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.
I tried, I really did but it was sent to me via e-mail. I'm on Conservative Review's e-mail list.
Pat Buchanan is a moron........if you put 6000 ants in a jar, there would be more brain matter at work than this idiot has ever mustered...........he is a loser
I found a couple of threads on it from the 15th when it was posted on WND.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615886/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615559/posts
The gist of this whole thing seems to be "Rummy didn't/doesn't listen to us". The generals are thropwing a tantrum because their sage advice was not sought, and when offered, was refused, probably in a way that hurt their feelings.
That having been said, Rumsfeld is no friggin' genius here, either. It's my opinion this war was hamstrung from day one by the lack of ground forces to first overrun, and then, secure Iraq. We had enough ground forces to make a show against an Iraqi army that doesn't fight, but not enough to provide a big enough presance to keep the "insurgents" and "militias" in check.
Part of this is the general's fault themselves: Rumsfeld didn't cut infantry units during the previous administration. He had to fight and plan with what he had available, and if there were any professionals plannign the operation, they simply HAD know there weren't enough troops available. They probably protested there weren't enough troops, but were overruled by Rummy who was going to carry out the President's will. After all, that's his job.
Secondary to not having enough troops available, there was also the problem with getting Turkish co-operation in the initial invasion of Iraq, hence all this talk about "isolating our NATO allies". According to this train fo thought, if the original, professionally-cobbled together plan of invading from north and south (with inadequate troops) had been followed, we would have been successful, but that the State Department and Administration let the Pentagon down. That "inavde from two directions with an inadequate force" plan, supposedly, would have avoided 3,000 dead, if only Rumsfeld hadn't been there?
So, now here we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and having to face down Iran, as well, with no troops, and no plan of attack except to bomb the hell out of a bunch of places and no follow up to enforce our will or change the regime in Iran, and THIS IS RUMSFELD'S fault?
It is, but only according to six safely-retired generals, who presided over the vivisection of the US military, and some who now claim to have been "forced, against their better judgement" of contributing to the mess that is Iraq.
I'd say the generals are just as guilty.
The problem is not management at the Pentagon (vis-a-vis Rummy) but management of the pork spending (vis-a-vis get me some good infantry and screw 400 F-22's) and "wonder weapons" by the generals. An M-1 tank is a poor substitute for a platoon of infantry. No Apache is as versatile as an infantryman. No JSF is capable of thinking, improvising and processing information, and acting upon it, like a human being.
The mindset needs to change, all around; Rumsfeld needs to listen, the generals need to look at their own behavior and stop pointing fingers.
The number of those who do not approve of the war in Iraq is certainly not at 75%, but more importantly, the mere fact that the number is high is no reason to, say, dump Rummy.
The number is high not because those who hold that opinion are correct, but because the MSM and democrats' propaganda designed to undermine our war effort has been successful -- so far.
That story was when 27 generals retired and as part of their retirement they were forced to sign a document stating that they could not publicly criticize Klinton under threat of penalty. This incident never got reported by the MSM.
I can barely agree with ANYTHING Buchanon said here.
McArthur testified truthfully to a congress that had valid congressional oversight. He did so while employed at his job -- and he was fired for it.
These generals all were directly involved in the policy, and yet unfailingly implemented what apparently they knew was the wrong thing that would ruin our chances to win. And they didn't bother to speak out until it was way too late for it to do them any good, and after their retirements were secure.
Bush isn't stuck between a rock and a hard place. He should ignore the generals -- he has PLENTY of generals who will still tell him the truth while they are in a position to do something.
And if he decides Rumsfeld should go, he will send him away, and nobody will care one way or another what it "looks like" in the white house, because Bush rarely seems to care what anything looks like -- he wants results.
Buchanon just wants to argue that Bush was wrong to go to war, and is now in a no-win situation because of it.
What would having more troops have done? Just more targets for pissed off out of power terrorist Sunni's. Make the case that it would have made a difference.
"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."
Who is the military guy running against Curt Weldon? This has Clinton written all over it. These generals are afraid what Able Danger will turn up.
I'm inclined to agree. If things were badly run it's between the generals. Hind site is always 20/20 and all this showboating needs to stop.
Help me out here. I read the article twice and didn't see anything that made sense.
Your lack of understanding of why a stable Iraqi government is crucial to the larger strategy, however.... That's just not excuseable.
More troops?! I thought we didn't have enough body armor for the ones we sent in?
Maybe it isn't a Cindy Sheehan moment if you want to look at things rationally (the rationale for the general's opinions)--but the left will make it a Cindy Sheehan moment--whenever did they depend on rational thought?
Your lack of understanding of why a stable Iraqi government is crucial to the larger strategy, however.... That's just not excuseable.
Pre 9/11 Afghanistan is the perfect example. We broke it, we need to fix it.
Do tell?
And I suppose this was an objective survey, free of any media bias?
REALLY?
~Smirk~
Highly unlikely.
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.