Why America's generals are out for revenge

The Times UK ^ | April 18, 2006 | Dean Godson

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Belmont Club:

Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Notes from all over

***********************************AN EXCERPT *******************************

Whatever merits the article may have, the Rumsfeld vs the Generals debate has become political, a stage where noise really starts to exceed signal.

[Grampa Dave]

Superb.

We should save this and send it to the whining loser generals and 1 admiral on the wrong side of the war, the left wing democRat side.

[Grampa Dave]

FYI.

An excellent London Times OPED without the lies and spin of our left wing mediots.

[Grampa Dave]

For your ping lists.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The DemonicRats are exposed on this flareup:

New voices weigh in on Iraq (The DNC Asks More Generals to Speak Out Against the War)

[AmericanRepublican]

I have too much respect for the military to play on this whole: Decorated War Generals vs. Clean-Faced Politicians game.

I'd rather support our troops than play the blame game and deride their efforts.

I hope this can be resolved with minimum casualties and with some understanding that we're all Americans and not have the media fall into the hands of liberal mudslinging.

[Madame Dufarge]

Bump.

Excellent.

[dk/coro]

Who is the lone Admiral, if I may ask?

I had hope the heavies in the Senior Service would have kept their own counsel -- or resigned.

[Grampa Dave]

I have heard that Crowe is one of these Clintoon Perfumed Princes. His Clintoon kneepads were autographed by Bill and Hill several times in the 90's.

[ziggygrey]

So... we're blaming the military now? Tommy Franks comment about "we'll do the day of" and "you do the day after" doesn't really inspire confidence.

I don't think that soldiers should be doing the "social workish stuff". As nice a photo op painting a school may be, all of the reconstruction should be done by Iraqis. Kicking the foreign contractors out (who are also targets, putting an extra security burden on our troops) would probably help also.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Exactly right. What cheek!

[Suzy Quzy]

Interesting about Tommy Franks actions!!!! VERY interesting!!

[MNJohnnie]

Nice you have opinons, too bad they are stupid ones.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

General Anthony Zinni — the former US commander in the Middle East and perhaps the most voluble of Mr Rumsfeld’s critics — was particularly taken with a study written by a youngish Army officer, H.R. McMaster, criticising the US Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Robert McNamara era for not speaking up more loudly against a war they knew could not be won.

Our military won the war in Viet Nam. The civilians lost the media war here in the US to the communists.

[Pelham]

Tommy Franks comment about "we'll do the day of" and "you do the day after" doesn't really inspire confidence.

In WWII we had a Civil Affairs Division that took control and established order as the front line moved past. They vetted the locals to weed out Nazis, but otherwise used local officials to maintain order, establish a police force, and keep the cities running. It prevented anarchy and gangs from taking over. It's apparent this lesson was forgotten or ignored by the Pentagon. But it's also a job that cannot be done if you don't take a force large enough to provide for occupation duty.

[Gorjus]

An excellent London Times OPED without the lies and spin of our left wing mediots.

Yes, it's a good article. Rather than being automatically anti-Bush - including any and all subordinates - it actually provides a respectful analysis of someone in a position of responsibility, for whom most answers have good and bad elements.

However, it's a one-sided article as well. It's all pro-Rumsfeld. I'm prepared to believe that any officer who was at general-officer rank during the Clinton era should be discounted at least and put in jail at best (unless he quit, like Shoemaker). However, there are two sides to most issues. This op-ed is probably too space-limited to develop both sides, but there are some things that Rumsfeld has done that should be cause for concern.

He has put all out eggs in the Afghanistan/Iraq type of conflict. His assumption is that we will be fighting a low-technology enemy who will allow our aircraft to roam at will through the airspace. As a result, the enemy will not benefit from set-piece battles or massed armor formations, so these can be essentially ignored. A lightning strike will work.

But what happens if we go up against a technologically sophisticated foe, with legitimate air defenses? With no Crusader artillery (as one example), we're going to have a hard time delivering ordnance. What happens if we have another sanctuary situation where the bad guy slips back and forth over a line our own forces cannot cross? (And don't think that won't happen. It's happening now with 'insurgents' from both Iran and Syria. But it could happen with raiding aircraft as in Korea instead of just 'insurgents.')

Perhaps he's made the right decisions, but those who are concerned have a valid point. You can use a high-tech answer in a low-tech war, but you better not bring a low-tech force structure (or one that requires your opponent be low-tech) to a high-tech war.

When we go up against the Chinese, or against Muslims with French/German/Japanese jammers and SAMs, we're going to find that light infantry has a very, very hard time, even if they're as good as our Special Forces are.

[Pelham]

Our military won the war in Viet Nam. The civilians lost the media war here in the US to the communists.

The article mischaracterizes McMaster's book a bit from what I recall of it. McMaster laid a lot of blame on civilians, McNamara and Johnson in particular, but he faults the senior military for not speaking up against those two, whose strategy did so much to damage our ability to conduct the war. The only flag officer I recall who did speak up was Admiral US Grant Sharpe who wrote a sharply critical book when he retired.

[Pelham]

You state the real issues well.

One of Rumsfeld's ideas is apparently to substitute helicopters and missiles for artillery like the Crusader. I read of one battle where this was put to the test as we moved toward Baghdad. Helicopters were sent against an entrenched Iraqi line, but got shot up without dislodging them. Field pieces were eventually brought up to greater effect. Sandstorms are also not a helicopter's friend, artillery is a good deal less impressed by bad weather.