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.

[AntiGuv]

You having an aneurysm isn't gonna help anything..

Our successes in Iraq have been despite Rumsfeld.

[antaresequity]

Are these generals hold overs from the Kinton regime and have some sort of axe to grind?

What a ridiculous and meaningless assumption, not to mention petty.

Is everything about politics? Is it possible your hero Bush has screwed this up? Are you even open to the suggestion or notion that GW Bush is not the man you think he is?

My son is in the Army...this Army. As the conservative parent of a soldier in the United States Army, the words of these Generals have far more weight than that of Washington Bureaucratic power hungry hack like Rummy, or an elitist politician such as Bush...

[operation clinton cleanup]

Although every casualty is a tragedy, Iraqi Freedom will go down as one of the most lopsided defeats in Military history. The remaining aggressors have resorted to blowing up their fellow countrymen... not a winning strategy in anyones book.

[HawaiianGecko]

Gen. Richard Myers, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Tommy Franks, the retired commander of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both appeared on cable TV news shows to criticize former colleagues for publicly questioning the civilian leadership while the nation remains at war.

"My whole perception of this is it's bad for the military, and for military relations, and it's very bad for the country, potentially, because what we are hearing and what we are seeing is not the role the military should be playing in our society," Myers said.

 Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper said in an interview Friday that "Rumsfeld has failed in a number of ways, including "disastrous" war planning and execution and fostering a poor command climate."

Yesterday, General Thomas G. McInerney said, "Now, think about that statement. Coming off of a war in Afghanistan the U.S. Military defeats the largest military in the middle east in 21 days and that's called disastrous war planning and execution?"

I have a hard time understanding how anyone with enough thinking power to tie their own shoes cannot recognize this as propaganda and bull-o-knee!

Has anyone noticed that not one single Admiral or Air Force General has been complaining. Can a reasonable deduction be made from this coincidence? Is it possible that Rumsfeld's reorganization of the military which openly supports additional naval and air assets and a smaller Army and Marine Corps has anything to do with this?

General Wayne Downing made an intriguing comment this morning 4/15/06 on NBC's Today show, implying that a number of the Rumsfeld critics have ulterior motives: "One of these guys is writing a book. One or more of them have political aspirations. One of them has had his favorite program, the program that he worked on for the last three or four years while he was in the military, skewered by Secretary Rumsfeld. Others were not promoted for one reason or another."

I find it both humorous and shameful that people assume that a handful of Generals complaining about the Secretary of Defense are somehow quote-worthy and correct, when the Generals that actually planned and executed the most brilliant defeat in military history and disagree with these whiners are somehow idiots.

The argument that a handful out of over 8,000 living active duty and retired flag officers is proof of anything beyond squat is laughable.

 

[JCEccles]

You don't think it's possible these six petulant ex-generals are trying to sell books or launch political careers?

The evidence is right in front of you. Deal with it.

[squarebarb]

When the media starts reporting on the heroism and the courage and the good works our soliders do in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I will take them seriously when they start trotting our generals who want Rummy's resignation.

As it is, it's just one more in the long stream of attacks on our soldiers, regardless of either mistakes OR accomplishments.

When people yell Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! s often you stop listening to anything they say. Anything at all.

[Graymatter]

Retired generals making life difficult. What would Clinton do? Call them back up to active duty in order to court martial them or drum them out in disgrace, I bet.

[SFGI]

There are alot more people in Iraq that support the War, think it was the right thing to do. The Plan was developed and executed. Saddams Army was defeated and Iraq liberated. It was a great plan. General Tommy Franks book is a testiment to this plan and execution. So how come I don't see him in the press for the plan? Because the drive by media dosen't want anyone to support the administration. They just want to give one side of the story.

[ran15]

I hear the pentagon is becomign a lot like other areas of the government and even some of our corporations. Politically appointed people are put very high up. People who haven't worked their way up the ranks based on merit.

The goal of the military is to secure the nation and the constitution. But often these political hacks have other goals, like gender equality or social engineering ideas.. That have nothing to do with or are even counterproductive to the mission of the organization.

The actual invasion of Iraq couldn't really have gone better. But the post-invasion was mishandled badly. For example instead of heritage foundation students in charge of ministries in Iraq, it should have been experienced military personnel.

[SuziQ]

Leave peace-keeping, nation-building, etc. to someone else.

Who's supposed to do that in a country where any viable leadership has already been murdered by the previous dictator? When there is a vacuum, something will try to fill it, if there is not a force in the way to resist it.

The military NEEDS to remain to support that nascent leadership and hold down those elements which would try to stop the growth of a new more just society. In this case, it is the radical Islamists who are coming from all over the world to answer the call of bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi, NONE of whom are Iraqi, but all know that a representative republic right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East will play havoc with their ideas of Islamic world domination.

[Poincare]

Accusing the Sec Def of "swagger" sounds like a dem talking point rather than a credible charge of incompetence.

Rather similar to the Dems talking points against John Bolton.

[OregonRancher]

Finally a voice of reason. Keep it up.

[jamaksin]

Seems that you each are forgetting DugOut Doug's history at the start of WWII ... something about 8 hours warning and still entire B-17 fleet caught on the ground, very poor disposition of supplies, ..., etc.

Regarding Churchill, a search for "SS AUTOMEDON" might be an interesting read ... Quite the saga.

[brytlea]

"My whole perception of this is it's bad for the military, and for military relations, and it's very bad for the country, potentially, because what we are hearing and what we are seeing is not the role the military should be playing in our society," Myers said.

Amen

susie

[Verginius Rufus]

I know a survivor of the Bataan death march (now 87 or 88) who doesn't have a high opinion of MacArthur for some of the reasons you state.

And you didn't even mention his mishandling of the Bonus marchers (of course, only civilians were killed in that incident).

[antaresequity]

Sure its possible...they maybe just as scurrilous...

But to simply dismiss them as Clinton hacks in an off handed way is wrong.
I have lost trust in this administration...for many reasons...not the least of which has been its imbecilic bumbling of Iraq.

We have pursued this war with one hand tied behind our back. We continue to do so today.

[stubernx98]

Pucky of horse. Rumsfield is right on. He was there to change the military from a world war two nation fighting force to one of combating terrorists groups. this is a major change to the way things were being done.

When it comes to a culture change within an organization, 15% of the people are quick adopters, 15 to 45% are average adopters, 20 to 30$ are slow adopters and the rest will never change. You've got to get rid of them.

Rumsfield is on of the greatest, no non sense SOD. To affect change you got to be tough and persisitant. He will do it.

[brytlea]

Anyone whose never read Ghost Soldiers really should.
susie

[CitizenUSA]

The problem is a lack of investigative reporting in todays media. Instead of simply reporting what the generals say, why aren't we seeing why they came out at this particular time? What is their history? For example, were they denied promotions?

Almost every issue today comes down to a he said, she said thing. But there MUST be more to this story than six guys suddenly deciding on their own to come out and attack the SecDef.

Anyone with any understanding of leadership knows it's impossible to please everyone. You will always be despised by some subordinates and loved by others. Why? Because leaders have to make tough decisions that affect each of their subordinates differently. Leaders who want to make changes make even more enemies than those who don't.

[MNJohnnie]

Gee Pace, Casey, Franks tell you you all are full of crap, yet you cling to 6 pass over has beens who whine about "Rummy is abusive"! You guys should be embarrassed these guys are on your side. Oh but I suppose that is too abusively true for you folks.

Gee, maybe you can get together with the 6 retired Generals who took Soro's money to stage this PR stunt and hold hands and whine about how good it was back in the old days.

The rest of us are too busy to listen to you Neo Isolationists. Sorry Dinosaurs, your neo-Isolationist world view DIED on 9-11. These terrorists are not going to go away just because you want to hide under your bead and wish the rest of the world away.