Source: Army secretary resigns on Rumsfeld's demand

CNN.com ^ | 4/25/03

[Hipixs]

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanded U.S. Army Secretary Tom White step down Friday, a senior Pentagon official said, a move that follows two years of contention between the two.

The official said Rumsfeld called White into his office and demanded his resignation, which White provided.

[rdb3]

I'm going to vote for ignore. There's no reasoning with insanity.

I agree. And this is the stance that should be taken more often with a certain element around here. It should come as no surprise that this element just wishes to get a rise out of people.

Ignore them and they'll have no other choice but to just go away.

And today was a good day...

[chilepepper]

I try to imagine what role the Crusader could have had in GWII and damn it, Rummie is right. The Crusader and its support gear, it seems to me, would have had a hard time keeping up with the other vehicules in the mad dash up to Baghdad, so as a laggard would have missed most of the action, correct me if I'm wrong...

I suspect that White wouldn't take NO on this, grew resentful and made the mistake of "piling on" when the media and retired generals embedded in the newsroom started to say Rummie had gone too light with the troops (I imagine White going to the congresscritters saying "I told you so!"). Shinseki is another bureaucritter, obviously his "hundred thousand post war police troops" was completely off the mark...if he weren't retiring soon, i suspect he would be gone already.

Now that it all worked, White has to pay for being wrong and a backstabber to boot

As for Rummie, he may not be a god walking the earth but he clearly is no dummie.

[Consort]

Rumsfeld is mediocre at best. Too bad you don't know it.

Fred Mertz is French. Too bad he don't know it.

[Miss Marple]

Here are some random thoughts about White's resignation:

1. While White might be a fine man, he wasn't accomplishing what needed to be done in the Pentagon. His use of a military jet for personal reasons, although technically ok displayed a tin ear for public opinion.

2. I don't know about whether he was the source of some leaks, or whether he simply allowed them. The Crusader flap-doodle was not helpful to the Pentagon, regardless of the merits of the program.

3. Enron is still under investigation by DOJ. It is possible that White was peripherally involved and will be required to testify. Unfortunately, even though he probably has no guilt in that fiasco, it would be best if he resign now before we are treated to headlines about the Secretary of the Army being called before the Enron Grand Jury.

Regarding Rumsfeld's competence:

1. The reason this seemed a lop-sided victory was because part of the war plan involved heavy use of psy-ops prior to the onset of hostilities, coupled with massive use of air power to deteriorate the capabilities of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard.

2. Rumsfeld has shown that the combination of lighter and swifter, coupled with a back up of power, is lethally effective.

3. Rummy's press briefings are not simply "PR," but an effective and necessary strategy to align the American public with the military instead of the press. Failing to hold the press briefings would allow the reporters carte blanche to manufacture stories.

4. Rumsfeld gives 2 briefings per week. Other briefings are done by Torie Clark.

5. Those who make ad hominem attacks on Rumsfeld without any supporting evidence are of the sour grapes school of politics. Their actual objection to Rumsfeld is that he is a member of the Bush administration, which makes him objectionable with no further evidence needed.

[chilepepper]

When you say we met no serious resistance in this war and were fighting and "inferior enemy" i think you miss the point... we met no serious resistance because it was all destroyed from the air before it could deploy. In this sense, there IS no serious resistance on this planet among our potential enemies. The only armed forces that could actually be "serious" would be amongst nuclear powers (that would have to use the bomb to stop our troops), our own allies the UK and perhaps minor resistance from the Europeans (at least in theory from their modern weapons)

North Korea would be a turkey shoot if we had enough ordnance and in particular enough MOABS. It would be a rout, even if they took Seoul initially (which I think they no longer can do since their posturing has given away the element of surprise).

[MEG33]

You have made wonderful observations.Thanks for your input.

[sakic]

Anyone who thinks "Rummy is an idiot" after this brilliant campaign, that even the British are saying will be studied for years due to its' excellence

Are you shocked to see a participant say how excellent it was? If America could not roll over a country with almost no defenses and very little organization it would have been one of the most shocking military engagements of all time.

I'm not calling Rummy an idiot, I have no opinion one way or the other, but what he accomplished here does not prove him to be a great military strategist.

[sakic]

but you don't want to fire the Sec Army before a war, do you?

That's precisely when I would fire someone I didn't back 100%.

[cynicom]

"I'm not calling Rummy an idiot, I have no opinion one way or the other, but what he accomplished here does not prove him to be a great military strategist."

Conversely if the war had gone badly, it would have been hung around Rumsfelds neck. That is the name of the game. If you win you get the credit, if you lose, you take the fall. Rumsfeld won.

Fruitless to demean the horse standing in the victory circle after the race is over.

[sakic]

The difference is that Rummy has actually fought in wars

Which wars?

[sakic]

It's not demeaning to state that if we could not have rolled over Iraq something would have been terribly wrong with our strategy and organization. If a 15 year old beats up a 3 year old I wouldn't feel compelled to praise the winner's genius.

[SLB]

This will be a blow to the moral of the military that might take years to overcome. Rummy is the most arrogant, self centered, egotistical jerk I have heard speak. The berets of Shinseki will pale when compared to what is in store for the US military, not just the army. I see it from the inside everyday and sure do not like what I see. Rummy is totally convinced that air power and air power alone wins wars. The imbedded reporters from GW II showed us that a combined arms team of tanks, infantry, artillery, air power, special operations and various other elements are needed for victory.

Rummy is now upsetting the apple cart. I always figured that if it ain't broke then don't fix it. Obviously many FReepers have different opinions. We are seeing the proof of principle that heavy forces are still needed, that light forces have a place and that they have to have air cover. However that is falling on deaf ears in the Pentagon.

I could go on and on about the transformation process, but only get madder and madder. Who will replace White? A "YES" man of course. Who will replace Shinseki? I have heard from several retired GO's (grey beards) that Keene, who turned the job down, was a yes man, but did not want that reputation to follow him into civilian life. I look for the next Army Chief of Staff to be brought in from the 3 star ranks. Many have mentioned Franks - Nope he is not a yes man and Rummy will not allow that. The actions of the next Chief of Staff will have lasting effects, I pray the senate keeps that in mind at confirmation hearings.

[Miss Marple]

The British military had little input on the planning of this strategy. The compliment was to General Franks and was well-deserved. I would think compliments by people like Victor Davis Hanson would also be accounted as having some clout.

As I said in my previous post, the Iraqi Army was formidable before we started psy-ops and the air campaign, all of which were part of the war, although unseen on television. It is the mark of a successful campaign when one can deplete much of the enemy's strength before engaging on the ground. It was NOT easy; it was well-planned and executed.

The continuing effort to rob the American military of this great victory by saying that it was "easy" is shameful, in my opinion. Those who do so need to explain their motivations, and that includes you.

[mikenola]

Well said Miss.

I would also add the embedded reporters idea (although actually originated with Torie Clark, ostensibly), which has prevented the "Americans are baby-killers" stories from gaining any traction.

Rumsfeld's value is that he is forward-thinking and not risk averse. When he has CEO of Searle , he made the (at the time) unprecendented step of suing the FDA for approval of aspartame (NutraSweet), and during that time Searle's stock price increased something like 500%. He later sold the company making an 8-figure profit.

Rumsfeld has seen this country through during two major crises: he was Ford's transition mananger after Nixon's resignation, and of course 9/11.

On 9/11 Rumsfeld chrystalized ideas in the minds of the American public what had been up until then only discussed in think tanks and foreign policy circles.

Until 9/11 , "pre-emption", "transformation" , "asymetrical warfare", WMD+Terrorist nexus , were largely academic concerns. Rumsfeld made them real and effectively put them into action. Afghanistan and Iraq are tangible examples.

He wasn't the inventor of most of these ideas, but he was "smart" enough to sew them together at the right time.

I'm not really familiar enough with the Crusader debate , but as a defense contractor I can tell that Rumsfeld hasn't even come close to knocking over as many rice bowls as he needs to.

[been_lurking]

Fred Mertz is an idiot.

[SLB]

PS: What about Tommy Franks as the next CofS?

Franks is not a "yes" man. Rummy will not have that in the Pentagon. Besides, Franks screwed up with a security breach involving his wife being included in classified briefings. The next CoS needs to be a squeeky clean yes man.

[been_lurking]

Fred Mertz has lost it. Who will replace him.

[sakic]

Wouldn't you be shocked if the British did not praise America? Wouldn't it have been shocking to you if we couldn't mop the floor with Iraq? Soldiers that fight while being shot at by their own commanders have little chance of succeeding. The fact that you find this disparaging of American soldiers seems to be a convoluted way of thinking.

My motives are to give my honest opinions about what happened in Iraq. The fact that you question my motives paints you as someone who looks for enemies where there are none. That is a trait of people who suffer from paranoia.

[Miss Marple]

Well, you can call me paranoid, but I think the chronically critical have their own set of problems.

What part of "softening up the enemy" do you not understand? Are you so bent on saying this wasn't an excellent victory to the exclusion of fact?

Did you know that there is praise for this strategy from Russia? Have you not paid attention to the military experts who have been on every blasted cable channel for the last month?

Part of the strategy was to make the Iraqi Army less formidable when engaged by our groundforces. Why did Iraqi commanders have to threaten their troops? Psy-ops and air power, which were part of the strategy.

Apparently you think that the war started when we rolled our armor over the Kuwaiti border.

[cynicom]

sakic...

Your analogy grossly fails to fit the actual operation.

Military history is replete with commanders wanting their forces to be at least 3 to 1 when attacking on the enemies home soil. With Iraq, this long accepted strategy was just the reverse. Iraqi military outnumbered the coalition at least 2 to 1. That was the primary concern espoused by all the armchair generals that were predicting defeat and or a quagmire.

Application of superior technology negated the need of overwhelming manpower on the ground.