Seven Days in April -- Generals Prepare to 'Revolt' Against Rumsfeld

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 18, 2006 | Tony Blankley

[carumba]

....see what happens when you open your mouth before thinking things thru....

It appears none of these Generals planned the Iraqi campaign.

[TexasCajun]

Happens when Heros turn Democrat!

[X180A]

When you consider the different times and locations of the generals' remarks, then a "mutininy" seems unlikely. Also, the author fails in one very important point: If a general is retired, he no longer is subject to UCMJ and can no longer be a "mutineer". Once retired, he becomes nothing more than a loud, informed, critic just like any other US citizen.

[ARCADIA]

"He's an awesome Secretary of Defense, and this nation is blessed to have him at the helm."

That doesn't mean that we couldn't, or shouldn't, try to find a better one. But, before we go around firing people lets make sure that we have secured a beter plan, and a better person to implement it. Where is the other half of this debate - the half with the new strategy and the short list of candidates?

[longtermmemmory]

This is absurd. Black letter rules do not change the reality.

Those generals had no place in the modern army. They were dead enders dependent on wealing democrats like carter and clinton to keep rubber bullets in their weapons. These are the generals of the mooch off the military generations.

They wanted FREE STUFF and never ever ever imagined the militray would be actually used as a MILITARY! (gasp!)

This is just the mediots trying to Moby the public.

[longtermmemmory]

These generals have envigorated the broken glass republican in me.

[XJarhead]

Rumsfeld made the choice to browbeat and publicly humiliate three and four star subordinates who warned him, in private, about the problems to come in Iraq after his "transformed" conquest.

That's not how I remember it. Can you identify these three and four starts? And tell us when he "publicly humiliated" them? Not exact dates, but relative to their own public statements critical of the plan.

As I remember it, there were some generals who made negative public

comments, and at that point, Rumsfeld called them on it.

[Peach]

Set up. Definitely a set up. Good find and thanks for the ping.

[meandog]

He's an awesome Secretary of Defense, and this nation is blessed to have him at the helm

ROTFLMAO! "Dumsfeld" (his Pentagon moniker) is the most hated SECDEF by the military since McNamara! (Remember his flippant "You go into battle with the Army you've got sergeant!" made to the National Guardsman complaining about lack of armor in Iraq?)

[untrained skeptic]

Holbrooke is trying to make this seem like more than it really is.

Rumsfeld has angered a lot of entrenched people high up in the military. He has been consistently working to modernize the military.

That creates a lot of friction for two reasons. First the military is resistant to change. Historically we have whenever we find ourselves in a new major conflict we find that our military has prepared itself to fight the last major conflict, rather than adapted to being able to fight the new one, and having to change in the midst of the conflict is difficult and costly. Costly in both dollars and in lives.

The second reason the military has been upset with Rumsfeld is that he has canceled many military projects that he felt were wasteful. He took a lot of the control over what new technology would be developed away from generals he disagreed with.

Not only does that offend their dignity, but it significantly decreases their power and influence not only in the military itself but as a consultant of employee in the defense industry during their military retirement.

Large defense contracts are billions of dollars, and the major defense contractors hire former top military officers to help them understand the nature of the military and for their connections within the military.

These generals have devoted their lives to the military. Having someone come in when they are late in their careers and change things on them has got to ruffle a lot of feathers.

Undermining their authority and making them feel less valuable has got to make these powerful men very upset.

Remember what happened when the project for Crusader was canceled? Remember the stories of high ranking military officers trying to go around Rumsfeld and trying to lobby congress to keep it? Remember hearing that the army inspector general investigating lobbying by senior Army officials, but never hearing any more about it?

I bet you'll find that some of these army generals that are now speaking up have ties to Crusader or other large projects that Rumsfeld canceled or killed before they got going.

[Emmet Fitzhume]

Execute the Treasonous Seven under the charge of treason.

They are supporting international terrorism in the name of paltry book deals and CNN interviews.

They are pathetic, but they are dangerous.

[Emmet Fitzhume]

Q: Why are these so-called leaders running to Anti-American attack machines like CNN and NYT for their "story?"

A: I sense their sedition is motivated by some money, DNC politics and a need to hear their own voices.

[Beckwith]

Better - according to this guy, Zinni wants to be VP.

Maybe this statement on the Consortium News website by longtime political strategist Brent Budowsky adds some light to Zinni's flip-flop, "In my judgment, the unity ticket with the strongest potential would have former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, in the top spot, and retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, a politically independent military man (and Democrat), who supported George W. Bush in 2000, in the second slot."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041006a.html

[Jim Noble]

Can you identify these three and four starts? And tell us when he "publicly humiliated" them?

There were shouting matches outside of DR's inner office on more than one occasion prior to March 2003, and DR's characterizations of officers who thought more force would be required to suppress armed resistance was quite caustic and demeaning. I'm afraid I can't be more specific, and you can certainly choose to disbelieve it because I'm not citing witnesses or participants.

But, as I said, there are all kinds of leaders, but one of the problems with THAT particular style is that when things go south, you don't have any friends to help you out.

[notigar]

"Those generals had no place in the modern army."

Too bad we had them in such high positions fighting the war.You'd think we'd had a weeding-out procedure, what with the important things going on in Iraq these days.

[ChinaThreat]

Our millitary policy is directed by civillian elected representatives. To my knowledge, we don't elect generals. If active millitary officers conspire against our elected leaders, I cant help but see this as a coup. This is treason and should be treated as such.

As for these loudmouth do-nothing-of-significance generals like Zini, if you don't like the SecDef, elect a new president. Untill then, keep your piehole shut.

[Coldwater Creek]

I have no way of knowing for sure that you are right about the general's looking for big buck on the news shows, but I would bet the farm that you are right!!!!!!!!1

[bethelgrad]

I keep hearing about these wussy generals crying foul after they retire, but where are the MacArthurs and Pattons who have waited their whole lives to lead in wartime?

[Coldwater Creek]

Especially when it puts our troops in danger.

As a military family I cannot tell you how angry they make me.

[XJarhead]

I'm not disbelieving what you just described, but I certainly wouldn't consider that a "public humiliation". I've never heard Rumsfeld make any public statemetns disparaging an general until after that person went public first.

There are a lot of egos at that level, not just Rumsfeld's.