Well maybe not America, but definitely Rumsfeld. I was never for the war, but I thought there was a chance that some good could have come out it. I guess I'm naturally optomistic. However, this administration has shown complete incompentance in the handling of this war. Maybe if the guys running the show would have actually gone to war during Vietnam, they would have learned from the mistakes we made there. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12280913/ Retired generals step up pressure on Rumsfeld Secretary of defense hounded about leadership, handling of Iraq war MORE ON WASHINGTONPOST.COM By Thomas E. Ricks The Washington Post Updated: 10:17 p.m. ET April 12, 2006 The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the secretary of defense's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult. "I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN. Story continues below ↓ advertisement Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army because it is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there, but declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense. String of high-profile attacks Batiste said that he believes the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he believes that the violation of another military principle of ensuring enough forces helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops. His comments follow similar recent high-profile attacks on Rumsfeld by three other retired flag officers, amid indications that many of their peers feel the same way. • More national coverage "We won't get fooled again," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in an essay in Time magazine this week. Listing a series of mistakes such as "McNamara-like micromanagement," a reference to the Vietnam War-era secretary of defense, Newbold called for "replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach." Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-04, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." ‘We've wasted three years’ Also, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld and the administration's handling of the Iraq war, has been more vocal lately as he publicizes a new book, "The Battle for Peace." "The problem is that we've wasted three years" in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he "absolutely" believes Rumsfeld should resign. On Tuesday Gen. Peter Pace, who is the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attempted to tamp down the revolt of the retired generals. No officers were muzzled during the planning of the invasion of Iraq, he said. "We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us," he said at a Pentagon briefing. "The articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong." Lawrence Di Rita, a counselor to the Defense Department, disagreed with the retired generals' characterizations of Rumsfeld's style. "People are entitled to their opinions. What they are not entitled to is their own facts. . . . The assertions about inadequate exposure to military judgment are just fundamentally incorrect." Lingering resentment Other retired generals said they think it is unlikely that the denunciations of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease. "A lot of them are hugely frustrated," in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. He said he is sensing much anger among Americans over the administration's handling of the war, and believes the continuing criticism from military professionals will fuel that anger as the November elections approach. He declined to discuss his own views. Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said that he believes his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch," but even so his sense is that "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out." He emphatically agrees, Riggs said, explaining that he believes Rumsfeld and his advisers have "made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." Troubling precedent? Military experts expressed some concern about the new outspokenness of retired generals. "I think it flatly is a bad thing," said Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina who writes frequently on civilian-military relations. He said he worries that it could undermine civilian control of the military, especially by making civilian leaders feel that that they need to be careful about what they say around officers, for fear of being denounced as soon as they retire. "How can you prosecute a war if the military and civilians don't trust each other?" Kohn asked. Also, the generals themselves may be partly to blame for the fiasco in Iraq, along with Rumsfeld and the White House, said Michael Vickers, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank. "It's just absurd to lay the blame on Don Rumsfeld alone," he said.
It comes back to not knowing and understanding of the iraqis tradition. taking saddamb -insane out was a huge mistake. now iraq is heading down a path of islamic republic where woman rights will be destroyed and injustice will be the norm... yes my dear fellow americans, dont be suprised to see sharia law implemented in iraq in about 3 years. great job mr bush, you destroyed a secular tyranny for a much, much worse islamic dictatorship.the sunnis will revolt, hence a massive civil winner. the winner in all of this is the mollahs in iran.
This is a real test for Basso, TJ, Bigtexx and others. Will they will support Bush-cheny-Rumsfeld or the troops.
There's a difference? I thought any criticism of any part of this administration was anti-American, traitorous, and unChristian. Not to mention it also helps the terrorists and demoralizes our troops.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be fired for their mishandling of the Iraq War. Both of them ignored the advice from top Generals that we needed a larger stabilizing force after the conflict was done. I believe General Shinseki said that we needed about 100,000 soldiers to effectively control Iraq and act as a peacekeeping force, but was instead pushed out by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for not towing the "party line." I believe the Secretary of the Army and General Zini echoed the same beliefs of Shinseki, but was also chastised for disagreeing with the Bush cabal. In any war, we need to follow the Powell Doctrine that any halfhearted attempts at a war and civilian leadership overriding the military command always results in failure (see Vietnam).
I saw someone who wrote a number of articles on former high ranking generals describe Rumsfeld's techniques using the troops numbers in Iraq as an example. Rumsfeld had a preconceived idea to use a small, inexpensive force. When the Joint Chiefs submitted plans to Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld essentially browbeat them if the plan didn't conform to Rumsfled's ideas. This occurred over and over until the generals submited plans that fit with Rumsfled's ideas. Once people began to complain about not enough troops on the ground, Rumsfeld pointed out somewhat disingenuously that he had given the generals all the troops they asked for. Of course, he failed to point out that the first 30 times when they asked for more troops he harassed and harangued them into asking for fewer troops. While this obviously in not a kind picture, the author went on to say that alot of the blame should rest with the generals, who gave in to a plan that they knew was wrong in order to get Rumsfled off their backs. But clearly, the core of the problem was that Rumsfeld insisted that he knew how to run a war better than the Joint Chiefs.
I don't blame the generals at all because they were forced into the plan by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz by threats and coercion. Look at what happened to Shinseki, Secretary of the Army Thomas White, Zini, and even Colin Powell--who was initially skeptical about the invasion of Iraq, but was coerced into believing the story of Iraq's weapon of mass destruction. All of them were either forced into early retirement or in the case of Colin Powell--replaced with someone who was more in line with Bush's demands. Civilian leadership should never question military leadership in terms of strategizing for war--that's what lead to America's defeat in the Vietnam War.
It was the duty of the generals to protect the soldiers under their command at any cost. Rank and file soldiers will do their duties even if it costs them their lives. The generals decided that keeping their jobs was more important than their duties to the soldiers under their command.
Just another indication that this administration was not serious about the invasion. They wanted a small force so it would be easier to sell the war. Same with "Shock and Awe." Countless studies going back tot he Strategic Bombing Survey that looked at how Allied bombing affected Germany shows that the air power doesn't do it alone... the Shock and Awe wasn't for the Iraqis, it was for us. When you tailor a military operation to buttress the political operation, it means you should stop considering the military operation. That these guys insisted on going forward and broke the lives of those who disagreed or even advocated caution tells you everything you need to know.
Isn't this like the forth general to call for Rumsfeld's resignation? Seems like the military doesn't like him very much.
The reall here should be, that the pre-emption doctorine the bush adminstration has created is flawed, illogical and most importantly illegal. another mistake the us made was dissolving the iraqi army. had they kept most of the old generals from the Previouse regime, the us soldiers could have handed over the regins quicker to a battel hardened army with great experience of the region. now the current army and security forces is polluted with spies loyal to iran. iraq is mess that will take decades to fix. and thats an optomistic view on my part.
Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush are all guilty of lying and gross incompetence. The Bush Administration is the political equivalent of the Enron scandal ten times over.
People who voted for Bush in 2004 after he kept all these incompetents on board should be held responsible too.
Look at this impressive list of critical generals. Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr Maj Gen John Riggs Maj Gen John Batiste Marine Gen Anthony Zinni Marine Lt Gen Gregory Newbold Maj Gen Paul Eaton Rumsfeld should've been gone a long time ago.
When should he have been gone?...Do you base when he first should have been gone on criticism from a General?...Criticism will always be a factoid for a governmental official, how do you decide that he should have been gone on selected criticism? Are you comfortable that these Generals' criticism is largely based on the managemental tactics and strategy for the most part? They are not against the war, and cited they wanted more reign to do what they do in tactics, strategy... Do you agree that these Generals complaints of being micromanaged is a hindrance to them being more successful?... Personally, Generals must have the reign to do what they do...No one knows how to War like a Warrior, and Generals fit the bill on being the elite-most warriors of mind (due to experience)... I believe the Sec. of Defense should be spawned from a military position, alot of intangibles I don't know, but I do know it can be easy to micromanage if you allow yourself to...
Yes I agree that the generals were micromanaged, and I understand that this isn't about whether or not we should have gone to war, but how Rumsfeld has carried it out. In my opinion this administration has done so much wrong that we can move on from discussing whether or not we should have gone to war, and discuss how they have conducted the war. From the very beginning there were plans made out by the state department that included things like Iraq having their own security forces, preventing looting, and even as detailed as waste removal. That was done but those plans were scrapped, and look at the mess we got into. Rumsfeld should have been gone once we saw that the things planned for actually happened, and while we could have been prepared, folks like Rumsfeld ruined that. I believe it was a huge mistake, and I believe when people make mistakes of that magnitude they should be held accountable. When you have the general who commanded the 82nd airborne in Iraq criticizing Rumsfeld, it is serious. Add to that the rest on the list, plus what we have seen happen under Rumsfeld's guidance, and whether or not one agrees with the war is a seperate issue from Donald's incompetance.
I agree, planning is the most important thing Rumsfield could have done. A realistic battle plan takes into account what you stated. I don't know who decided to scrap the state department plans, but Rumsfield is responsible and the most accountable since this is a large part of planning.... I believe in what we are doing there...The Generals believe in what they are doing and deserve the best from Rumsfield...Apparently, Rumsfield didn't deliver...
