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.
LOL! Your cut and paste removed the very important second part of my sentence. I will repeat what I said in full underlining the part you left out.
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.
Case not close. You should document Myers and Franks saying that they didn't get what they thought was the correct number of troops or else you haven't made your point.
Nor would a million of our troops inspire the Iraqis to step up to the plate and defend their own country.
34 - four star generals/admirals
124 - three star generals/admirals
278 - two star generals/admirals
439 - one star generals/admirals
Throw in the U.S. Coast Guard and you have 900 generals and admirals on active duty today. Rougly 15-20% of those flag officers retire every year. It doesn't take a calculator to see how many generals and admirals have retired since Secretary Rumsfeld took office...some not willingly either.
And your so called revolt has how many generals? Five? Six?
LOL! Statistically far more Norwegians welcomed the Nazis with open arms.
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.
I DID NOT SAY Franks didn't get his final request. Do not put words into my statements. Franks did NOT get his FIRST request.
Calling people idiots does not make your points right. This war will go down as the safest war fought in the history of mankind.
At the beginning of this war and even Trashcanistan the military genuii predicted 10s of thousands of deaths, even reporting on needing more body bags. Rather we have around 2,000 KIA which is unheard of. Considering we are fighting outside forces who use terrrorist tactics the military has done an amazing job.
You should be commending our military rather than tearing it down like it could have been done better. More troops equals more targets. Kind of sad that our side falls for the Left's rent a Generals' criticism. What next, quote Weasley Clark??
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
Why did we want more troops in Iraq? More troops means more convoys means more targets.
What good does more troops have for fighting an invisible army?? Not to mention increasing troops levels would only ratchet up the Vietnam left. We have done a great job with what looks like the right number.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Securing the borders .... the weapons depots (there would have been far fewer IEDs because the shells and ammo would have been secured) ... to name a few. BUT the biggest would have been to deal with Iran.
Yes Iran still has to be gotten rid of (unless Rumsfeld has forgot) .... having 380,000 troops could have made that job FAR easier.
You've yet to document that sequence of events.
But even assuming it is true -- which is a stretch at this point -- I did say that I've seen quotes saying that Franks got the numbers he wanted and thought he needed.
I don't think it's fair to blame Rumsfeld for not providing enough troops. He had enough for the initial invasion, but he didn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting enough troops to provide for the occupation after the miserable management of the political situation by the civilians.
Franks was on TV today, he is very saddened by these Generals and says their actions are inappropriate, some even call their behavior/statements unethical. He also stated that NONE of these generals made these statements to him during the planning process and he was surprised by some of their comments.
Imo, these generals have spit on the troops currently serving in the field. I recall when 100 plus generals resigned in ONE day under Clinton because they couldn't bear his policies; they resigned and moved on. They did not wait until they were elegible for full retirement benefits and then piss on the troops. These 6 generals are attempting to implement Harry Reid's documented strategy, which was to use the military to turn the troops against the President. They disgust me.
How do you know all that could have been done with a million troops? We had no idea where or how many weapons were out there. Now the IEDs are coming from Iran which is nearly impossible to stop.
The Israelis have 1/10th the land and couldn't keep them out until they put up the wall. You have no way of knowing if more troops would have been better or worse. Rummy is right on. These Gens are Dem hacks who are disgracing their own service.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
The number of ground troops moved near Iraq before the war was decided over months of consultations among Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of the war, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff before Mr. Rumsfeld took it to the National Security Council and the president, he said.
"It has been approved by everyone who's had a look at it," he said before one television appearance. "It's been described as an excellent plan. I'd be delighted to take credit for it, but it wouldn't be fair, because it's a product that is essentially General Franks's, but it certainly is the result of a lot of thought from a lot of very fine military planners."
Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, however, diminished what top military officers and even members of his inner circle described as the defense secretary's central role in shaping the war plan, rejecting the initial plan and pressing for a campaign that would be quicker, using fewer forces.
Both Mr. Rumsfeld and General Myers denied that the number of ground forces had been trimmed below levels requested by General Franks.
At his forward command post in Qatar, General Franks backed up the Pentagon's view today. "We're in fact on plan," he said during a news briefing. "I did not request additional troops before the beginning."
Calling Troop Levels Adequate, Rumsfeld Defends War Planning - March 30, 2003
WASHINGTON, July 9, 2003 - Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.
"We have about 145,000 troops in there right now," General Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said he had talked to "commanders at every level inside Iraq," and found that the size and structure of those forces were appropriate for the current situation."
Laverne, thanks for the Franks update.
Out of 5,000 retired military men, 5 or 6 have come out to blast Rumsfeld. Oh, and you, of course. The anti Churchill.
LOL! So true.
1) The job had to be done.
2) If you wanted to have any sort of rotational policy, you couldn't commit the number of troops those generals wanted. The cupboard is bare.
Explanation of that viewpoint, though informative of a personal perspective, nonetheless, still does not address the issue raised. Namely, is Rumsfeld an effective, efficient and sagacious SecDef? Does he listen to and consider dissenting or, at least, differing ideas to achieve the same objective? Does he rely on intimidation, coercion and/or an implied policy of professional jeopardy with respect to senior officers who disagree with his predisposed policies or operational plans before the final decision is made? Rather than yet another version of:'' you're doing a great job _______''(fill in the blank) and be arrogantly dismissive of the matter, a more dispassionate and throrough examination of such an important issue should be undeertaken.
He's getting the job done.
And it is a huge and enormously complex job.
Many general officers just want an hanger queen for a SecDef, someone who will stay out of their business and let them wallow in a well-worn rut.
Rumsfeld can be tough and abrasive, just like most of the general officers I have met or worked for over the years. The generals aren't doe-eyed innocents. It's a tough business.
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.