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.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Well, thousands of pro-life demonstrators don't just show up randomly on the Capitol lawn, either. So what?"

Now you've lost me. What does an organized group like the pro-lifers have to do with a cabal of supposedly independent ex-generals whose former rank is supposed to lend credibility to their attack on Rummy?

It's true that you haven't actually said that they were selfless and independent in plain words. That's a good thing, since any thinking person can see that they are not, but you have given other posters flak for implying that the generals are DNC shills.

It's also true that what either of us think about this controversy doesn't matter in the long run. I like it that we can agree about something.

I'm off to eat ham and watch the children play.

Have a nice Easter everyone.

Michael Frazier

[eskimo]

You clearly indicate what your opinion of the WOT and our leaders is.

I'm glad you got that straight.

Oh, and it isn't the willingness to kill that gives nobility to the warfighters but the willingness to die for their people.

When I fight, I'm willing to kill but hell bent on not dying. Guess I do not subscribe to your "suicide bomber" glorious death psycho-babble.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Guess I do not subscribe to your "suicide bomber" glorious death psycho-babble."

The next time the Traveling Wall comes through, I'll pass on to my brothers what you think of their sacrifice.

Michael Frazier

[eskimo]

The next time the Traveling Wall comes through, I'll pass on to my brothers what you think of their sacrifice.

I probably have more brothers who sacrificed than you do, none that I know were death cult lunitics. They were rational individuals doing what was necessary to defend their tribe.

[Huck]

Cabal?? lol. See? That's what I am talking about. As far as I understand, this group of generals was pulled together because they are like-minded. You don't have to agree with them, but just because they are organized in getting their message out doesn't make them a cabal! LoL. You're cracking me up. If 5 freepers stand outside Walter Reed Hospital, are they a cabal?? Of course not. Well what's different here? They are smart to coordinate their message. Fine, so if the message is wrong, then debate it. Why demonize? It makes you look dishonest, and it makes it look like you can't debate their argument.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"I probably have more brothers who sacrificed than you do"

You've been around long enough to know better than to make undocumented statements like that.

You don't say anything about yourself on your FReeper page so I'll have to assume that you are just talking trash, just like in your defense of your opinions on this thread.

[Huck]

I do have a problem with them going to the press. It is so clearly a political move that I am appalled you don't see it.

When Tommy Franks went to Sean Hannity to hawk is book, don't you think it was, in part, politically motivated? Don't you think he was trying to get his message out? Don't you think he believed in his message and wanted to get the word out to as many people as possible? And don't you think he also wanted to sell books? The only difference is you agree with one general and disagree with the other. Oh wait, the other difference is you demonize one for doing essentially the same thing as the other, rather than just go after the substance.

[Huck]

Come to think of it, didn't Tommy Franks campaign for GWB in 04? Can't get any more politically motivated than that. But so long as their your politics, that's fine, right? I say if you disagree with Zinni and his bunch, go after the substance, rather than hypocritically trying to demonize them. It makes it look like you can't argue the substance.

[eskimo]

You don't say anything about yourself on your FReeper page so I'll have to assume that you are just talking trash, just like in your defense of your opinions on this thread.

Guess that means you wouldn't believe anything I say anyway. So, I guess I'll treat your opinions likewise.

[PzLdr]

Yep. The critical weak point in German military doctrine has always been grand strategy and strategy [check out "The German Way of War' by Robert Citino]. That may well be the result of a geography,industrial base and demographics which best suited short, quick, decisive wars.

On the operational, and tactical level, the Germans had no equals. The DuPuy brothers actually worked out a mathematical equation to determine the outcome of a battle [see "Understanding War"]based on the number of tanks, troops, tubes, etc. The critical difference in the West was air power [both strategic-those short wars again, and tactical -industrial base]. When factored out, the Germans narrowly lost battles they should have been creamed in, drew battles they should have lost, won tactical victories in battles they should have drawn, and won major victories where the margin should have been much narrower. The DuPuys' [both U.S Army Colonels] conclusions: two Germans were worth three U.S or British troops, and one German was worth five to six Russians. And that is the result of the doctrines you allude to in your post. And whether or not you like the fact, most U.S military doctrine from the operational level down [and, in view of the U.S mania for shorter and shorter wars, perhaps up]is derived from the Germans'.

[damper99]

Yep, you're right that Batiste passed up a third star when he retired....more accurately, he passed up a chance at getting a third star. I'd say that once the nominations for the three stars and their positions were announced, he wasn't one of them and elected to retire. The third star issue sounds more like face saving to me.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.

You are right about the lack of a sufficient industrial base and sufficient numbers contributing to the destruction of the Nazi war machine. I like a happy ending.

I have the highest respect for the fighting qualities of the WW II German military and I understand that they didn't lose because of superior Allied militaries, but lose they did, twice within 40 years.

I also know that much of what I learned and used in my youth came from the Germans. I was jerking your chain more than anything else.

My favorite example of the quality of German arms is their withdrawl from Sicily in the face of Operation Husky.

Happy Easter.

Michael Frazier

[bandleader]

I'm well aware that Nimitz wanted to by-pass The Philippines and take Formosa to use as a base to strike(and invade)the Japanese homeland.It was the"Fast Carriers"under Marc Mitscher that defeated the Japanese at sea.Our submarine forces sank the Japanese merchant fleet.While I do give a great deal of credit to Nimitz,I think he made some very costly blunders like Tarawa.If you haven't been,you should go to Fredericksburg,TX and visit The Nimitz museum.

[takenoprisoner]

So you know, I agree we did the right thing in Iraq. I agree Saddam needed removing. Afterall, we should never forget that our govt aided and abetted him in the process of his rise to power. Everyone knows the cia screwed up big time with Saddam. And of course our same illustrious cia amongst others aided and abetted OBL and his mujadeem in their war against the Russians in Afghan.
We trained the bastard in strategies for cryin out loud. Is it no wonder we can't find the spook? But I digress, bottomline, agreed with the war in iraq wmd or not, but must confess that I do not agree with the current strategy.

I am of the opinion that if we don't change course, the current strategy will eventually undermine our initial victory. Sure Rumsfeld brought us to this juncture and did a swell job, but now we need new blood with a new strategy to realize this mission's final resolve.

[kabar]

So you know, I agree we did the right thing in Iraq. I agree Saddam needed removing. Afterall, we should never forget that our govt aided and abetted him in the process of his rise to power.

Wrong. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958, Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country. In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence.

But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and he was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam Hussein gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, he achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.

The bottom line is that the US did not/not aid and abet Saddam in his rise to power. In 1980 Saddam invaded Iran, which at the time was still holding our diplomats hostage. The war with Iran lasted 8 years. We provided mostly intelligence to Iraq during the war with Iran, believing that Iran posed more of a threat to the region than Saddam. In 1990 he invaded Kuwait.

And of course our same illustrious cia amongst others aided and abetted OBL and his mujadeem in their war against the Russians in Afghan. We trained the bastard in strategies for cryin out loud. Is it no wonder we can't find the spook?

We funded and assisted the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation. OBL was among the thousands of foreign fighters who went to Afghanistan to participate in that struggle. I have no idea as to the extent and type of training OBL personally received in this effort. The real significance of Afghanistan is that it reinforced the premise that Islamic fundamentalists could defeat Western power. The US had been humiliated in Iran and the Soviets were ousted from Afghanistan. The subsequent blowing up of the Marine Barracks in Beiruit followed by a rapid departure, our bugging out of Somalia after suffering a few casualties, and failure to respond in any significant way to attacks on the WTC, Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole all contributed to the image that the US was a paper tiger.

I am of the opinion that if we don't change course, the current strategy will eventually undermine our initial victory. Sure Rumsfeld brought us to this juncture and did a swell job, but now we need new blood with a new strategy to realize this mission's final resolve.

What is the new strategy you want? The idea that the SecDef decides unilaterally what the strategy will be is nonsense? Unless you replace the entire military leadership and more than likely the President, Rumsfeld's departure will not have any meaningful impact on our current strategy in Iraq. We will still continue training more Iraqi police and military and stand down as they stand up. There is no way we can lose the war militarily.

[unionblue83]

I won't disagree. However, what Saddam did to that country and its populace over 30 years doesn't help with the hearts and minds campaign. I think the majority of the population is under thirty so all they have ever known is how evil the West is. Can't blame them for being a little reluctant. IMO, though, Franks' campaign was a great one and with the amount of casualties we sustained during actual combat fighting was amazing compared to all of our previous conflicts. One death is too many but we are doing the right thing and I am firmly rooted in that belief.