Posted on 04/21/2006 8:58:43 AM PDT by no dems
Alienating NATO allies? We had over 30 countries in support! In WWII we only had 7! BTW he was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. It appears he couldn't do it so retire or be fired and now its revenge time for his incompetence!
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."
More sour grapes from someone who wasn't involved in planning the war!
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.
Yep I'm sure Rummy has time to listen to 10,000 field commanders with differeing view points!
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
But doesn't say how!
Remember that it was also a group of generals that told Billy Mitchell that airplanes served no purpose in warfare. We have lost fewer men in 4 years than in any war in our history! Rummy is a genius and these are all General losers
OK, you mind explaining how this works?
Any assignment for a 3 or 4 star flag officer has to be approved by Congress, so not getting approved for a billet by Congress, or not accepting that billet once it is approved, means that they're automatically retired as soon as their present assignment ends.
So how could Clinton enforce this? You can't have a 3 or 4 star flag officer sitting around doing nothing (the number of 3 or 4 star officers on active duty is controlled by Congress), and you can't enforce a prior restraint of this sort.
Also, please note that this would be an example of prior restraint on free speech, and would be overturned in about a nanosecond by any federal judge.
According to Chrissy Matthews, who has Pat on his show almost every night...Pat is running for POTUS in 2008...
so look for more and more (if that is possible)..critiques in the coming months..
If this piece was written by a guy who ever supported the liberation of Iraq, then I'd give it some credence. But it's just another pile of bull from a guy who can't stand that Saddam is gone and no longer threatens Pat's most hated Israel. Buchanan has never supported the effort in Iraq and his joining league with the Washington Post to continue to attack the effort there is nothing new. Buchanan is a leftist in conservative clothing and has been for years.
While these generals are wrong and out of line to be calling Rumsfeld to resign and as General Myers pointed out it represents a threat to the idea of separating civilian and military leadership, I'm not aware that any of them other than perhaps Zinni actually oppose the effort in Iraq. Their bitch seems to be a personal conflict with Rumsfeld. But Buchanan is turning this into another attempt to attack a war effort he's never supported, even quoting the Washington Compost and their boilerplate attacks against the war to somehow meld with what these 5 generals, out of many dozens of retired generals who aren't saying such things, into a general indictment of the war.
Give it up Pat, your 15 minutes was up long ago.
One big problem is that Americans don't think in a cunning fashion like the rest of these folks. I am more in line with the Buchananites and Cato Institute folks (as far as the war is concerned). The neocon vision sounds lovely on paper, but what has America gotten out of this war so far? BUPKES!!!! I really think that we'd give the whole region a case of diarrhea if we supported an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds have always worn their Islam much more loosely than Arabs. Now as far as Turkey goes, I wouldn't make any outright claim on Turkish territory, but definitely hone in on Kurds in Syria and Iran. The Turkish Kurds can do their own work. But the problem is that the PKK is Marxist--do we want that. Also Kurds consist of different tribes, with dialects as far flung as Italian dialects (see how well a Piemontese understands a Calabrese). I am not sure if there are any secular Shia'a with any influence these days. Chalabi is basically a goner (totally oysgespielt--played out). We could have had ourselves a nice little Mubarak, with Allawi (probably even better than Mubarak)
I'm not sure why you bother either. Victor Davis Hanson is part of the debate, a partisan, a man of opinion. He doesn't have special access to the truth.
I will rely on President Bush and, not Buchanan. The President, Quote, "He stays, period"!!
The Generals have made a regrettable mistake and, I don't need Pat to dissect that for me.
"the problem is that the PKK is Marxist--do we want that?"
No, but that does not mean the PKK would remain as the leadership.
Little things like diplomacy and intrique can go quite a ways. Carving part of Turkey out is necessary for access to the Black Sea. It is also necessary to send a STRONG message to the Neo-Islamist gaining strength in Turkey.
We may be seeing a "secular" Turkey being changed into a muslim government and that, we must prevent.
And as far as the war is concerned, I do not know why we should continue to spend American Treasure. Secure the military bases so we have strong regional influence and let the masses kill themselves.
That is what the know best, since the police appear to be nothing more that licensed death squads.
Sestak a retired Vice Admiral that the new CNO pushed out the door. People only followed him out of sheer curiosity.
And you are the standard of objectivity I suppose.
Oh please. I don't hate the man, I just don't think he makes sense. His opinions are the issue, not the man himself.
So...are you saying that as one of his detractors, I can not disagree without hating?
I think Pat is unbalanced, and his detractors great.
There, that's better!
I think that's part of the problem here. If "a stable Iraqi government" is crucial to the larger strategy, then the U.S. ought to take Saddam Hussein out of his prison cell, put a $3,000 Armani suit on him, and call him the President of Iraq.
What a lot of people seem to overlook here is that we are dealing with a country and a region where "freedom" and "stability" are mutually exclusive, and where brutal, totalitarian rule is pretty much a prerequisite for stability.
Terrorist recruiting material that has your stamp of approval. How nice!
Noone is...but I'm certainly better than you.
I can see, for example, that the leaders of the Palestinians and Iranians were selected in the freest elections in the Muslim world, that the destruction of Israel is overwhelmingly supported by people in that world, that fundamentalism and anger at Western domination are rampant, that the Kurds have no desire to be returned to rule by Arabs, that Shiites and Sunnis are very unlikely to make peace in Iraq, that Pakistan is a powder keg, and that Hansen says nothing about any of this in the article you linked.
Gcochran, by the way, was much better informed than I am.
Alright, then. It's a Cindy Sheepat moment.
The whole argument here is just stupid on it's face. If you listen to the specific complaints of the 6/7 generals, it virtually all has to do with what happened, or didn't happen, two, three or even four years ago. If this is general revolt, and loss of confidence in current leadership that Pat pretends, wouldn't there be at least some substantive complaints about current policies?
It never got reported because it's not true. I'm retired military and trust me no general would ever be forced to sign anything of the sort. His fellow generals wouldn't stand for it and neither would the DoD or active military members. All they'd have to do would be to run to the GOP who were salivating to get anything on Clinton that would stick. That would've been bigger than Whitewater and Monica combined and definitely impeachable. On it's face it's a ridiculous charge. What's stopping the generals from coming forward now? Bush has been in office for damn near 6 years what are they waiting for? Fruit bat accusations like this only serve to tarnish the reputation of conservatives. Please don't spread this junk here.
"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."
One of the oldest axioms of war is that once you have taken ground you must be able to secure it or it quickly becomes contested again. The only way to secure that ground once it's taken, is to put armed men on it. Not tanks. Not helicopters. Not advanced tactical fighters that no country on earth can shoot down. Armed MEN. Infantry.
If there is not enough infantry to do the job (adequately secure what has been taken), the enemy quickly tries to take it back. The enemy, in this case, is what Rumsfeld calls "dead-enders" -- i.e. "insurgents" and terrorists. So, without enough troops to secure Iraq (basiclaly the concept of a "cop on every corner"), we wind up with Najaf, Fallujah (twice), and a host of IED's and ambushes.
Why? Because there is obviously holes in the "security plan" that allows the "dead-enders" to take advantage of those times the troops (Americans or Iraqis) aren't around or around in sufficient nymbers to keep close watch, in order to gather, plan, plot and plant roadside bombs, and to smuggle weapons into and all across the country.
SO, what happens? We don't have enough troops, so the US military and civilian government folks have to do certain things they'd rather not: they have to negotiate with slugs like Al-Sadr, for example, giving him legitimacy, so that they don't have to fight a full-fledged battle for Fallujah. They then have to flatten Fallujah AGAIN, in order to pacify it -- they couldn't finish the job the first time, or at least quickly enough to avoid the public relations nightmare of a prolonged seige. They have to bear with an infant Iraqi government that can't decide where to eat lunch on any given day,let alone get it together and form a government.
A larger overall US presance in Iraq solves three problems:
1. Better security because now there are more armed men on the street, looking for the IED planters, interacting with and befriending the locals, they can act as an impromptu police force, when necessary. Security increases with more boots on the ground.
2. The Iraqi army and police forces will not be cobbled-together, spit-and-piano-wire constructs of barely qualified and vetted men quickly put into a uniform to mollify American sensibilities. With US troops in large numbers providing security, it gives time to create a better quality Iraqi army and national police, where unreliables and those with terror ties can be weeded out.
3. A larger US ground presance in Iraq gives Iran something to think about. Right now, all we can do is bomb the Iranians (should it come to that) but not enter their country and impose our will. The mullahs and Admini-moron (whatever his name is) can survive the bombing; they couldn't survive an armed American presance in Tehran.
But, we don't have the troops, do we? Reason why; infantry is not "sexy" enough when compared to the high tech options available, both to the generals and the recruits. If given a choice, the PlayStation generation would rather play at war (especially the pushbutton kind)than actually fight one. President Clinton (and before him Bush I) would rather cut the size of the force, and the generals who make those decisions cut the least "sexy" and least lucrative (for them -- they work for the contractors after they "retire") part of the armed forces: the grunts. The generals would rather buy 400 F-22's we don't need (but which ensures their future employment and votes for congresscritters), instead of plowing that money into the troops (like making sure our troops have adequate body armor, bullets not manufactured in Israel, and for God's sake, moist towelettes to clean the dust off after a day's patrol. It makes me absolutely sick that our troops write home begging for "creature comforts" we take for granted: phone cards, toilet paper, Gatorade and Oreos).
We need to rebuild that infantry force and the tradition that goes with it. Had it been there in the spring of 2003, we wouldn't be talking about generals and defense secretaries pointing fingers at each other and all these recriminations. We'd be talking about a democratic, Capitalist Iraq, our trusted Ally.
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.