Ralph Omholt: Is It Fresh Blood, or a Putsch?

In the middle of the ongoing Iraqi guerilla war, with more military actions awaiting, the new U.S. Army uniformed leadership has forced at least six senior generals into early retirement, with another half-dozen earmarked for the same treatment in the near.

What is unusual about this development is that no Army or DoD official has cited the cause for the widespread ousters, and there has been no evidence of misconduct or performance failures indicated as a cause for the retirements. An Army spokesman on Aug. 4 declined to comment on the issue on grounds that none of the six alleged retirements had been announced formally.

If there are valid issues behind the decision of incoming Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker to mandate these retirements, it is unnerving that the personnel decisions should join the increasing ranks of "national security" secrets.

It will also be worth observing whether or not these generals join the "privatized" ranks, in the format of D.C. lobbyists or "consultants" - representing the interests of big business.

The online news website InsideDefense.com, on Aug. 4 first revealed the early and forced retirements. They include Lt. Gen. John Caldwell, the military deputy to the Army's civilian acquisition director; Lt. Gen. Dennis Cavin, the commanding general of the Army Accessions Command; Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, the commanding general of the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command. Lt. Gen. Johnny Riggs, director of the Army Objective Force Task Force, Gen. Paul Kern, commander of the Army Materiel Command, and Lt. Gen. Charles Mahan, deputy chief of staff for logistics) are also reportedly retiring early.

By all appearances, the announcements represent a "housecleaning" that will allow Schoomaker to replace these generals with a leadership team of his own. Gen. John M. Keane, who oversaw the notification of the early retirements pending Schoomaker's formal arrival as Army Chief on Aug. 1, has resumed his role as vice chief of staff pending the nomination of his own replacement.

Apart from the significance the forced retirements have on the future of Army transformation, the personal impact on the generals being shunted aside is noteworthy.

Officers who retire before spending three years in their current rank revert to the next-lower rank, receiving less retirement pay. The Army for a number of years has enforced a very strict "no exceptions" policy to the rule.

To fully comprehend what is going on, it is important to note that this is not the first incident of its type. Beginning last year, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld effectively decapitated the Army's topmost leadership. First, he announced the replacement for Gen. Eric Shinseki as Army chief a full year before his term was slated to end, in what many observers saw as a ploy to sideline Shinseki from the ongoing struggle over the Army's future. Then on Apr. 25, Rumsfeld fired Secretary of the Army Thomas White, subsequently announcing that Secretary of the Air Force James G. Roche would replace White.

Following that, Rumsfeld went looking for a new Army Chief of Staff from the roster of active-duty generals and came up empty. He then drafted Schoomaker from retirement for the top Army post, following the reported refusal of three active-duty Army generals - including former Central Command commander Gen. Tommy Franks and Keane himself - to take the position.

Pentagon observers have termed those promotion refusals as a "legal mutiny" by three of the Army generals who deserve much of the credit for the preparation and conduct of the war against Iraq. When senior subordinates refuse to follow their leader - in this case, Secretary Rumsfeld - something is badly wrong. One has to ask, "What do they know?"

Here's something that we do know: Rumsfeld has made a name for himself by pushing the Army toward rapid organizational and deployment reforms. These reforms have sparked significant internal resistance within the uniformed leadership. Rumsfeld's opponents fear that his proposed reforms will come at the cost of major cuts to the ground force structure.

When one observes 150,000 of America's finest troops virtually pinned down in a country without an opposing army, it becomes difficult to dismiss the critics' fears as unfounded. Re-arranging the foundation of the U.S. Army during an ongoing military campaign is dangerous, especially for an obviously under-strength Army.

While the argument is valid that the time of the Cold War and the Cold War-sized U.S. military has passed, it is also valid to recognize that current operational requirements from Korea and Kosovo to Iraq demand a larger fighting force.

On taking office as Army Chief on Aug. 1, Shoomaker reportedly said, "When we are at war, we must think and act differently …. We become more flexible and adaptable …. We must win both the war and the peace. We must be prepared to question everything. What is best for the nation? What must endure? What must change?"

These are all valid questions. What remains deeply troubling is that neither the secretary of defense nor the new Army Chief has taken the first step toward answering them.

The only message that I can discern from the forced retirements is that Rumsfeld does not trust his senior Army generals, nor they him. Those officers who have committed themselves to serve their nation in Army uniform also know that decades of loyal service - which includes voicing honest disagreement over profound issues - means little or nothing to their political masters.

In the guise of "selecting a new team," it can be said that Rumsfeld, Roche and Schoomaker have carried out a putsch to enforce their vision of change on the Army.

That's the wrong kind of transformation.

I'll support Dick Marcinko's comments about chair-polishers and ticket-punchers. Maybe a ''purge'', (sic) and so-called by the ''media'', is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Here's a question: what was the ratio of general officers to other soldiers in AUS in Sep 1945, and what is it today? Any bets this ratio isn't 7 to 10 TIMES higher today than it was at that time?

Come take my money, if you think you've got it right. Otherwise (since you don't), clean 'em out. AND reduce them in rank on retirement; no point in paying extra for superannuated E-ring a-holes.

The Army has to change, we aren`t going to fight on the plains of Europe. That`s over. The Army Generals that can`t support change have to go. This is nothing new, How many senior Generals did Ike jump over? Ask your self this question, If you had the responsibilty to moderize an organization as big as the USA, would some of the old guys that questioned those changes have a good future? As to their reduction of retirement benefits, oh bo ho. Its food stamps for them.
The USMC doesn`t seem to have the Army`s problem. What`s new.

You're missing the point. Rumsfeld asked three active duty officers, including Tommy Franks, to take the job. They all turned him down, which is why he brought Schoomaker out of retirement. Schoomaker has the quals, no doubt. I'm just wondering what made the other three choose to leave the Army rather than take the top job under Rumsfeld.

Rummy's an original thinker, but it remains to be seen whether those ideas are good ones. He's also arrogant and a know it all. Like I said, a mixed bag.

The thing about Rummy I don't like is that he comes on as if he figures a war will progress and end like it does in his thoughts.

I'm an old Viet Nam guy, and a student of War, and War never goes according to anyone's plan, instead it developes in unexpected ways, so unexpected that you can be truly flummoxed. When the Communists attacked the USA through the "anti-war movement" the US leadership was helpless against them. Looks like the Communists won that round, though it didn't need to happen.

In Iraq we have first rate war fighting troops acting like occupation troops, a role for which the fighting troops are not trained or ready, (and much to young). They are what is available, and are well disciplined, so they are used where they shouldn't be.

An example of a well run modern conquest would be the German conquest of France in 1940. The occupation troops were readied beforehand, were mostly older, had some French, and were lead by highly cultured officers who had intimate knowledge of and familiarity with French culture, men who liked and respected the French whom they ruled.

A bad example of conquest administration is obviously the German administration in the East, where Nazi thugs were given free rein. Endless guerilla war, reprisal, and ambush.

Needless to say, we are in the middle of improvising an occupational strategy on the fly in Iraq. I think Rummy is impatient with this, even though this is the stage of war we are in. The war can very easily be lost in this stage. I don't have enough information to really say reliably what needs to be done, but suspect we need maybe 400,000 occupation troops, mostly older, willing to learn the language and get into the people's heads. No power freaks allowed.

dts32041 says: "For your comments."

OK, here's my comment...

It's considered bad form, if not an outright violation of forum policy, to post articles written by banned FReepers. Especially when they are written by extremist whacko conspiracy theorists that currently haunt the lowest depths of anti-freeper forums where they post their paranoid trash about how the government blew up the WTC on 9-11 and then cite neo-Nazi websites for their proof.

Now if you were a newbie, you'd might be able to plead ignorance of the commonly known (around FR) fact that Ralph Omholt is the former SKYDRIFTER. But you're not, so you can't.

--Boot Hill

You've been a prolific poster since 1998 and now you're claiming ignorance of the fact that Ralph Omholt = Skydrifter? And, LOL, you are also claiming you don't even know how to check if Skydrifter was banned???

Disingenuous, to say the least, and tantamount to an admission.

--Boot Hill

I don't check for real names of posters. Not my job man, if I find an article interesting out in the general area, don't care who writes it.

Appears you are a little bit narrow minded and maybe a snob.

But I will forgive you and if I find other intersting articles, I will post them.

dts32041 says: "Appears you are a little bit narrow minded ..."

Yeah, I'm funny that way. I get really narrow minded everytime some one posts articles written by a banned FReeper and well known internet extremist whacko conspiracy theorist (Skydrifter/Ralph Omholt) that writes paranoid crap about how the government blew up the WTC on 9-11 and then cites neo-Nazi websites for their proof. It sort of casts the blush of bullsh!t on every thing they write (and anyone that posts it).

If you decide to post anything else written by that anti-American piece of garbage, please give ping me to the thread so that I can give you the serious dose of grief you will deserve.

--Boot Hill

Funny never heard of this guy before just found it interesting point of view.

So guess what if I find him writing something interesting I will post it.

After all conservative view points is what this place is all about.

BTW I don't ping anyone so you are just going to have to look for it.

dts32041 says: "Funny never heard of this guy before just found it interesting point of view."

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit when I assumed a long-time FReeper like yourself, knew who this guy was. He reserves his worst screeds for posting under his "skydrifter" screen name. But even when posting under his real name, Ralph Omholt, he still engages in rank and uninformed speculation, tinged with paranoia (as he did in the article on this thread).

Here's a little primer on how far over the edge this person is.

Ralph Omholt = skydrifter

Claims the government blew up the WTC on 911 and then cites neo-Nazi websites for proof. (See, especially, post #74)

--Boot Hill

Yeah, who is Ralph Omholt?

Could he be the highly delusional Skydrifter? A pilot that went nuts and hasn't worked since? A 9/11 Conspiracy Artist that has gone off the deep end and lost touch with reality?

I'll send you some calamine lotion ya nutberger......

DB, I owe ya one...

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.