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.
Unless, of course, their agenda is less obvious than they publicly advance.
Exactly.
Truer words were never written. You must be a Marine.
From the article:
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.
I find it amazing that these general's - who got their stars under Clinton - and failed to resign while implementing Clinton's "blow up the aspirin factory's" foreign policy have such credibility now that they have turned against President Bush.
Semper Fi,
TS
Whose agenda?
The president?
Ever notice that generals who act out of concern for the lives of their troops, the success of the mission; who see the flaws in the plan and the planners, never mouth off until AFTER they retire and get the pension? Not one of these birds resigned in protest, or challenged Rumsfeld's theories [unlike Shishenski (p/s)]before the sh*t hit the fan. These clowns are no better than the generals we had in 'Nam. Damn bunch of ticket punchers. And no, I'm no fan of the Donald, either.
If 6 retired Generals per week come out against Rumsfield in a couple of weeks we may be up to 2%.
I think it is just as disturbing for Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton and those in Congress to profit from their government service. Their examples have now stimulated the idea among career government employees that they deserve a piece of the pie as well, witness Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, and a host of other dim bulbs who are making money off their "inside" information.
I have no dislike of senior military officers as a group. Along with almost 8 years in the Navy as an officer, I participated in the Capstone Program and got to know plenty of flag officers. I hold the vast majority of them in the highest esteem. They are the kinds of people USG employees should aspire to be. Their sense of duty, honor, and country is admirable.
What I find disturbing is the growing trend toward politization of the military, CIA, and the diplomatic corps, which both parties, but primarily the Dems, have fostered along with the willing cooperation of some in those organizations. It weakens the credibility and advice they provide to policymakers and creates some distrust between political apppointees and career employees.
...and like my 1sg hubby says...that he bets each one of these generals have some kind of axe to grind...
Limbaugh brought up a good point about Rumsfeld. He knows how the people in the Pentagon think and behave. He knows that they will try to get him to go one country or another, or some type of ceremony, etc. The reason for this is that if he makes a decision, the Pentagon people consider it open to interpretation. However they can't tinker with a decision because when he's physically present, he won't let them stray from his decision. They chafe at his "micromanagement." I love it!
"Does he have a choice; What is he going to do admit to backing the wrong guy?"
________________________________________
Easy....he convinces Rumsfeld to resign on his own initiative. And yes, he does have a choice.
Second guessing is easiest thing in the world to do, but the fact is, there is no way of knowing if the alternative would have worked out better. We can only know the results of what we have actually done....and can only speculate what might have happened if a different path were taken.
Its possible the generals are right....but their public ranting is useless and only emboldens the enemy.
They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
LOL - Go RUMMY go!
The German High Command, Brauchitsch told Rommel, still planned no decisive strike in North Africa, and he could expect no reinforcements beyond the ones already promised. (Unknown to Rommel, there were prior demands on available German forces.l Hitler was about to send troops to aid Mussolini against Greece and was secretly planning an invasion of the Soviet Union.)
...
On his return [Rommel] ordered that the attack should proceed. His rationale for defying the High Command's cautious directive was that British patrols from El Agheila had been harassing supply columns bound for a German-Italian outpost at Marada, 90 miles to the south. To maintain this outpost, he had to throw the British out of El Agheila.
As I put my Eric Shitsacki-approved Black Beanie on and ponder his idea that 'the Army will never need tracked vehicles again'.....
When I look at the dumb-ass Stryker vehicle with the superstructures of steel added on 'cuz nobody ever thought of RPGs....
When I ponder PFC Lunch and her jammed weapon....
When I put a cigarette in my mouth and 'do the Lynndie' pointing at my passed-out friend as a joke....
When I hear any speech by Weaselly Clark....
I realize that Sec Rumsfeld has good reason to scourge the Army in particular: It's been F'ed up for a while now. He's right. We have to do better. We have to be more effective.
I've been in 14 years now--my first enlistment into ROTC was 1986--I had a break in service--Sometimes I'm not very proud of the Army. I think it needs to be shook up.
Watching these perfumed princes sniping at the Sec. after the most successful military campaign in human history looks real stupid.
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.