Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go

Time. ^ | Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 | LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

[Leisler]

Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. ...

[Mrs. Shawnlaw]

How is it that a LaZBoy suddenly exalts one into being a better leader or coach? Particularly on Saturdays and Sundays?

[Democratshavenobrains]

Funny how all these high up Generals "claim" to want to resign their commissions and do actual fighting, but none of them ever do.

[sauropod]

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it.

Why are my warning antenna tingling?

[Mr Rogers]

This guy isn't entirely wrong, but he doesn't seem to understand that civilian control of the military means the civilians have the RIGHT to proceed in a different direction from the military's senior leadership.

For example, the USAF decided to get rid of the EF-111 because EW wasn't important. Congress partially disagreed, and funded additional EA-6Bs. Good thing, because ACC & the USAF got it wrong.

In this case, he doesn't seem to understand that part of Bush's goal was to plant a democracy in the Middle East as a way to defuse terrorism. He may disagree with Bush, but GWB was elected and gets to make that call. Chasing the current terrorists is good, but preventing future terrorists is even better. Afghanistan was about the former, Iraq about the latter.

I'm no Rumsfeld fan. I think it would be a good thing for him to go. But this retired 3-star doesn't provide the reason.

[A.A. Cunningham]

"Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go"
A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it

By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.

With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't—or don't have the opportunity to—speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.

Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear—I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view—at the moment—is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position.

I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results.

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort. There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq—often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.

To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress—from both parties—defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.

So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.

Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold Director of Operations J-3 Joint Staff
At the time of his retirement, Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold served as the Director for Operations, The Joint Staff. He assumed his assignment on October 10, 2000. Lieutenant General Newbold is the son of a career U.S. Air Force Officer. After his commissioning as a second lieutenant in 1970 he attended The Basic School in Quantico, VA, where he was designated an infantry officer.Lieutenant General Newbold's assignments have included Fleet Marine Force tours in the 1st, 2d, and 3d Marine Divisions, with the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, and with I Marine Expeditionary Force. He has commanded infantry units at the platoon, company, and battalion level, and also served at different times as executive officer, operations officer, and logistics officer in a variety of operational units. While Lieutenant General Newbold commanded the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, this force was in the vanguard of the U.S. commitment for Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia. Prior to reporting to his current assignment, he served as Commanding General, First Marine Division. Lieutenant General Newbold has served tours outside the Fleet Marine Force as tactics instructor at The Basic School, officer assignment officer at Headquarters Marine Corps, Warfare Policy Planner on the Joint Staff, Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, Head of the Enlisted Assignment Branch at Headquarters Marine Corps, and as the Director, Manpower Plans and Policy Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, DC. His professional military education has included attendance at Amphibious Warfare School, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the National War College. Lieutenant General Newbold's personal awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Joint Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. (Updated July 11, 2003 HQMC)

---

lowres.jpg

highres.jpg

General With a Key Pentagon Role to Retire

snip

Some in the Pentagon speculated that Newbold was fatigued by Rumsfeld's management style, which has been variously described by Pentagon officials as "hands-on," "brutally honest" and even "abusive."

"It is a completely different atmosphere from the previous administration, where our opinions weren't challenged," said one officer, who added that he considers the new skepticism to be healthy for the military.

But Newbold rejected that interpretation of his decision, saying he was leaving for two reasons: He owes it to his family, and he thinks it is time to let younger Marine generals move up in the ranks.

snip

Asked what lies next in his life, Newbold said his ideal job would be in the power tools section of a Home Depot store. "I like the aprons," he said. But because his family needs more money than that job pays, he said, he is likely to look at think tanks and corporate jobs.

[Thebaddog]

What is truly disturbing about such silliness is that it was written by one of our military leaders. It's probably more of a reflection on the Clinton Pentagon that was run by some true socialists, and political animals like Zinni. He's retired early. That really says it all anyway.

[sauropod]

Considering that I am a denizen of the Mesozoic, you should be more careful with the appelation "paleo"media ;-).

One might get the wrong idea.

[sauropod]

After reading his thoughts, I'm convinced that he thinks everyone is out of step but him!

Sounds like the Supreme Being (Wesley Clark)!

[Yasotay]

As I have posted here many times before ..."Rumsfeld is Wrong". Rumsfeld is wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons. The knee - jerk typical response is that anyone who says anything against Rumsfeld is a Clinton loving appointed General or a liberal lover ..... both are also wrong.

General Wayne A Downing resigned from the Bush Administration right before the 4th of July 2002. I have served under General Downing and can safely say I'd still follow him into hell. He resigned as we were taught how to resign .... quietly. He now heads the CTC at West Point.

There are many VERY serious problems that have failed to have been properly addressed. These aren't Clinton's problems, they are now America's problems that have not been solved by Rumsfeld or Bush.

Here is just one example (there are many):

The President's declared National Emergency ends this September. What is Rumsfeld's plan after September that DOES NOT involve the National Guard? Does he even have a plan?

I know the plan is to just continue extending the national emergency .... and that proves my point.

[johnny7]

General Tso likes his chicken spicey.

[sauropod]

How is it that a LaZBoy suddenly exalts one into being a better leader or coach? Particularly on Saturdays and Sundays?

hey, Hey, HEY! NOTHING wrong with LaZBoys ;-).

[RightWhale]

One of the reasons the opinions of leftist activists and retired generals should be discounted is that they are feeble and will never amount to a hill of beans.

[Chode]

what you think, and $5bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at $tarbuck$ too pal...

[al_again]

It is a mistake to try and marginalize everyone who disagrees with your point of view. My take:

1) The war was preemptive. There was legitimate concern about Iraq having WMD's and Iraq was trying to appear to have WMD's. Also, Iraq was not in compliance with it's prior ceasefire commitments. This being the case, I can see reasonable people disagreeing on whether it was appropriate to go to war or not.

In a post 9/11 world, I think the President had a legitimate reason for going to war.

2) The execution of the war has not gone well. Rumsfeld and Cheney made several predictions and statements about the results of their actions/policies. These have turned out to be dead wrong. The author made some very good points about post-invasion handling of Iraq. Disbanding the Iraqi army, going out of our way to alienate European countries who could have helped with the rebuilding, etc...

While you may say these people are unintelligent and political, you would be wrong! Anthony Zinni is certainly not a Democrat and is one of the most knowledgeable men alive in regards to military actions. Maybe people like him need to be listened to much more closely rather than the people who have given us the current results.

[sauropod]

Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized.

As he should've been. He of the "black beret for everybody, you don't have to earn it" school.

Ptui!

[Yasotay]

Most are too old .... but General Wayne A Downing did resign and continues to do what is right .... and yes he did "fight" as a General also ....

[LA Conservative]

"The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice. "

This is the kind of language that gives this guy away. He is making a broad criticism without providing any examples of what "getting our defense policy right" means. It is very Kerryesque. This guy sounds like a Dick Clark or a Joe Wilson in that he sure had his opinions, was sure he had it "right", and was shoved aside when he wouldn't shut-up and pitch in.
How many of you work with a$$holes like this?

With respect to the cause? If he is asking that in a public forum, a left-leaning forum but a public one, then that too tells me he can't see beyond the tip of his nose. How the hell do these people get promoted? Are they all part of the same liberal cult?

1. Iraq had WMD, it was well-documented.
2. They kicked out the UN weapons inspectors
3. Clinton did nothing but "contain" him by using the Wesley Clark (another lib a$$hole who got promoted) strategy of flying overhead and making no commitment to ground units.
4. While Clinton was "containing" SH, SH continued to reach out to Niger, and other countries to continue his WMD programs.
5. While Clinton was "containing" SH, SH began relations with Al Queda, to what extent is unknown, but there positively was communication.
6. While Clinton was "containing" SH, SH continued to sponsor Arab terrorists attacking Israel, an ally of America.
7. While Clinton was "containing" SH, SH used the UN Oil for Food Program to enrich himself and continue to fund his WMD program.
8. As Clinton was chased out of the White House and after pardoning felons who donated enough money and terror supporters, he and the Demoncrat Party passed the Iraq Freedom Act which stated that regime change is the policy of the US and SH should be removed quickly, BECAUSE CONTAINMENT UTTERLY FAILED.
9.Bush stepped in, ignored the Marxist Arafat and made it clear we were on the side of Israel, not the Arab terrorists.
10. September 11th happened. God bless each soul who was taken from their families and us.
11. The strategy was simple. AQ is a stateless organization, therefore, we must go after the low hanging fruit of states that support AQ and Arab and Islamic terrorism.
12. Taliban picked off, OBL runs between Iran and Waziristan, two places US Forces can't just run in and level. Afghanistan gets a democratically elected government (still Islamic, unfortunately).
13. Iraq is up next, the rest of the Arab Middle East stabilizes while Arab countries send their bad men to Iraq to fight the inevitable onslaught of modernity.
14. During the entiretly of the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the 9/11 terrorists and the countries that give them capabilities, the Demoncrat Party has been nothing if obstructionist, willing to lie, distort, and propagandize every aspect of this prosecution to in order to destabilize our country and bring down the lawfully elected President, regardless of the global consequences.

Does this country now looks like it has the support and spine to take on Iran and North Korea who are 10 times more dangerous than Iraq? Clearly not, thanks to the Demoncrat Party. Civilization is in more Dire Straights because of them. And this A$$hole Lt. Gen thinks he knows what’s going on? He sounds more like a Demoncrat operative then a military man.

Lord, give us the strength and the continuity of vision to battle evil here at home and abroad.

[SAMS]

"Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized."

No, Shinseki found himself marginalized because he took the black beret away from the Rangers (who earned it) and put it on the head of every "leg" in the Army. IMHO.

[bray]

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again.

Well I guess that cinches it, if Roger Doltery says he's gotta go, he's gotta go. My HS son has more sense than this clown.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[al_again]

Do a quick search on Google before you make statements like this.