Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go
Time. ^ | Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 | LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

Posted on 04/09/2006 9:00:05 AM PDT by 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. ...

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; dod; iraq; islam; marines; rumsfeld; secdef; usmc; veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

1 posted on 04/09/2006 9:00:12 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

How can you take anything seriously after this opening?

2 posted on 04/09/2006 9:01:50 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Dogs are from Mars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Why I think retired Generals should STFU


3 posted on 04/09/2006 9:03:09 AM PDT by txroadhawg ("Stuck on stupid? I invented stupid! " Al Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

That was exactly what I thought.


4 posted on 04/09/2006 9:04:52 AM PDT by DesignerChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Yes
There are Marines who cannot cut the mustard. 3 stars does not make people all knowing and powerful.

I wonder how this idiot is able to draw retirement.

This idiot probably wanted another 15 years of sanctions.

Whiners dont fit in within the Marines.

Probably a Clintoon appointee. I hear no critique of Kosovo operations from this pandering perfumed prince.

He must be selling a book.


5 posted on 04/09/2006 9:05:56 AM PDT by axes_of_weezles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Time Inc. Lays Off 250 People
6 posted on 04/09/2006 9:07:18 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

For every retired General who thinks this was an unnecessary war I bet you can find 50 who think it is necessary ...so why does Time find and print this guy? I wonder?


7 posted on 04/09/2006 9:08:00 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
One of the criteria used to promote Colonels to Generals is their political acumen. Then we seem surprised by their political aspirations. Their power after being promoted is similar in nature to that experienced by our elected officials. They think their opinion no longer stinks and they are surrounded by yes men. A series of decisions sets them on a path, very similar to career politicians.

Generals are not immune from the same emotional corruption experienced by elected officials.
8 posted on 04/09/2006 9:08:18 AM PDT by Ben Mugged (labor unions are socialism's shock troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Would'a, could'a, should'a.

Next.


9 posted on 04/09/2006 9:09:36 AM PDT by Leisler (Not all Muslims are terrorists but, All terrorists are Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie

Source selection goes from the very top of the paleomedia, right down to the cub reported getting statements at his first car accident.


10 posted on 04/09/2006 9:10:51 AM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Too bad the General didn't have the foresight to get funding for body armor into the budget back in 1997 so the troops would have it in 2003.


11 posted on 04/09/2006 9:11:58 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
"Time Inc. Lays Off 250 People"

These people will be like cancer cells in the bloodstream. No telling where they will go and what damage to productive business, workers. They could end up on school-boards.

Grim news in deed.
12 posted on 04/09/2006 9:12:32 AM PDT by Leisler (Not all Muslims are terrorists but, All terrorists are Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Methinks the general takes himself a hell of a lot too seriously. Is he right or wrong? After reading his thoughts, I'm convinced that he thinks everyone is out of step but him! What a pompous ass he must be. I'm glad this jerk was retired.


13 posted on 04/09/2006 9:13:20 AM PDT by geezerwheezer (get up boys, we're burnin' daylight!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
How can you take anything seriously after this opening?

It speaks to everything that is the modern liberal. They do take kids' bands seriously- The Who, The Beatles, whatever delinquent teenage crap they became fixated upon as youths, and then vowed to inflict on the real world their entire lives.

They may have cut their hair and manage to hold jobs under the protection of unions and tenure, but in taking their message to heart... don't worry, we are NOT being fooled in the least.

14 posted on 04/09/2006 9:13:23 AM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: axes_of_weezles

"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."

DNC talking points.... and then the accusation that the Government - when Bush is Pres.- doesn't care about the military.

Interesting....where was he when Clinton sent the "Black Hawk Down" crew to their deaths....talk about "casualness and swagger".


15 posted on 04/09/2006 9:14:40 AM PDT by DesignerChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

He doesn't seem to say very much of substance. He's entitled to his opinion just as I'm entitled to read it and think "so what?". Where that leaves us is one more guy who seems to have an irrational, out-of-proportion hatred of Rumsfeld.


16 posted on 04/09/2006 9:15:18 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

As a historian and philosopher, he is lacking. He should stick to his day job.

And the sand is shifting right under his feet. His case, that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, was always bogus, and its unraveling to the point that only a Democrat could continue to deny it at this point.

Its easy to simply assert that taking Saddam down was unnecessary. He hasn't explained how you would dismantle a world-wide movement while leaving its sources of funding, refuge, technical support, and strategic support in place.

He hasn't explained how we were going to continue to "contain" Saddam when he had already bought key members of the Security Council, and had UN management on his payroll.

He hasn't explained how we might have disarmed Libya without the images sent world-wide of Saddam being fished out of a hole in the ground. He hasn't explained how we would apply any sense of seriousness to our negotiations with Iran without the prior example of knocking over the governments of both of their neighbors.

He says he would have been willing to fight a war in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is still on, and he isn't there. He's jockeying for position in a second Clinton administration. They deserve each other.


17 posted on 04/09/2006 9:17:06 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Absolutely not! - I not only admire Rumsfeld tremendously but I admire the president for showing guts and not giving in to the lefties who are dying to have Rumsfeld for a trophy. As much as I love the Military, they can also become lazy, unmotivated, stale, unless someone kicks them in the a** once in a while. The Pentagon can also be just another bureaucracy, just looking after themselves.


18 posted on 04/09/2006 9:17:29 AM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

Wasn't the band simply called "Who," anyway? I don't remember. [hehe]


19 posted on 04/09/2006 9:17:30 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

And the beat goes on...


20 posted on 04/09/2006 9:19:41 AM PDT by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

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


21 posted on 04/09/2006 9:22:50 AM PDT by Mrs. Shawnlaw (No NAIS! And the USDA can bugger off, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_who_2

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


22 posted on 04/09/2006 9:27:44 AM PDT by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; kristinn; hellinahandcart; tgslTakoma; Angelwood; BillF; NYC GOP Chick; KLT; BufordP; ...
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?

23 posted on 04/09/2006 9:27:53 AM PDT by sauropod ("War is the Devil's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geezerwheezer

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.


24 posted on 04/09/2006 9:28:32 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
"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.

25 posted on 04/09/2006 9:28:47 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
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.
26 posted on 04/09/2006 9:28:51 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Dogs are from Mars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

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.


27 posted on 04/09/2006 9:29:57 AM PDT by sauropod ("War is the Devil's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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

Sounds like the Supreme Being (Wesley Clark)!

28 posted on 04/09/2006 9:30:59 AM PDT by sauropod ("War is the Devil's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
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.

29 posted on 04/09/2006 9:31:12 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txroadhawg

General Tso likes his chicken spicey.


30 posted on 04/09/2006 9:32:29 AM PDT by johnny7 (ďNah, I ainít Jewish, I just donít dig on swine, thatís all.Ē)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Shawnlaw
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 ;-).

31 posted on 04/09/2006 9:33:10 AM PDT by sauropod ("War is the Devil's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

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.


32 posted on 04/09/2006 9:33:13 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Image hosted by Photobucket.com what you think, and $5bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at $tarbuck$ too pal...
33 posted on 04/09/2006 9:33:42 AM PDT by Chode (1967 UN Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT. American Hedonist ©ģ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geezerwheezer
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.
34 posted on 04/09/2006 9:34:52 AM PDT by al_again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
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!

35 posted on 04/09/2006 9:35:49 AM PDT by sauropod ("War is the Devil's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains

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 ....


36 posted on 04/09/2006 9:37:23 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

"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.


37 posted on 04/09/2006 9:37:30 AM PDT by LA Conservative (Liberalism is now a secular cult of Leftism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
"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.
38 posted on 04/09/2006 9:39:45 AM PDT by SAMS (Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
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

39 posted on 04/09/2006 9:39:48 AM PDT by bray (Xenophobes for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains
Do a quick search on Google before you make statements like this.
40 posted on 04/09/2006 9:42:48 AM PDT by al_again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
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.

It never ceases to amaze me when people just naturally believe that negative comments no matter how bold from a handful of men are somehow supernaturally true.

Hundreds of men were in favor of the plan including the current commander of CENTCOM and his predecessor Tommy Franks who actually executed the plan, yet a dozen or so were against it, therefore, all is lost. The War In Iraq ended in about three weeks. Another "war" if we can call it that as opposed to a "police action," started and then maybe a third "civil war" has begun.

This man clearly states that the war plan was wrong in the sentence I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. However, he uses pathos for the wounded he visits as his first reason like, if the war plan would have been better these men wouldn't hurt so much from their wounds or they wouldn't have been wounded at all. I am particularly struck by his reliance upon a rock group for military advice. I listen to music because I like to tap my toes. It frightens me to think that Generals get epiphanies from The Who.

In my opinion he also has the same tunnel vision that many others share: Al Qaeda is the only target that should matter to the United States. This is the most profoundly stupid reasoning I have heard, and unfortunately I've been hearing it since the 2004 presidential primaries began.

I don't give a damn if Iraq has or doesn't have ties to Al Qaeda. It's a moot point. The Middle East is the hotbed of terrorism and Iraq was a leader in supporting terrorism. To end terrorism means getting control of this most volatile region of the globe. Iraq to the west, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the east, Turkey and a handful of "..stans" to the north along with our carrier battle groups to the south completely surround Iran, a country that is clearly the head of terrorism.

From someone like little ole me, who only spent four years in the military all of it building Minuteman missiles and not exposed to combat operations and one who also hasn't been to War College... the plan appears absolutely brilliant.

 

41 posted on 04/09/2006 9:42:55 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Shawnlaw
"How is it that a LaZBoy suddenly exalts one into being a better leader or coach? Particularly on Saturdays and Sundays?"

Better blood flow to the brain, quiet American style meditation allowing subconscious problem solving. Works for me.

I just forget to write things down. About Leaders and Coaches. I'd say the majority hold the title but not the position. It has been my experience that things would of gone better without so called leaders and coaches, especially the ones with the exalted mindset.

42 posted on 04/09/2006 9:44:37 AM PDT by Leisler (Not all Muslims are terrorists but, All terrorists are Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Um - have you seen the 'feeble' people you describe (I'm talking about the retired generals - not the leftists), without seeing you I'm willing to bet they have a higher IQ than you (and me for that matter) and could beat the hell out of you if they had to.

There is nothing feeble about most of them!


43 posted on 04/09/2006 9:45:17 AM PDT by al_again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
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.

And it's always the bullet you don't see that gets you.
Saadam Hussein was just an annoyance who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda?
Riiiight. Good thinking there Newbold.

44 posted on 04/09/2006 9:45:20 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Pain is nothing. Pain is weakness leaving the body.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_again
"The execution of the war has not gone well. "

The war on Iraq did not help the war on terror. How do we know? The Terror Alert Flag tells us so.

45 posted on 04/09/2006 9:46:16 AM PDT by ex-snook (John 17 - So that they may be one just as we are one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: al_again

Yeah, they are the toughest of the tough. I know them well. We have one at the head of our local state university. He is remarkably focused on his new job and doesn't bother fighting old battles and lost causes. IOW, he is not spending his coin in futility. Could any of them beat the heck out of you or me? Well, I am old and broken down, so probably they could; don't know about you. IQ? Some, maybe; most, no.


46 posted on 04/09/2006 9:52:58 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Good post (the addenda). Thanks.


47 posted on 04/09/2006 9:53:22 AM PDT by Poincare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Courage. What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage.

What makes the Hottentot so hot? Courage.

What puts the "ape" in ape-ricot? Courage.

Whatta they got that I ain't got? Courage.

Thanks to the The Cowardly Lion/Wizard of Oz for a better discussion of fortitude and resolve than this Marine (I'm one too, along with Ritter and Oswald). We shouldn't be looked at as statesmen because we are good warriors. We as a people have to move forward. Sometimes wrong, sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but moving forward.

Semper fi, and damn sure, carry on.

48 posted on 04/09/2006 9:56:34 AM PDT by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

"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."

WTF. I had enough right here..."To those of us who were truly counterculture...". Spit.


49 posted on 04/09/2006 9:56:35 AM PDT by gate2wire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_again

"...going out of our way to alienate European countries who could have helped with the rebuilding..."

Since Newbold isn't here to flesh this out for me and you specifically noted this part of his assertions, maybe you can answer.
Since what really alienated Europe was our going into Iraq at all, how could we have not alienated them so they would be helping more now?


50 posted on 04/09/2006 9:57:52 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson