Gee? Who was it that was saying months ago that the military was in trouble and that someone needed to go?
Absolutely right. Democratic congressman Murtha has been on the ball as far as having a plan about dealing with Iraq, as well as what these generals and other folks have been saying in regards to Rumsfeld. Murtha has really been leading the charge with handling things, and taking a leadership position in this.
Well, I guess I have my answer. TJ, Basso and Bigtexx don't really support the troops, just their fellow chickenhawks in the Bush Admininstration.
Bush Gives Rumsfeld Strong Show of Support Apr 14, 2:09 PM (ET) By TERENCE HUNT WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, brushing aside an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, said Friday his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld's leadership of the Pentagon was "exactly what is needed at this critical period." Bush apparently issued his statement to put to rest increasing calls for the secretary to go because of criticism that he has mishandled the Iraq war and made other mistakes. "I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions," Bush said in a written statement, issued while the president was spending the Easter weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period," Bush said. "He has my full support and deepest appreciation." In an interview aired Friday on Al-Arabiya television, Rumsfeld said he intends to serve the president at his pleasure. "The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," Rumsfeld said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round." Bush said he had talked with Rumsfeld earlier in the day about military operations in the war on terror. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation," the president said. It was an extraordinary statement by the president on the status of a top official. Bush decided it was warranted because of the "type of voices" that have recently engaged in public criticism of Rumsfeld, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to more freely elaborate on the White House's thinking. The official said that Rumsfeld's case was unique. There has been no similar statement for Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose resignation is rumored to be imminent. The administration official said Bush's statement should make it clear that Rumsfeld's job is safe for now. Several retired military commanders, including Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who turned down a promotion to lieutenant general in favor of leaving the Army, have recently made statements urging Rumsfeld's ouster. They argue that the planning for the war in Iraq was not sufficient and that Rumsfeld's management style has too often given shortshrift attention to the views of uniformed officers. Earlier Friday, Batiste said he did not know of any coordinated effort by military figures to get Rumsfeld fired, calling the recent series of critical statements "absolutely coincidental." "I have not talked to the other generals," Batiste, interviewed from Rochester, N.Y., said on NBC"s "Today" show. Nevertheless, he said he thinks the clamor for Rumsfeld to step down is "happening for a reason." Batiste commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division forces in Iraq. He said he declined the promotion and a chance to be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there because he could not accept Rumsfeld's management style. "I support civilian control (of the military) completely," Batiste told interviewers on CBS's "The Early Show." But, he added, "we went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team." Military experts say the parade of recently retired military brass calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is troubling and threatens to undermine strong support that Bush has enjoyed among the officer corps and troops. With public anti-war sentiment increasing, "the president and his team cannot afford to lose that support," said Kurt Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod for criticism since the war began in March 2003. He was blamed for committing too few U.S. troops and for underestimating the strength of the insurgency. He took heat in 2004 over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. Army-run Abu Ghraib prison, and for a brusque response he gave to an Army National Guard soldier in Kuwait who questioned him on inadequate armor.
It will be interesting to see how long Bush continues this "support" till the "flip-flop? Didn't take long with Harriet Miers or "Heck of a Job Brownie".
Another question might be why do many generals seem to care more about their careers and pensions than America. Case in point the cravenesss of Colin Powell as a retired general. I can understand how acting generals are in a consitutional bind if they contest the administration, but why not resign effective immediately if they need to speak out about the danger to our nation posed by the blind warmongering of the Bush Administration.
It is looking like the hapless Dubya is not only a lame duck as President, but a lame duck as Commander in Chief.. The Generals' Revolt by Patrick J. Buchanan In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more. This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment. This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet underway, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war. As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed. The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war. Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point: "Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force ..." With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary. Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies. Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results." Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation. Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war. As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own. But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them? Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916. And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired. In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war. Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu river, thanks to Harry Truman. In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect. http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8858
If the Bush administration ever gives the order to use nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon, then I would hope that the military would disobey that order. I would actually support a military coup in such an event to remove an immoral leadership and hold new elections to replace them. A republic without a conscious is no republic at all.
So I guess this puts the lie to anything Jr has said in the past about listening to the “generals on the ground” in regards to troop strength, tactics or how the war can be won.
That is very scary either way. Fortunately many real military man are not as warlike as chickenhawks.
The problem is that active duty officers are in a real bind regarding what they can say and do. Its established precedant that a serving general can be court martialled for publically criticizing superiors, including the President and civillian leaders. One of the things drummed into people in the military is to follow the chain of command and ultimately the military is run by a civilian political leadership so even without the possibility of court martial officers are loathe to criticize superiors and by nature inclined to agree. At the same time as officers are concerned about the well being of the troops under them but generally being men of action are more inclined to stay at their posts believing they can better serve remaining in the chain of command than resigning and crticizing from the outside.
I don't believe Shinseki has called for Rumsfeld's resignation. He is notable that he publicly disagreed with Rumsfeld's strategy and was eased out to pasture. I recall hearing that privately Tommy Franks also disagreed with Rumsfeld's strategy and felt a much larger force was needed. The story I heard was that Franks wanted a force around 500K while Rumsfeld wanted under a 100K but they ended up compromising with around the 200K.
I didn't say Shinseki called for Rummy's head. My post was merely pointing out that FB's list of generals missed (sort of) one of the highest ranked military figures critical of Rummy. In fact, Shinseki of the Army and Zinni of the Marine were the two most cited generals by some prominent antiwar activists to argue for their cases in the early going. Indeed. The most famous examples are the court-martialing of Brigadier General Billy Mitchell (arguably the father of US Air Force) for his criticism of incompetence on part of senior commanders in Army and Navy after WWI, and the sacking of Army General Douglas MacArthur for his outlandish statements and declarations in Korea War, and dismissiveness and insubordination to President Truman. Ironically, MacArthur served on the court-martial that convicted Mitchell in 1926. What I find interesting about this Rumsfeld controversy is that while the generals in the previous two cases who were relieved of duties were known for taking more hawkish stances than their superiors, this current list of generals are actually being more prudent and less of bravado than their civilian leaders.
And then there were seven ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401649.html The grievances aired by half a dozen retired flag officers in recent days resonated with many military veterans. "I admire those who have stepped forward, and I agree with the arguments they are making," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper said in an interview yesterday. "I count myself in the same camp." Van Riper, a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 but did not vote in the 2004 election, said Rumsfeld has failed in a number of ways, including "disastrous" war planning and execution and fostering a poor command climate. To be fair, two retired generals have come out backing Rummy. Score: 7 to 2.
8th General Calls For Rumsfeld’s Resignation Fox News is reporting an eighth general has called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Ret. Marine General Paul Van Riper said he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his feelings that Secretary Rumsfeld has not fought the Iraq war competently. He told Fox that Rumsfeld has run the Pentagon through intimidation and that a change in leadership is needed: Van Riper follows the calls of Generals Swannack, Newbold, Eaton, Zinni, Batiste, Riggs, and Clark. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/24/eighth-general/
Score: 8 to 2 Fox News is reporting an eighth general has called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Ret. Marine General Paul Van Riper said he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his feelings that Secretary Rumsfeld has not fought the Iraq war competently. Why does Fox News hate America and Bush's Messianic Vision (tm)? Seriously WTF is up with Fox News breaking this story? Is it their indication that Rummy's head needs to roll to save W's Presidency?
conduct unbecoming... http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008275 ==== Honor in Discretion Conduct unbecoming from retired generals. BY ELIOT A. COHEN Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT One could say much to defend Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld against the recent attacks of half a dozen retired generals--that the indictments are either old ("not enough troops," a trope from April 2003) or vague ("ignoring the Powell doctrine"), plodding ("violating the principles of war," a hazy collection of often-ignored, self-contradictory military platitudes), or downright silly (being disrespectful in meetings, as though generals would never, ever, be caught dressing down subordinates in front of their peers). Generals, one might note, may yield to vanity and pique, institutional parochialism and thwarted ambition, limited introspection and all the other foibles of proud men. One might, finally, observe that in the unhappy generals' account of Iraq there is no alternative strategy proposed, no fellow general held to account by name, scant acceptance of personal responsibility for what went awry on their watch, little repudiation of contrary statements made on active duty. Still, let us stipulate, for the purpose of argument, elements of truth to their fundamental charge of strategic mismanagement, attribute to them only pure motives, and note that serious public figures--Sen. John McCain, chiefly--have indeed called for the beleaguered secretary's resignation, which he in turn, according to press reports, has twice offered the president, to no avail. Is this behavior on the part of the retired generals proper? After all, this is a politically cleaner deed than endorsing candidates for the presidency, a partisan act that meets the silent disapproval of most retired generals, who know that such behavior taints their reputations for politically neutral professionalism. Even making these assumptions and conceding the narrowly defined nonpartisanship of these denunciations, for recently retired general officers to publicly denounce a sitting secretary of defense is wrong, destructive of good order and discipline in the armed forces, and prejudicial to functional civil-military relations. It is not the same thing as speaking candidly before Congress, telling all to civilian or military scholars collecting oral histories, or indeed writing one's own memoirs after the heat of contemporary passions has cooled, and the individuals in question have left public office. Rather, this kind of denunciation means leaping into a political fight, and tackling the civilians still charged with the nation's defense. Not the charges themselves, but the arrogation of responsibility is the problem: When things go wrong at the top the civilians should, no doubt, take the heat. But not this way. Begin by noting that public denunciation will almost surely fail, because no president who thinks much of his role as commander in chief will throw the top Pentagon civilian overboard to please officers of any kind. If he did, he would establish the precedent that secretaries of defense serve at the pleasure of their subordinates, overturn the most fundamental feature of civilian control of the military, and neuter his own effectiveness in the conduct of national defense. Even if ineffectual, however, these declarations do great harm. Retired generals never really leave the public service--that's why, after all, we still call them "general." They set examples for those junior to them in rank, and still on active duty. Imagine, for example, the disgruntled major in the Office of the Secretary of Defense deciding to subvert policy with which he disagrees by, say, leaking confidential memoranda to the press. "Not the same thing," one might respond, but remember that angry majors do not, for the most part, make discriminating moral philosophers. The retired generals have, in effect and perhaps unwittingly, made a case for disloyalty. Indeed, their most troubling belief is that an officer's civilian superiors--and the secretary of defense stands in the chain of command just below the president--do not merit the loyalty that they, as military superiors, would deserve and expect. This controversy has already, predictably, produced anti-Rumsfeld generals and pro-Rumsfeld generals, as earlier controversies produced the pro- and anti-Clinton and pro- and anti-Bush generals. Such squabbling among flag officers brings discredit upon the lot. Furthermore, a politician who, after these and like events, does not think carefully about whether a military subordinate will likely turn on him the moment he takes off the uniform must be exceptionally naive. No matter how low an opinion a general has of politicians, he is a fool if he thinks them unaware of their own interests. And those interests will lead them to promote flunkies over the prickly but able officers they conceive themselves to be. A general is equally a fool if he thinks he can engage in partisan polemic without becoming a political target, with all the miseries for himself, and degradation to his honor and profession, that that entails. Generals have not always enjoyed the high reputation for integrity, independence and dispassionate judgment they do today. That regard stems in large part from the example of soldiers such as Gen. George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the U.S. Army during World War II, who held his tongue in public, even as he argued vehemently with (and often loathed) his president in private. Accustom the American people to the public sniping and bickering of generals, and generals will soon find that the respect on which they now count has evaporated. Again, the civilians brought us to this, and in particular politicians of both parties manipulating soldiers as campaign props, and using disgruntled generals to badmouth a president of the opposing party. Democrats and Republicans alike have behaved disgracefully--and the generals are the only ones who can limit the damage. It remains up to them, no matter what, or how well grounded, their dismay about civilian leaders, to grit their teeth and maintain an honorable and discreet silence, leaving it to those responsibility it is--the president, the Congress and ultimately the voters--to decide whether and when a secretary of defense to leave his office. Mr. Cohen is a professor at Johns Hopkins University and the author of "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime" (Free Press, 2002).
