http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114522916171427157.html In Defense of Donald Rumsfeld By JOHN CROSBY, THOMAS MCINERNEY, BURON MOORE AND PAUL VALLELY April 17, 2006; Page A16 Foes of the Bush administration described the recent calls by six retired generals for Donald Rumsfeld to resign or be fired as "growing military pressure" for him to do so. These retired generals claim he should go for, among other things, ignoring the advice of senior military leaders and bungling the global war on terror in Iraq with poorly planned war-fighting strategies and post-Saddam planning efforts. We strongly disagree. Like former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, we do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war. Calling for the secretary's resignation during wartime may undercut the U.S. mission and incites individual challenge to the good order and discipline of our military culture. At best, such comments may send a confusing message to our troops deployed on dangerous missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. At worst, they can also inspire and motivate the evil forces we seek to defeat. Since our nation's founding, the principle of civilian control over the military has been a centerpiece of our system of government. Under our constitutional system, it places elected and appointed government leaders in charge. American soldiers are bound by this tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority. We give advice but it is ultimately up to civilian leaders to make key strategic and policy decisions. Unlike many other democracies, this is one important reason why we have never been ruled by the military, and have been the most successful country the world has ever seen. Some critics suggest that the calls by the six retired generals signify widespread discontent in the military with Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. It is preposterous for them to suggest that this small group represents the views of the 1.4 million men and women serving on active duty or the 7,000 retired generals and flag officers who respect, understand and appreciate the established American tradition of the military being subordinate to civilian control and direction. Moreover, despite the frustration of the current situation in Iraq, military morale remains high, as evidenced by the high re-enlistment rate of active-duty forces. This fact belies the contention that there is rising military discontent. The notion that Secretary Rumsfeld doesn't meet with, or ignores the advice of, senior military leaders is not founded in fact. During his tenure, senior military leaders have been involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process. In addition to the Senior Level Review Group, Defense Senior Leadership Conference, and Quadrennial Defense Review, in 2005 Secretary Rumsfeld also participated in meetings involving service chiefs 110 times and combatant commanders 163 times. Gen. Myers correctly describes these meetings as "very collaborative" with a free flow of information and discussion. Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Central Command Commander during the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, echoes Gen. Myers's comments and supports Secretary Rumsfeld as collaborative in the decision-making process. Gen. Franks has stated recently that he is a tough collaborator and demands sound thinking and recommendations from the senior military leadership and staff. Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to "transform" the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and World War II war-fighting strategies, which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare. It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93. Despite criticisms, Mr. Rumsfeld is arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had. Under his watch, the U.S. military has been transforming; it brilliantly deposed Mullah Omar's barbaric Taliban regime (Osama bin Laden's sanctuary) and Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, freeing 50 million people from oppression and placing the countries on democratic paths. With these actions, terrorists have been denied secure home bases. These are a few key factors why terrorists have been unable to attack the American homeland again. The policy and forward strategy implemented by Secretary Rumsfeld has taken the fight to the enemy as did the nation in World War II and the Cold War. Some, like Generals Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Batiste, Swannack, Riggs and others, may not like Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership style. They certainly have the right as private citizens now to speak their minds. Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers. But those sentiments and feelings are irrelevant. In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions. Lt. Gen. Crosby (ret.) is former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Lt. Gen. McInerney (ret.) is former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Moore (ret.), U.S. Air Force, was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm. Maj. Gen. Vallely (ret.) is former deputy commander of the U.S. Army, Pacific.
They hate them because they are obviously dillusional fools now. They clearly were very capable men while in office since they were generals. But now...now they are fools.
Where is the substance of this piece? All I see is a straw man called civilian control of the military, that Rummy's a swell guy at meetings if you agree with him, and a conclusion that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were both really sweet, and pretty much perfectly executed. I don't need retired generals to tell me that Rumsfield's tenure has been marked by incompetence and failure. That's just reality.
I love the part about the generals not representing the over 1.4 million members of the military. the foot soilders aren't there to assess situations. the generals are generals for a reason and there opinion counts. secondly half of this column is about whether or not its right for military to criticize leadership, that's not really defending rummy.
Yesterday on Rush Limbaugh, embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that those who criticize the Iraq war are being manipulated by terrorists, including Zarqawi and bin Laden, through the U.S. media: So, according to Rumsfeld, the media isn’t just failing to report the “good news” from Iraq, it is being actively manipulated by terrorists. Those that are critical of the war are simply buying into the propaganda. The only way to circumvent the terrorist-influenced U.S. media, apparently, is to listen to Rush Limbaugh. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/18/rumsfeld-limbaugh/
And in other news, Rush Limbaugh's retired Anal Cysts that relegated him to home front hero rather than patrolling the central highlands of Vietnam, are now calling for summary executions for all who have blasphemed the name of "Donny-Da Rumbler--Rumsfeld". The Cysts went on to praise his leadership style as well as his thoughtful entries into the Anal Canal of Mr. Limbaugh...more to follow
It's pretty sad that America has once again handed a victory to the jihadist. The decider in chief can't fire an incompetent like rummy because it would show us giving in to terrorists.
I wonder what the payoff for the pro-Rummy retired genarals? Pretty easy score I bet. Board or consulting with the usual suspects-- Carlyle, Halliburton, Bectel?
That is what I noticed. These guys all retired before the current conflict. The generals who are speaking out against Rummy are the ones who worked with and for him during the current action in Iraq. BIG difference.
That leads us back to another thread. We should develop a new theory and calculate how long does it take to say the word "terrorist" before Al Queda is mentioned? Usually not long at all ...as if Al Queda is solely responsible for all things terrorist related.
I'm the decider! http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs_bush_defends_rumsfeld_060418a_240x180.mov Quicktime http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs_bush_defends_rumsfeld_060418a_320x240.wmv reaplayer
U.S. Generals Call for Resignation of Media Leaders by Scott Ott (2006-04-19) — A growing movement of retired and active-duty U.S. military officers, angry at the mismanagement, arrogance and even deception that have hampered U.S. efforts to secure peace and democracy in Iraq, have begun quietly calling for the resignation of top leaders they blame for the difficulties. “I believe that it’s time for them to step down,” said one unnamed retired three-star general. “The editors of The New York Times and Washington Post and the news producers at CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC should resign effective immediately.” “They’ve formed a tight cabal that focuses only on news that reinforces their neo-journ ideology,” said another unnamed general. “Despite the urgent need for actual reporting from Iraq, they have failed to put enough boots on the ground in country.” “As civilians, they make editorial decisions without any understanding of history or military strategy,” said another retired officer, “and they’re trying to run the war coverage from hotels in the cloister of the Green Zone, without consulting with our leaders and troops on the frontlines.” The generals who all requested anonymity, in the words of one, “so I won’t be bothered by a bunch of calls from reporters writing redundant stories,” said the leading news media gatekeepers should be replaced by “more centrist voices” who will be honest with America, and not blindly devoted “advancing the neo-journ agenda.” “We’d like to see leaders in there who will cover the Iraq story as Americans, or at least as those who believe in liberty,” said one active-duty general who has worked closely with reporters and editors. Meanwhile, New York Times Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. brushed off what he called “the incessant drumbeat of negativity” from opponents of his administration. “You can’t relieve your top commanders while your side is winning,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “Frankly, the Pentagon doesn’t direct enough attention to the car bombings, sectarian strife and rumblings of civil war which show that we’re making progress in Iraq every day.”
link? that's gotta be a joke! The onion maybe? basso I've thought of you being a lot of things, but I've never thought of you as a fascist that would trample the 1st amendment. I guess I was wrong. Whatever's good for the state huh?
You do realize how absolutely stupid it is for military personnel to blame editors for a war gone bad right? That would be like me blaming the houston chronicle for the rocket's injuries.