki retired when he was scheduled to.
MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight
MacArthur was a prima donna whose ineptitude and ego got a lot of men killed unnecessarily.
Thanks Donald. It goes without saying that we at FR are dismayed to read accounts like yours. I cannot understand to this day how people who punish achievers, people who genuinely inhibit the readiness of the military, get appointed and subsequently get promoted! And it equally goes without saying that we at FR thank you for your service and dedication to your duties and mission despite the nonsense pulled on you by pinhead bureaucrats.
I'll bet Ignatius used the same methodology as Zogby.
He's been here for a while. I really don't know what his illusions are based on, but the re-indoctrination classes worked.
The unseemly respect for Pat Buchanan, the McArthur historical revisionisim, along with the apparent mental vacuum concerning proper military protocol has been filled with utter garbage.
No. Franks and Myers got what they asked for.
Look, comparing two sandboxes with the Empire of Japan and the force they commanded is as silly a historical perspective as as one could imagine. It is not just a numbers game, we must be certain the cost and the cause are justified.
Tough times for US Mid-East envoy
US Mid-East envoy calls for change
Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently appointed retired General, Anthony Zinni, as his Wartime Counselor. Zinni, a former Commander of US forces in the Mideast, has been a proponent of Saddam’s containment rather than Saddam’s demise. He has considered terrorism a diplomatic and a law enforcement issue, rather than a military challenge. He has minimized contacts with Israel and Israel’s friends in the US. [October 2001]
Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Monday [November 21, 2001]he is sending retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to the Middle East to work with Israel and the Palestinians on reaching a true cease-fire.
Without a cease-fire, said Powell in a long-awaited policy speech, efforts to reach a lasting peace cannot progress.
Powell said Zinni was being appointed "senior adviser," will travel to the Middle East, and will remain there in an attempt to get a true cease-fire in place.
"If we get that cease-fire in place then other things can happen," said Powell
"From the outset, Powell made it clear that he intended to delegate more authority to his ambassadors and to the line professionals in the Department. While they would have enhanced responsibility, they would also be accountable, and he would look to them to provide leadership in turn and to motivate subordinates. He has not maintained the plethora of special regional and single-issue envoys dating from the prior Administrations. He felt that working through such intermediaries diluted the responsibility of regular ambassadors and assistant secretaries, and could confuse American policy. (A notable exception to this approach is Middle East envoy General Anthony Zinni.)
An angry deflection of the issues and an equally angry illustration of someone who dislikes senior military as a group. Perhaps you recall both Presidents Reagan and Bush-the-Elder receiving millions in speaking fees after leaving office, authoring books, etc.
Great poster! Kinda brings a little lump to my throat and a tear to my eye.
We have thousands of Generals? Do you know anything about the military?
LOL - another good Post! Some good ones showing up on this thread!
I'm surprised that Buchanen used the Korean War as an example of how not to handle a war. After all, he was in the group that ran the Vietnam War.
And we know how well the civilian leadership did in that.
So, Buchanen's prior success makes him just the person to tell others how to win a war.
That said, MG Batiste has one point with which I fully agree. This SecDef and administration have been dismal failures at mobilizing the support of this nation and in mobilizing this nation to a war footing.
The information warfare capability of this president is the worst of any president in media history. Likewise, I'd say that the info warfare capability of the US military is dismal. With enormous resources, they don't seem to be able to get their message out.
Media bias, you say?
Insignificant. They're supposed to be able to overcome those obstacles. That's what warfare is all about.
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.