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.
2500 casualties? In a modern war? Over three years? The entire premise is patently idiotic. By any modern standard, or any meaningful standard of comparison at all, this war has been wildly successful.
Wow, what a team player! Do it my way, or I quit. Sorry, his actions earn my disrespect, not my respect.
Am I wrong to be a little concerned about the precident this sets?
susie
LOL!
It wouldn't surprise me that a handful out of the hundreds would have a negative opinion on how things were or are being handled and could be coaxed back into the limelight by a flattering approach from the MSM. That doesn't mean they are right.
Consider the source folks ... this is written by Buchanan. He couldn't get elected dog catcher so he takes out his frustration on the current administration.
Incidents of highly publicized and politically motivated whining by embittered generals are found throughout American history. Gen. George McClellan's attacks on Lincoln are the stuff of legend.
He was the commander that let a much smaller Japanese force crush him in the Phillipines. AFTER getting his air forces caught on the ground by the Japanese air attacks -- despite having the warning of what had happened in Pearl. Worse, he accepted an MOH for this great failure. He then spent the rest of WWII fighting the Navy more than the Japanese. He wasted great effort on taking every little Japanese post in New Guineau. In the Phillipines liberation, he once again was bled heavily by a smarter Japanese commander. His ego led him to punish anyone who embarassed him. From Wainwright (sp?) for surrendering after Duguot left to never promoting the Lt. Colonel who organized the massive Filipino resistance to sentencing Yamashita to death for resisting so strongly, MacArthur never missed a chance to zap those who hurt his ego.
It was his command that got caught flat-footed by the North Koreans at the start of the Korean War. It was his command that failed to cut off the North Koreans in the south after the US amphibious landings. It was his command that ignored the clear signs that the Chicoms were south of the Yalu in great numbers.
These cowardly retired generals are definitely in the MacArthur tradition of doing what's best for them and not what's best for their soldiers. We're better off with these vermin retired and away from the troops. Give me Rumsfeld, who has a clue and is listening to today's Pattons and Shermans, not these Beltway Bandits.
I'm sure these six generals are thrilled that Pat is sharing a fighting hole with them.
What Douglas A.MacArthur lacked in diplomacy,he made up for in EVERY other area!His brilliant strategy in The Pacific led to VICTORY!I don't want to minimize Nimitz's contributions,but it was really MacArthur's brilliance!!!
As far as Gen. Zinni's comments about the Bush and Rumsfeld 'Rush to War' is concerned, The UN had been fiddling around for 12 years, continually wagging it's finger at Iraq and not doing anything about Sadaam's rejection of the the resolutions it passed. In addition to that, the Democrats and the 'Allies' who Rumsfeld supposed alienated, kept demanding more and more in the way of talks, discussions, and diplomacy before troops were ever committed. How much longer did Zinni think we needed to talk the problem?
Good rant ;-)
whats that noise that "Pat" makes? "ehhh uhhh" "oh I don't know.. it's that time of the month... you know.... eehhh uhhh
taxes.... ehhh" LOL
"The Generals are revolting!"
"You said it! They stink on ice!"
Backbone would have required them to speak up before they waited for retirement with full beneifts. Ret. General Tommy Franks has never complained about troop strength, etc. even after he retired. He was the CIC of this war which one of the most efficient in taking an entire country. MacArthur was a great man but he made mistakes as well. Just ask the Chinese in N.Korea. How many generals that haven't retired are not complaining?
I'm having trouble believing that.
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??
We do have to thank Pukeannon for Florida 00 and the absolute destruction of the Reform Party.
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.