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.

[woofie]

You are stuck on stupid...

[A.A. Cunningham]

A few days ago there was an article of FR that said the Army was having a hard time getting new officers.

That's an incorrect characterization, just as was the headline, of the article. Officer recruiting is fine as is enlisted recruiting. As a percentage more company grade officers are leaving after their initial obligation is up, ~8%, but that means 92% are staying. That's a lower percentage than at the end of the Slick Willie experiment, ~10%. Don't get conned by the MSM.

Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate

[JCEccles]

But there MUST be more to this story than six guys suddenly deciding on their own to come out and attack the SecDef.

Rumsfeld came in with an complicated mandate and agenda: reform the DoD from the inside out WHILE fighting the GWOT. A lesser man would have never attempted it, or resigned long ago. Rumsfeld is neither a lesser man nor a quitter.

Meanwhile the DoD was chockablock with general officers who had ascended within the old structure and therefore had a deep personal investment in it. The final years of their ascension came on Clinton's watch. They had reached a state of ease, a certain understanding with Clinton.

Rumsfeld came into the generals' "house" and promptly started throwing large pieces of comfortable furniture out the window and changing not just the structure on top but the foundation it rested on.

Some generals, such as Franks and Myers, saluted smartly and started working closely with Rumsfeld to implement the new plan. Others felt left out or even rejected. They helped fight the initial battles in the GWOT, but their hearts weren't entirely in it. They weren't part of the favored crowd any more, and they started to gripe and complain to one another.

Once in private life, they saw that complaining about Rumsfeld and Bush was a goldmine. Now they're mining it, shilling books, casting about for political sponsorship, and being invited to the best parties in Washington DC, New York City, and Hollywood.

[eskimo]

Comparing this war with our historical wars in the context of success is absolutely relevant.

Perhaps your historical perspective is somewhat lacking. For a comparison to be relevant it must contain sufficient similarities. Many choose to elevate their own current history above anything previous to their existence mostly out of ignorance of what has transpired before them.

[ARCADIA]

I like Rumsfeld; I think he makes an excellent Secretary of Defense, but he seems to be the right guy at the wrong time. Rumsfeld is still focused on cost cutting and fat triming when he should be focusing on fighting a, or even several, major war(s). When is he going to wake up and launch us onto a full war footing? We should be adding bases, divisions, and technology in preparation for Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and possibly China; but, he is not interested, and seems a one song sort of guy. A good competent numbers driven, budget conscious executive is hard to give up; but, it is pointless to win the budget battle and lose the war. By now we should have had the divisions that Clinton eliminated back on line; and, we should have been well on our way (especially in developing a civil strategy) in preparing to deal with the potential of an all out hot war.

[MilspecRob]

When did Conservatives like Pat become such pansies? In 3 years of Mop-up action we have lost less than 3000 soldiers and Iraqis are taking more of the load. In Korea we lost 50,000 in this length of time compared to 2700. When did we become so soft??

"Soft" ??? Perhaps we are just placing the true value to the lives of our sons and daughters.

[PzLdr]

No, "Rummy ain't perfect" He's too in love with his concept of light brigades, air power and special ops as the solution to everything. One size type of war doesn't fit all.

He's also petty and egotistical. Both Shishenski [the then Army Chief of Staff] and the then Secretary of the Army [West?] tried to tell him him he was going into Iraq too light. Shishenski testified to that effect before Congress. Result? He was forced out as C/S a year early and forced to retire. West was fired. I believe the next C/S was pulled off the retired list because no one on active duty would take the job [if not C/S, it was another major job]. Since then, no Army Gen. has been CJCS, and a Marine general [no knock on the Marines intended] is CG, NATO.

What the generals should have done was resign in protest, like the General in Korea who tangled with Carter. They can't get in an argument while on active duty. [1] It's not the way it works, [2] It's a court martial offense [Billy Mitchell, anyone?]. But I agree, you don't retire, take the bucks, and then bitch. On the other hand, I don't regard the generals as losers, or their complaints as misplaced.If you think Rumsfled's run a good operation, take a look at Iraq. The loonies are still loose. The Army's stretched to the limit, and the last time I looked, Syria, Iran and North Korea are begging for a beating. Oh yeah, and if the Donald tries that 'light maneuver unit' BS when we tangle with the Chinese, he's going to get his head handed to him.

[staytrue]

MacCarthur has been very unpopular for decades.

However, if North Korea nukes someone or China decides to expand, Mac will be a prophetic genius.

If NK and China evolve to like japan or SK, Mac will be shown to be an insubordinate nut.

The same will be true of Iraq. We win and bush will be a hero along with rumsfeld. We lose and they will be idiots.

Victory has a dozen fathers, defeat is an orphan which no one claims credit for.

[HawaiianGecko]

Oh, gee. What do six generals out of thousands know about war?

We have thousands of Generals? Do you know anything about the military?
 

 

Active Duty General Officer (Flag Officers)
Grade	Army	Air Force	Navy	Marine Corps	Total DOD
O-7	150	139	110	40	439
O-8	99	83	72	24	278
O-9	43	38	30	13	124
O-10	9	3	8	4	34
Total Flag Officers	301	273	220	81	875
Total Commissioned Officers	64,502	69,466	52,249	16,388	202,605
Total Active Duty Size	481,266	362,330	381,901	172,741	1,385,849
Percent of Commissioned Officers in Flag Rank	0.46%	0.39%	0.42%	0.49%	4.3%

This is a list of active duty Flag Officers, and does not include Reserve or retired personnel. Now what was your question to Reactionary?

It's reasonable to believe that 100 or so retire every year or are rifted out, so it is also reasonable that there are thousands of them out there.

The mandatory retirement age for all general officers is 62 (this can be deferred to age 64 in some cases). Under the law (10 USC, Sec 635), an officer who has been promoted to O-7, but is not on the recommended list to O-8, must retire five years after promotion to O-7, or 30 years of active duty service, whichever is later.

An O-8 must retire five years after being promoted to O-8, or 35 years of service, whichever is greater (10 USC, Sec 636).

An O-7 must retire five years after being promoted to O-7, or 30 years of service, whichever is greater (10 USC, Sec 636).

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"As I put my Eric Shitsacki-approved Black Beanie on and ponder his idea that 'the Army will never need tracked vehicles again'....."

I actually have come to think the tan beret is an improvement but I don't believe Shinseki meant that to be the case. I guess it's true what they say about stopped clocks.

Michael Frazier

[PzLdr]

Douglas MacArthur's strategy was to get back to the Philippines, period. It was Nimitz and the Navy [and I'm an Army vet] that developed the strategy that brought Japan to its knees. Name one air strike on Japan that originated in the Philippines.

[JCEccles]

"Soft" ??? Perhaps we are just placing the true value to the lives of our sons and daughters.

Then perhaps we ought not allow them to drive until they're, say 30. Far more of our sons and daughters in the prime warfighter age die in car accidents each year than in the GWOT.

In terms of avoiding injury and death, this has been an extraordinarily successful conflict in the annals of US history.

[takenoprisoner]

"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."

If they are saying these things now ( I believe they are) to protect and defend our troops from incompetent leadership, then that is not hubris. I say this as a nam era Marine...and from your experience you should be able to recognize incompetence when you see it. Good grief, didn't you learn anything from nam?

We are stuck in Iraq God knows for how long into the future. Rumsfeld says we can't just walk away and turn our backs now. Fine, but the people of Iraq are hell bent on slaughtering each other as they do on a daily basis with our soldiers caught up in the middle...

Meantime while the leadership whistles dixie, our soldiers (our sons and daughters) are caught equally dead right dab in the middle of their "holy" war with each other. Now comes our daily report: Two US soldiers killed in Anbar Our soldiers deserve better...and these Generals just might be onto something. I dare say, they have earned the right to be heard. We deserve Bin Ladens head on a platter and I doubt he is in Iraq.

[righttackle44]

Poor, nasty, disposses Pat Buchanan. This man, once a man I respected, has simply become a bitter old man who hasn't contributed a good idea in years.

Note he backs the assertion that 75 per cent of the command officers in the field feel as the generals do by help of a Washington Post columnist.

Poor old Pat. The country would be better off if he retired to his rocking chair in front of the fire and covered up with a nice shawl.

[PzLdr]

Tommy isn't going to bitch. All war is a trade off. Franks traded off speed for capturing the enemy. His plan relied on driving the Iraqi army away, and into dispersal, not capturing it. And that is one of the foundations, along with having insufficient forces to secure the country quickly, that led to the problems we have today.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Y'know, most of the big screw-ups in this war have been the Army's fault. Consequently, their stock has fallen with the Secdef--that's the way it is supposed to work.

Watching a bunch of retired Generals bitch that the secdef bent their dogtags and stamped their meal cards 'no dessert' is damned amusing.

I've seen political princes like these generals wreck officers' careers because the a guy used the wrong background color on a PowerPoint slide.....

Then they complain that Rumsfeld is 'swaggering and arrogant'?!

[Enterprise]

Thanks Bray. The British and Russians suffered terrible losses in Afghanistan. I realize that Afghanistan and Iraq were not exactly equivalent to WWII Japan, but historically, they sure as hell cost a lot of battlefield deaths of soldiers in the British and Russian Armies! Looking at the 1800s -

"The British seized most of the major cities in Afghanistan with little resistance, but their heavy handed rule soon resulted in a popular uprising by the people which resulted in the massacre of the entire British army of 15,000, save one."

link

And looking at Russian losses:

"Over 15,000 Soviet military personnel killed according to the Soviet figure (many Western estimates put the number much higher, around 50,000), 35,000 wounded (Soviet figure)

link

Eskimo chooses to minimize the accomplishments of the U.S. Military in these nations. I simply will NOT!

[Milhous]

It means that we needed a draft.

Create a Vietnam redux by putting half a million conscripts into Iraq. The ultimate goal of Representative Rangel (D) when he perennially introduces a bill to reinstate a draft then publicly complains about an alleged secret Bush plan to reinstate a draft then votes down his own bill to reinstate a draft.

[misterrob]

I think that too many true believers around here are afraid to look at Rumsfeld with any critical eye. The men who are criticizing him are not just random REMFs who have never seen combat or exactly the Wesley Clarks of the world. The military strategy planned for the Iraq takedown was amazing and the execution was flawless. It's the postwar campaign, civil planning and security that has not panned out. I suspect that Rumsfeld gets a free pass on results simply because he is Republican SecDef. Security has been piss poor, border incursions have largely gone unchecked and really, unchallenged. The Iranian supply of IEDs is an act of war. The Syrian pipeline of terrorists has been a problem as well. No actions have been taken. Why?

Did anyone stop to think that the Shia weren't going to be looking for payback? That the minority in power were going to go away quietly? That the terrorists trained and living in Iraq weren't going to be a problem? What about the political landscape? Trying to cobble together a government of life long enemies? That Iran wasn't going to stir up trouble or work their agents to influence the government? They picked Chalabi as a leader and then turn around and smear him as a spy for Iran when they figure out no one liked him.

That soldiers die due to their leaders' errors is an outcome that cannot be avoided 100%. But, the administration chose to listen to the views that supported their line of thinking and the results show.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Shinseki was promoted because of his ethnicity by a PC obsessed Clinton administration. He was an English Lit major at Duke. He served two tours in Vietnam.. as did lots of officers commissioned in 1965. Furthermore:

General Shinseki's retirement in 2003 became a disputed point in the first of the 2004 U.S. presidential election debates. The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, claimed that Shinseki had been forcibly retired over his estimates of troop requirements for the 2003 Iraq War, because the Bush administration preferred the much smaller ones of General Tommy Franks; in fact, however, he served his full term and retired on schedule.

There were, however, press reports of tension between Shinseki and Rumsfeld, over Shinseki's support for the Stryker project, the XM2001 Crusader which Rumsfeld cancelled, and the controversial 2000 decision to issue all Army troops with black berets, which had previously been worn only by the Rangers.