Posted on 04/21/2006 8:58:43 AM PDT by no dems
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 mount- ing 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.
Actually, Pat, yes it is. For you and for Mr. Ignatius. An unattributed and unverifiable claim of "75%" is bullshit.
Please provide a working link.
Clinton warned a group of retiring generals (who retired because they were disgusted with him) that he would confiscate their retirement pay unless they kept quiet about why they retired.
Maybe Bush should take heed. These generals have no business drawing military retirement pay, probably finding cushy civilian jobs as figureheads, and stabbing the president in the back at the same time.
Gee...so he believes those Generals instead of Meyers and Franks?
I'm shocked.
Someone slip some Koolaid in your drink lately?
Sorry; still not buying it. I think these generals have motivations far, far beyond the question of when, not if, we will win. And if Pat Buchanan is their towel boy, I'm REALLY still not buying it.
That was your first mistake. This didn't come out of his mouth.
"First time in a long time that I have agreed with anything that came out of Pat Buchanan's mouth or computer."
I do not agree. I am not one to support a failed policy but Pat's ongoing diatribe is silly. He thinks it a bad thing if Iraq falls into civil war.
I think the US should tell the Shiias to work with the Sunnis or we will tacitly arm the Sunnis. I think we should push for an independent Kurdistan, carving out territory from Turkey and Iran.
This would help to destablise both countries and let the Turks know they are sovereign only as long as we allow it!
Payback for 4th Infantry Div denial!
The Iranians would then be concerned about their other "minority" groups and their calls for independence.
I think these thoughts are more credible than anything that has come out of Pat's head in years!
Temporary insanity, I hope.
Has everyone forgotten that the juglar vein of western civilization flows through the bad neighborhood we call the middle east. Unless you want to be 3rd world, our only chance to maintain our life style is to change the neighborhood. So few understand.....
Rush explained the other day how there may be a case for sedition against these generals. It has to be proven that it was a coordinted effort to speak out. OTOH, Rush didn't think that the effort was coordinated by the generals themselves...rather it is the MSM fishing for a story.
In which case the sedition charge should be issued against the MSM.
Really? It appears that Buchanan agrees with these renegades, and he seems to be relishing that Bush is in a "box": fire Rumsfeld and appear weak, or stand by him and go down in flames.
Bush is not going to fire Rumsfeld. The "general's revolt" is over.
As a side note, Pat just has to keep the notion that Jews are behind rousing up interest in war in Iraq by mentioning Feith and Wolfowitz. So predictable.
But this is NOT unusual: in the Civil War, Lincoln dealt with carping generals all the time---most of them were still serving at the time. Think of McClellan, Sickles, and so on.
I believe President Bush made all this speculation history a few days ago when he said Secretary Rumsfeld is staying, period.
Certainly seems ridiculous from the limited number of Iraq vets and officers currently serving that I know.
Sad that you agree with this man and I use the term loosely. I will continue to believe in Rummy and Our President and Our Military. Buchanan will say anything to get some attention. Six desenting retired generals out of nine thousand retired generals is not even material!
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.