Posted on 04/25/2003 9:39:08 PM PDT by Hipixs
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I am a 100% Rumsfeld supporter.
There is, however, no question that the essence of the "generals at the Pentagon complain that Rumsfeld doesn't listen to them (ignores them, overrules them etc)" line of argument is absolutely true.
There are many such generals at the Pentagon, they are vocal, and they don't like, appreciate, or value the current SecDef.
That doesn't make them right. I am of the view that anyone who got a third or fourth star after 1993 and before 2001 (unless by mistake) is presumptively unfit for command unless proven otherwise. The Fedayeen Clinton are tenacious and resilient, even at the Pentagon (much more so at State and Justice).
But don't attack posters who are contributing their true knowledge of what "the brass" think of Rumsfeld. Their interpretations are wrong, but their facts are not.
Far too many perfumed generals of the clinton years are still around.
Yeah, the boys in Washington did a good job of building Iraq up as some kind of "threat" with WMD's, scuds, and elite military units. It was all a lie and our leaders knew it going in. One of the biggest problems in the whole darn made for TV farse was to keep us from killing ourselves with friendly fire. This was no "brilliant victory". Brilliant PR and propaganda campaign for the sheeple is more like it.
Richard W.
The technology of warfare used to be who had the better gun. Those days are gone.
I will ask you to back this accusation up with facts and explain your motivation in such an attack on the military and the administration.
You need to check your facts. Does not the record show that the SECDEF was a Navy fighter pilot, but did not serve in combat (post Korean War, I believe)? He is a former member of Congress and serves as a political appointee.
SEC ARMY White served two tours in Vietnam, as did GEN Shinseki (2 Purple Hearts, lost part of one leg), GEN Franks (2 Purple Hearts), etc., etc.
Your arguments may have some merit, but in order to make them, you must retain some credibility - comments like this will cause people to wonder.
My opinion of Rumsfeld is that he is a brillant man who is determined to implement the new defense policy of preemption and to undertake a much needed reform and transformation of the defense department. On these points he is on the mark and will serve our country well.
But, he is also egotistical and arrogant and is carrying out a vendetta against the Army. His views of modern warfare are colored by his experiences as a fighter pilot and like many airmen he overestimates the ability of airpower. He is going to get rid of anyone who disagrees with him, and will never listen to advice from others. If he's right, then we will have a better military. But, if he's wrong, God help us.
Not only are his meetings at 7, but more interesting are the manner in which they are conducted. In the first few months, the meeting included about 25 of the inner circle in OSD, but Rumsfeld found this to be too big and reduced the size to about 10-15. None of the Service Secretaries or Joint Chiefs are included. No one in uniform attends. Guidance and direction flow downwards from this group. There is no bottom up information flow and any idea not coming from the SECDEF is DOA. OSD spends all of its time reacting to the "snowflakes" that float out of the SECDEFs office. Not good.
Rumsfeld has clearly done a brilliant job on the PR front. The support that he garners from our fellow Freepers is clear evidence that he has been very effective. I doubt that these folks would hold this opinion if they were privy to the inner workings of the Pentagon. We will have to wait for the books to be written, but eventually we will discover that this guy was more like McNamara than anyone would like to think.
Good to see that there are a few others out there who have figured this out, keep up the fire.
How about you show me some evidence that anything we heard before the war about how Iraq was a threat to us was true? And that's the point isn't it?
Richard W.
That is why we have a president that runs the country. Rumsfeld runs DOD, the generals work for him. If Rumsfeld screws up, it will be him that hangs, not the generals.
Robert MacNamara rightfully took the fall for the Vietnam fiasco, not the generals that were yes men.
Imagine a highly politicized general officer corps (redundant, no?) that effectively serves as if appointed for life a la federal judgeships. Imagine the next Slickmeister coming in a installing a cadre of G.O.s over the course of an eight year term. Would a successive administration have to purge G.O.s? At what political cost?
Frankly, I admire the current turmoil -- the Army will emerge changed and stronger in the end. And civilian control of the military is bedrock principle of our society.
Perhaps the next Secretary of the Army will focus on the strategic purpose of the Army, not operational abilities.
Wouldn't it be unique to have a Secretary that looks at our human resources as a life-cycle model? How do we influence the next generation to enlist? How are we caring for our current stock? How have we cared for our veterans and retirees (Shouldn't this be the realm for service secretaries; should we really have to palm it off to Veteran's Affairs?).
And wouldn't it be nice to finally get out of competition with the Marine Corps for being an expeditionary force? It's hard to find common consensus across this county as to what the purpose of the Army is (vis-a-vis USMC, other services).
The nation's defense elites wonder: what is the purpose of an Army? We need a Secretary that can tell them, tell us, and tell Americans what this Army is, and why it endures as the nation endures.
Imagine what the last two years would have been like if White was SecDef, and Rumsfeld was SecArmy...
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.