Posted on 04/16/2006 12:01:29 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
AS the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, I was the daily "answer man" to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I briefed him twice a day; few people had as much interaction with him as I did during those two years. In light of the recent calls for his resignation by several retired generals, I would like to set the record straight on what he was really like to work with.
When I was at Centcom, the people who needed to have access to Secretary Rumsfeld got it, and he carefully listened to our arguments. That is not to say that he is not tough in terms of his convictions (he is) or that he will make it easy on you (he will not). If you approach him unprepared, or if you don't have the full courage of your convictions, he will not give you the time of day.
Mr. Rumsfeld does not give in easily in disagreements, either, and he will always force you to argue your point thoroughly. This can be tough for some people to deal with. I witnessed many heated but professional conversations between my immediate commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Mr. Rumsfeld — but the secretary always deferred to the general on war-fighting issues.
But that doesn't mean that a "What's next?" plan didn't exist. It did; it was known as Phase IV of the overall operation. General Franks drafted it and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department ...
Thus, for distinguished officers to step forward and, in retrospect, pin blame on one person is wrong. And when they do so in a time of war, the rest of the world watches.
(Excerpt) Read more at qando.net ...
This current crop of McClellan wannabes seem to be more interested in their own "feelings" than either the mission or the good of the troops.
The Marxist Media and the democrat Party are determined to lose this war and take destroy the USA in the process. It is past time for them to be taken down and destroyed instead.
Good article, thanks for posting. Was this in the NYTimes today? I think these retired generals are doing harm more to themselves than to anyone else. They forfeited any respect from this american when they went on the public record, airing their personal disagreements with Rummy. They are part of the DNC's plan to undermine the President in a time of war, inexcusable behavior. They have crossed the line from supporting their troops, to spitting on them.
There are 8,000+ Generals retired and active duty in our military. Six of them want Rumsfeld to quit. At what point do we say whoop-dee-doo?
He does micro-manage, interfere with decisions made by subordinates, plays rough, is obnoxious and overbearing. He is also brilliant, obsessively patriotic and hard-working, and the last person bin Laden wants as Secratary of Defense. No one else makes the enemy fear for their lives........period.......
Can you imagine what the next Secretary of Defense confirmation hearings would be like? Rumsfeld better stay for the duration, if we're lucky.
This man is absolutely correct. Generals have a big say in how operations are conducted. The ones who are complaining now in the media after becoming "retired" are the ones Clinton promoted. There is more work to do.
The Treasonous Six will never shut up.
Their egos need as many possible book deals and political positions as the DNC can give.
I suspect their plan is to pander to Anti-American attack machines like CNN and the New York Times because no one in their right mind really cares what they think.
Treachery inside our leadership chains will bring about military defeat in the middle east, and our subsequent destruction will quickly follow.
Thanks for the post, it's a very good article. I would like to see General Delong do a few interviews on TV and relate this information as Generals Meyers and Franks have.
I remember hearing one officer, "retired" by Rumsfeld complaining bitterly that he always did what Rumsfeld told him to do and got set aside. The folks that got ahead were always arguing with Rumsfeld. It seemed unfair to him. Lemme guess. Could it be that Rumsfeld doesn't like suckups and doesn't like generals who cannot hold their own in an argument over the best way to conduct an operation where the lives and honor of America's finest men and women are at stake?
These are the people Rumsfeld was ordered to use bug spray on by Bush.
Uh, my friends, making decisions and delegating execution is not micromanagement. That is leadership. It is just that a lot of the Clinton promoted generals had not seen much of that.
You've got that right!
You knew this was what it was all about. When a former Major General of Infantry shows up the same day on 3 morning Network "News" programs whining about the Sec of Defense being "Abusive" you KNOW it is politics not principal.
Rumsfeld is correct to demand the best arguements against US military policy. A commissioned officer is required and ordered to voice doubts, strategic apprehension and planning problems with what is in front of him.
No need to get carried away.
The current crop.
Kind of reminds me of the people we have in congress, the RINOS and the Democrats.
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.