Yep!
:D
Posted on 04/15/2006 8:14:44 AM PDT by churchillbuff
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 under way, 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.
Well, this implies that every retired general will be right when talking about 'war' as you say. That, of course, is not realistic. These generals may be right, time will tell.
But, there are something like 9,000 retired generals of all stars as reported by FNC. So, 6 out of 9,000??
Also, have you seen any reporting on retired generals that support the war, the approach and Rumsfeld? No? Does that mean there aren't any? Of course not. That means the antique media is not reporting on them.
I know it appears that hundreds of generals are against this because the lame stream media has had these 6 on camera hundreds of times. Do not get suckered into the antique media game plan.
Courage? LOL! He's selling a book.
"BUsh and Rummy were publicly warned by more than one general that they weren't sending enough troops."
Too bad you cannot read the meaning of the demand for more troops. It is WASHINGTON SPEAK!!!! Get It?
It means that we needed a draft. We do have have sufficient forces in the services to field the ARMY the Shinsheki's and Zinni's were demanding. That means, NO WAR!
A draft, training, coordinating, logistics....DEFEATISM BEFORE WE START!
Got it? A WASHINGTON RUN AROUND!
Our military should never be placed in a nation-building role, they should be warriors. Leave peace-keeping, nation-building, etc. to someone else.
And that's the right way to do it, which is the huge dilemma as I see things. Rumsfeld is manifestly incompetent (and I've been saying that since 2003) but it's not right for the civilian leadership to be overthrown at the demand of the military..
My personal opinion is that the damage in Iraq itself is already done, and replacing Rumsfeld won't help now, so Rumsfeld should stay because civilian rule is paramount. Even incompetent civilian rule is better than a military coup, IMHO.
PS. Yeah, I know my opinion is in the definite minority here, so that's all I'm gonna say about this.
A typical excuse that holds ZERO truth. These officers served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2. The problem is Rumsfeld ... he was and is .... WRONG! Active duty Generals did speak up and Rumsfeld insulted them and the army .... publicly and often. People here on FR would claim that they knew nothing .... that they were Clinton hold overs ....
Rumsfeld is trying to complete the mistakes he many over thirty years ago. Then he left the military in a shambles and those "Hold overs" took that destroyed military and made it into the best in the world. We don't need Rumsfeld to destroyed it.
Can't speak of the particular officers, but I have heard some things.
The military has a lot of trouble retaining O2s and O3s.
There is a reason.
Swannack did not make a great reputation in Iraq, Good reason he didn't get his third star, and it wasn't because he wasn't a Team" player.
Enemies among us, even on FR.
Are they holdovers? Are you kidding? Of course they are.
With over 900 stars and admirals in current service and 15 20% retiring at any time, there are literally thousands of ex top brass in civis.
There is as much brass now as there was in WW11 with less than half of the number of servicemen. Maybe one tenth of the servicemen.
I consider those numbers a ringing endoresement of Rummy, considering the percentages
No apology is necessary. The "abusive" line against Rumsfeld reminds me of the same line used by Carl Ford in the Bolton hearings.
Coincidence? I think not.
These men have showed a clear sign of themselves by running to the MSM (a group "they know" is against our military....they know it...yet the sunk there when they thought it could help them!?!)..that speaks volumes about these men not SecDef Rumsfeld.
And the reality is there is always going to be a few dozen Gen's or so (and here we have less then 10) that aren't happy with the SecDef.
There is always going to be infighting at State and the Pentagon. People acting as if this is something new is utterly silly.
As another FReeper already pointed out in the Department of Defense there are roughly:
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. Each year roughly 15-20% of those will retire for various reasons, not all willingly.
That SecDef Rumsfeld tweaked a couple of these guys or hurt a few of their "feelings".....is a good thing! No leader hard charging leader could be effective if they weren't. That is just called reality.
We have fought and continue to fight the most effective unconventional war in history. Our enemies have suffered one strategic defeat after another.....we have not suffered one.
Well, now I know these generals are 100% wrong. Crazy Pat is on the same page as them.
Pat Buchannan, reliably carrying out attacks for Ted Turner and his CFR billionaire friends for 3 decades.
Yep!
:D
OK, six generals don't come out in 2 weeks to speak against Rumsfield unless there is something more going on. What are their political affiliations? I suspect they are all Democrats. Why did they come out in such a short period of time? I highly doubt they all retired in the last 2 weeks.
Methinks this is part of a political plan. If so, who is behind it and what are their goals?
There have been approximately two combat-related deaths per day over three years. Should be fewer, but.
I think that dropping nukes on China may have been a bit over the edge, don't you?
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.