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.
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.