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.
Thank You. Rummy has been tremendous, and the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unquestionably two of the greatest run missions in history. Only those who do not grasp history can argue. Casualties are the lowest of any conflict, and the time to achieve victory were measured in days,not years. No war is conducted with perfection. In hindsight, it's easy to point out mistakes. More troops would have guaranteed more dead soldiers. Fighting guerrilla warfare with small bands of foreign troops is a tough situation, regardless of the numbers on our side.
My post to you should have said: 5,000 retired Generals.
5 have spoken out against Rumsfeld. I am not surprised you are in the minority. Not surprised at all. Neville Chamberlain trained you well.
Rumsfeld is now even starting to give a false illusion of his role that decision. That in itself is dishonest of him.
You have also ignored the second more important point of the National Emergency ending and Rumsfeld not properly planning for it.
Because professionals who have trained their entire adult life on this subject believed that was the case. I trust them ... not Rumsfeld.
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. Roughly 15-20% of those retire each year. There are literally thousands of retired generals and admirals...and how many are saying these things? Five? Six?
MacArthur was an arrogant self-serving twit. I don't care if the president is republican or democrat, the premise of civilian control of the military is absolutely necessary. MacArthur was a general in the same league with McClelland during the civil war. A pompous, self-aggrandizing idiot who came to see himself as more worthy than any of the leadership he was supposed to be serving. He thought that he was so smart and so popular that he could ignore the commander in chief and do/say what he pleased in time of war. That doesn't cut it. He may have been right in terms of what should have been done, hell, Patton was correct about rearming the Germans and marching on Uncle Joe's empire. That he might have been right did not allow him the priviledge of ignoring and disrespecting the president. I served with and around a lot of senior officers who viewed themselves as better and smarter than everyone else including the senior civilian leaders. They were crap as leaders and not deserving of respect.
The mere mention of Limbaugh brings on the urge to utter every derogatory and harshly descriptive adjective that my limited lexicon contains.
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh Limbaugh
But let's get REALLY basic. Rumsfeld resigned twice, it is wrong to have someone in charge like Rumsfeld that understands that yes he screwed up badly enough to resign. You should not have someone in such a critical position that does not want to be there. Do you want someone in charge of something as important as DoD .... at a critical time in history ..... that does not want to be in charge?
It doesn't take much backbone when you're already retired....and of course most (all?) of them are Army generals and that's the branch of the service that Rumsfield has been trying the hardest to modernize! I've had several friends promoted to general officer grade and if not for Clinton and what he did to the military, most of them would have never received a star under Reagan, Bush-41, etc etc....because most of the ones with true backbone retired and got the hell out of dodge rather than put up with Clinton's policies (or lack thereof...)
War is not supposed to be "safe"; it is bloody, it is horrible, it’s the basest of human endeavors and should leave rational men, forced into war, never wanting to repeat the experience. It is not a political tool and should never be glorified especially by pusillanimous political propagandists.
I’m old. If you are not, it’s your turn. Don’t f^(& it up.
His boss seems to believe that to be the case. "I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions."
"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."
Don Rumsfeld is the youngest and oldest SecDef in history, therefore, ipso facto the most experienced. He is no stranger to military matters having served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. He was in Navy Reserves for 18 years and retired as a Captain (O-6). Rumsfeld was also U.S. Ambassador to NATO in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).
Rumsfeld understands how Washington works from various perspectives. He has been the White House Chief of Staff, and served four terms as a Congressman.
Don Rumsfeld is no stranger to running a large organization aside from DOD. From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981).
Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.
I haven't scratched the surface of Rumsfeld's impressive resume, which is replete with outstanding management and executive performance. I would ask the same questions posed by you to the small minority of disgruntled generals who have nowhere near the breadth of experience that Rumsfeld has.
Does he listen to and consider dissenting or, at least, differing ideas to achieve the same objective?
General DeLong, USMC, deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command from 2000 to 2003 under Franks, seems to think so. "Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," retired Marine Gen. Mike DeLong told CNN's "American Morning" on Thursday. "When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared, you've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective." General Franks also speaks highly of Rumsfeld.
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?
No. What is the evidence he does? Shinseki was permitted to finish out his tour and retire on schedule. Rumsfeld, unlike most of his civilian predecessors, is not just a figurehead deferring to the military. He is actually in charge, which must be upsetting to some. He makes decisions after consultations. Again, Rumsfeld has a long and distingusihed record as a manager and executive in the government and the private sector. Now suddenly, he is a browbeating tyrant who doesn't know how to manage people and resources. I just don't buy it.
Where were the generals when Les Aspin refused to send armor to Somalia causing the deaths of 19 Amercans and wounding of 75 more? Where were the generals under the wimpy leadership of Bill Cohen and Clinton who gutted the military in the 1990s?
Rumsfeld was attacked in 2004 by the Dems and the media prior to the 2004 Presidential election. They are doing the same thing now in 2006 before the mid-terms. They are attacking Bush using Rumsfeld as the proxy. Rumsfeld is implementing the policy the President wants. If he wasn't, he would be gone.
I find what this small gang of generals doing to be unseemly and undermining the morale of the troops and the mission, which is still underway. What do they really hope to accomplish by this grandstanding? What do they really want in terms of policy change and further conduct of the war? Whinning about big, bad Donald accomplishes nothing.
"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation form their purposes. "
"War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means."
Karl von Clausewitz
When the politicians do the fighting, I may concede that point.
Politics and war are not mutually exclusive.
Who said they were? War is the result of political failure. Exploiting war for political ends is the result of madness.
Could you be any less 60s cliche?? The war is winding down and the Iraqi are not that far from taking over so let up on the rhetoric. The fact is, this war has been the safest in the history of mankind and a monumental achievment.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
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.