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.
Ok - correction accepted.
Bullsh!t! I minimize no accomplishments where American lives are the price paid. Your warped historical perspective is no excuse for your stupid accusations.
The is means so much coming from Buchanan........
bwahahahahahahaha!
Could be. But it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
First they are a distinct minority. Second, what exactly are they saying that leads you to believe that Rumsfeld is incompetent? It is more about his style and abrasiveness. What decisions has Rumsfeld made that are so terrible? The idea that a SecDef can make momentous decisions in isloation is nuts. The Army is unhappy because the Stryker project and the XM2001 Crusader were cancelled. It wasn't Rumsfeld who wanted to issue all Army troops with black berets, which had previously been worn only by the Rangers. Shinseki made that call. What do you want us to do now in Iraq that we aren't.
What I learned from Vietnam, is not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems and the MSM demonized the military, distorted what was happening on the ground (remember the Tet "defeat'), castigated the Nixon administration, and pulled the rug out from under the South Vietamese by cutting off funding. The attacks on Rumsfeld began in 2004 leading up to the Presidential election. These latest attacks coincide with the runup to the mid-terms. It is all political with the ultimate objective to see us lose in Iraq because it benefits the Dems politically.
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...
Sounds like you are buying the MSM crap. How many Iraqis are being slaughtered each day and where are they being slaughtered. Iraq is a nation of 25 million and the size of California. Our casualty rate has been trending down the past six months. The Iraqis are assuming more and more responsibility for their security as they are being trained in increasing numbers. The Iraqi military and police are losing more people than we are.
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.
Iraq is no Vietnam. Our KIA casualties have averaged 600 a year for the past three years. AQ has declared Iraq as the frontline in their war against us. We are fighting some of the same folks who committed 9/11 and killed 3000 people on our soil, blew up our embassies in East Africa, and bombed the USS Cole and Khobar towers. Iraq is part of the global WOT. We can't just walk away.
Ping for later reading
I compared the enemy and the forces they commanded. You need to appologise for the original idiotic comparison.
I'm out of here before my patience with self-important idiots runs too thin. I'm going to the Veterans Home to visit some old friends and get the stink out of my nostrils from being too close to this screen. Maybe when you grow up, you'll know what I mean.
DO IT NOW!
Incorrect. Actually Rumsfeld had the JCS with Myers "discuss" with CENTCOM and Franks lowering their requested troops levels. The analogy is like Marshall asking Ike before D-Day to lower the troops needed to invade. It's wrong .... just like Rumsfeld is still wrong.
The most current real time problem where Rumsfeld is wrong is the declared "National Emergency". It ends this September. Rumsfeld has had 5 years to come up with troops levels needed to fight the "Axis of Evil" and the GWOT without using the Guard ... Has he? What are his plans? ....I know .... he will just weasel out and ask that the emergency continue....again Rumsfeld is STILL wrong.
Incorrect. Actually Rumsfeld had the JCS with Myers "discuss" with CENTCOM and Franks lowering their requested troops levels.
No.
I've seen quotes from both Myers and Franks saying that they were part of the troop level decision making process and that they got what they wanted.
You should document Myers and Franks saying that they didn't get what they thought was the correct number of troops.
Good Luck to you and Happy Easter.
Excellent points
Having served in the military for 24 years I have seen enough generals and their egos to last a life time. Bush was only limited by the reductiuon in force that the Klintons forced on the military hoping for that big "peace dividend" so they could spend it on pet projects at the expense of the military...where were the generasl then?
Y'know, the PR stuff that is so important in this war....
Those were lapses of discipline specific to the Army.
Our performance otherwise has been stunning, but the army is 'a little uneven' in culture and attitude between the support and combat units.
If Rumsfeld was smart enough to figure out that the Crusader artillery vehicle needed to be cancelled, he's OK by me. I worked on it--it was FUBAR and wouldn't work. It was, however, a vehicle that would allow women into field artillery--that's what it was designed to be--no manhandling rounds anymore.
Case closed .... document provided by you. My analogy is valid and Rumsfeld is wrong.
Great point.
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.