Posted on 04/13/2006 3:15:15 PM PDT by jmc1969
The White House gave a new vote of confidence to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday as yet another retired general demanded Rumsfeld resign.
"Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
A fifth retired general, Major Gen. John Riggs, added his voice to those opposing Rumsfeld. In an interview with National Public Radio, Riggs cited an atmosphere of "arrogance" among top civilian leaders at the Pentagon.
Rumsfeld "should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic," he said.
Of the Pentagon's civilian leadership, Riggs said: "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."
Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni kept up the pressure for Rumsfeld's scalp by telling CNN Rumsfeld should be held accountable for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."
"I think he should (resign). This is not personal, believe me. We grew up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting your mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said.
A recently retired two-star general, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Germany-based 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, called on Wednesday for Rumsfeld to resign.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.today.reuters.com ...
This is making me uneasy. These guys can't all be dismissed as "Clinton Komissars" or in league with the MSM liberals or writing books, etc. If a career officer chooses to resign rather than accept a promotion to 3star general because of serious misgivings about the mission, the admin. should be taking notice.
There is a "circle the wagon" mentality that is kicking in when things get rough at the very time when this admin. should be getting fresh input. When the public begins to have doubts about a war, is the time to be more forthcoming. Otherwise, people's worst fears start being considered.
"These guys" are in the distinct minority. Rumsfeld is the youngest and oldest SecDef in our history. He knows and understands the workings and culture of the Pentagon and the world's largest bureaucracy. Unlike many others who have held this job, Rumsfeld wants to be more than just a civilian figurehead and defer to the military and career bureaucrats. Moreover, he can't be snowed like his predecessors, some of whom take months just to learn how to navigate their way around the building.
Rumsfeld has wanted to institute certain reforms in DOD, which have not doubt riled some in the military. He has also had to make some hard decisions on the conduct of the war in Iraq. Even Tommy Franks was criticized by some of the generals for his war plan.
Rumsfeld has also had to battle Colin Powell as part of the bureaucratic infighting. There is no doubt that some of Powell's old fellow generals have been crying on his shoulder about what Rumsfeld is doing to the Pentagon. Powell had been planting stories about Rumsfeld while Powell was still SecState. They were archenemies, each vying for influence within the administration.
Rumsfeld is probably one of the best and most effective SecDefs in history. I consider him to be Bush's best Cabinet appointment.
These few naysayers are being given more credence and importance than they deserve. Also, there has been a politization of the military. Remember Kerry parading at the Dem convention the ex-generals/admirals who supported him. Admiral Crowe received an ambassadorship to London in return for his support of Clinton. Wesley Clark has tried to turn his criticism of Bush into a run for the Presidency. Zinni is trying to sell books (No one seems to mention that he was CENTCOM when the USS Cole was bombed or was appointed by Powell to be a special middle east envoy after Zinni retired from the USMC.) Others are becoming paid military consultants for the MSM.
There may be other reasons why Baptiste turned down his third star and opted for retirement.
Effective for whom? The Iraq war is really dragging us down, bringing us perilously close to a Dem House or Senate. A country with no (at least accessible) WMDs, no defense, a shadow army, and a ragtag insurgents (mostly Iraqi deadeners, <10% foreigners) bogging down the greatest military machine on earth? At least Viet Nam had a real leader.
I know personally that many people in the armed services had no use for Clinton, but there was nothing like the unease that's being expressed now. The generals could have written books and Colin Powell was considering a run as POTUS. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there isn't a serious problem here.
I'll take the word of a general who was actually commanding troops in battle in Iraq, over a civilian government whose personnel have no direct experience in warfare.
Where I work that would be called insubordinate. I wonder if he would have tolerated that behavior in his own command.
Another little history update. Clinton fired a general for TRUTHFULLY calling him a "draftdodging pot smoker". Kennedy fired Gen. Walker for criticizing his foreign policy moves.
How's Skinner?
Fortunately the Founders put these decisions in the hands of civilians. During the Civil War Lincoln had to put up with a lot of the same kind of crap. McClelland even ran against him as a "Peace" candidate after the war had been substantially won.
Besides most of these speaking out can be shown to be ass kissers big time with comments from as late as last fall saying exactly the OPPOSITE of the crap they are spewing now.
And look at how easy it is to get even Freepers to fall for this bilge. Dragging a fish across the trail distracts even our bloodhounds.
Saying that Rumsfeld screwed up means these men are liars just like the Treason Media. They have essentially disgraced themselves. If they are this clueless thank God they are out of the military.
>>
And look at how easy it is to get even Freepers to fall for this bilge. Dragging a fish across the trail distracts even our bloodhounds.
>>
You Are Correct! And the correct Freeper response to underhanded Democrat tactics like this is clear:
ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL AND TACTICS TRUMP POLICY EVERY SINGLE TIME.
It's fun and tempting for people to sit back and pontificate about their own policy desires from the keyboard but That Doesn't Win Elections.
What wins elections is money and volunteer effort. Freepers MUST find vulnerable House districts and send money to the GOP candidate in that district, and if it's close enough drive to campaign headquarters and help with the campaign.
Frankly, as proved in 2004, the most bang for your hour of volunteer time is manning the phone banks and calling Republicans to be sure they get out to vote. It's about numbers, and not ideas. Ideas are already in place. You already know the GOP candidate is rightward of the Democrat candidate. Nothing else needs to be known. Defining those realities are done in years before elections years. Not during them. Find GOP candidates in vulnerable districts and find a way to help them. If you want to be an idealogue, fine -- then find GOP candidates in vulnerable districts that you like and help them.
That is the MAIN reason they hate Rummy. He has stopped their little gravey train and is streamlining the military across the board.
Screw these liars.
Countering false information and wrong ideas on this board is also very inportant. FR plays a unique and crucially important role in the destruction of the influence of the Treason Media.
How many votes were saved when the Dan Rather forgeries were exposed?
How else would Bush have even gotten to the White House had not Gore been stopped from stealing the Florida vote in 2000 if FReepers had not stepped up?
If even FReepers cannot understand the issues involved then local politics will not be successful.
If those retired generals are really so troubled about the way Rumsfeld is running the war, they should get together and ask for a private meeting with the president to discuss their outrage and/or particular concerns. I'll concede they have earned the right to express their displeasure, but they chose a most unbecoming, unprofessional and disrespectful way in which to do so.
For example?
These aren't stupid men. They are brave and dedicated professional soldiers and the fact that Rumsfeld will remain SecDef probably doesn't bother them at all. They were just tired of biting their tongue I guess.
The initial military victory isn't really questioned (Saddam is captured, his government gone). But most people I know thought we'd be out of there within a year (or much diminished force). I was a little concerned that the admin. wasn't preparing the country very well for the long haul. Apart from PR, there is evidence that there were some bad decisions made, and an underlying feeling that the troops (who ARE performing brilliantly) are being subtly blamed for some leadership errors.
My major criticism of Bush is that he has not attacked the Treason Media with sufficient vehemence to counter their LIES.
If a president doesn't get in front of the story, the media will fill it in for him. People are wanting to see the leader they saw after 9-11, and they are understandly confused when they don't see it.
If I were the president's staff, I'd arrange a public forum for the president and invite the "dissenting" generals to ask questions. Bush does best when he's shown as a straight speaker, and people will see a real leader make his case. Also, people will get to see these people trying to attack a strong president, and they will diminish their case.
Your strong defense of these men makes me wonder if you know them personally. If not, I fail to see why you are defending them so unless you have a beef with Rumsfeld also. For them to go public, but not care if Rumsfeld stays or not is something I can't buy.
I don't know any of them. But I spent 27 years in the Navy and can well imagine the caliber of the men.
If not, I fail to see why you are defending them so unless you have a beef with Rumsfeld also.
Nope. Rumsfeld was SecDef when I was in ROTC.
For them to go public, but not care if Rumsfeld stays or not is something I can't buy.
They are men who earned the right to espress their opinions. They paid for that right with a lifetime of service to their country, usually some blood, and personal experience over in the sandbox. If they say that it's screwed up over there then they should know.
In the Department of Defense there are:
34 - four star generals/admirals
124 - three star generals/admirals
278 - two star generals/admirals
439 - one star generals/admirals
Throw in the U.S. Coast Guard and you have 900 generals and admirals on active duty today. Roughly 15-20% of those generals and admirals retire each year. An extremely low estimate would place it at over 800 flag officers have retired, more then a couple not willingly, since Secretary Rumsfeld took office. Add to that the thousands of living retired generals and admirals before he assumed his duties.
And how many generals are on TV complaining? Five? Six? That's a pretty ringing endorsement FOR Secretary Rumsfeld.
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.