Posted on 06/23/2003 4:51:34 AM PDT by OldCorps
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Two trenchant quotations were repeated through Army corridors of the Pentagon last week--one by an enlisted infantryman enduring hardships of occupation duty in Iraq and the other by a four-star general leaving the service after 38 years. Each was clearly unhappy with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Taken together, their comments signaled hard times ahead for the U.S. Army.
Last Sunday, a front-page story in the New York Times aroused attention throughout the Pentagon. Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell, 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, told a reporter: ''You call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building.''
Four days earlier, in a speech that marked his retirement as the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki said it's ''just not helpful and it isn't true'' for ''some [to] suggest that we in the Army don't understand the importance of civilian control of the military.'' He added: ''To muddy the waters when important issues are at stake, issues of life and death, is a disservice to all of those in and out of uniform who serve and lead so well.'' Unlike the private first class, the general did not mention Rumsfeld by name. But that's who he meant.
O'Dell's complaint echoed previous grumbling by troops occupying Iraq, but the willingness of a professional soldier to be quoted by name suggested deep-seated morale problems with profound repercussions. Shinseki's passionate farewell address reflected the divide between the old Army brass and Rumsfeld.
At the heart of both men's unhappiness, the Army has been stretched thin to execute the nation's foreign policy. Shinseki and Rumsfeld were in continuous tension over how many troops were needed to pacify Afghanistan, to subdue Iraq and then occupy Iraq.
The end product is Matthew O'Dell's lament for being stuck in Baghdad. The Washington Post reported Friday from the Iraqi capital that victorious U.S. troops, under fire in a hazardous occupation, are ''frustrated and disillusioned'' as peacekeepers deployed too thinly. The unspoken fear in Army circles is that complaints will depress re-enlistment, so important to an all-volunteer force, and ultimately diminish the vital corps of noncommissioned officers.
With more than 370,000 soldiers or 70 percent of the Army deployed in 120 countries, President Bush's capability to pursue his doctrine of preemption is constrained. In his farewell address, Shinseki called for ''a force sized correctly to meet the strategy set forth in the documents that guide us.'' He warned: ''Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division army.''
Shinseki never was able to persuade the secretary that policy was outstripping capabilities. When his June 11 speech declared that ''mistrust and arrogance are antithetical to inspired and inspiring leadership,'' everybody in the Pentagon knew he was accusing Rumsfeld of exercising command but not leadership. The general declared that ''command is about authority, about an appointment to position,'' but that ''leadership . . . must be learned and practiced.''
Nobody from the office of the secretary of defense attended Shinseki's retirement ceremony, and none had been invited. Rumsfeld's response to Shinseki was bringing back Gen. Pete Schoomaker, who retired in 2000, as the new chief of staff. That indicated he felt none of the serving three-star or four-star generals could be trusted. Appointing Schoomaker, renowned in his career as an exemplar of special operations, was a rebuff to heavy infantry and tube artillery advocates.
Civilian Defense Department officials have emphasized that the highly regarded Schoomaker is no yes-man, but it is taken for granted inside the Pentagon that Rumsfeld would not have picked another no-man. It is taken for granted that the gruff and difficult James Roche, shifted from secretary of the Air Force to secretary of the Army, will do Rumsfeld's bidding (in contrast to his fired predecessor, Thomas White)--once he is confirmed by the Senate.
The other thing is Shineski is a Clinton butt-licker who rose to top brown-noser after a succesful badge chasing career. Now on to the happy defense consulting retirement and with his Rumsfeld/Bush bashing credentials we can hope to see this "Authority" on CNN, ABC Nightline, PBS, CNBC, et al.
Rumsfeld must be shaking things up if Novak is picking up funky vibes from his contacts.
Since Schoomaker was appointed only after two serving generals TURNED DOWN THE POSITION, I have to question the so-called "insight" of the civilian. If he doesn't have even THAT simple fact right, how credible is the rest of the article??
However, Rummy's new proposals to end tours with families and send troops farther east to more "austere" locations will have a negative impact on the Army when more than 54% of it's troops are married. More overseas tours in more dangerous areas will create a greater strain on married life, creating more problems for deployed soldiers and their commands.
Note that this was not a problem in the '80's when I understand that only about 10% of the force was married, and most overseas tours were in relatively "nice" areas.
My source for this info is a relatively recent article in "Army Times"
He must be getting close to the end of his enlistment and plans on getting out.
And, from where I come from, a Private First Class is not to be considered a "professional" soldier; at least one reenlistment is necessary to at least creating the impression that you're making the military your "profession".
I thought they were loaded, locked and ready to rock n'roll.
Best regards,
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.