Posted on 04/29/2006 12:35:18 PM PDT by No Longer Free State
ARLINGTON, Va. — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker on Wednesday criticized retired generals who have come out against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other defense leaders, calling their comments “unfortunate” and “inappropriate.”
“I was retired, and you didn’t see me doing it,” Schoomaker told reporters during a Washington press breakfast. “If I thought what these officers were saying was true, I would not be here.”
Schoomaker suggested that if the generals were so unhappy with their civilian masters, they should have left their jobs in protest.
“I think we have a responsibility, while we’re in uniform, if we can’t put up with what’s going on, to pick up our saddle up and move on,” Schoomaker said.
Such criticism could break the trust between military officers and their civilian counterparts in the future.
“I think we’ve got to be very careful here,” Schoomaker said. “We do not want civil authority to distrust people who are giving them advice.”
Schoomaker is the latest senior officer to weigh in on the unusually public debate among current and former military officials over Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.
In the past month, eight retired generals — including recently retired commanders with experience in Iraq — have called for Rumsfeld’s resignation, saying that he has mishandled the war on terror and lost the confidence of the military.
Many of the retired generals have made a point of noting Rumsfeld’s allegedly abrasive management style. But any officer who has made war his chosen profession, Schoomaker said, should be more than able to handle aggressive bosses.
“I’ve been in the Army 37 years, and I have worked for some tough people,” Schoomaker said. “We’re soldiers. We’re warriors. I’ve never been intimidated in my life, by anybody.”
Schoomaker said that he “offers a lot of military advice, and I have never not been heard.”
He noted, however, “that I can’t say I’ve always been agreed with.”
But no military professional should fool himself into thinking that “offering advice” and “having it taken all the time” are one and the same thing, Schoomaker said.
As top military leaders, “We are responsible to provide independent advice” to civilian leaders, who in turn have the Constitutional authority to make strategic decisions, he said.
“That doesn’t mean they agree with our advice all the time.”
And if a military officer’s advice is not taken, Schoomaker said, “You can’t run around here with your nerves on your sleeve, [protesting] every time someone does something you don’t agree with.”
Military professionals who respect the chain of command must learn when the time has come to accept that, having had their say, they must step back and allow higher-ups to make the final call, he said.
Instead, “I think you end up at a point [saying to yourself] look, is it legal, is it moral, is it ethical, can I live with the consequences?” Schoomaker said.
“If you can’t, you’ve got a responsibility to do something about it, and do it while you’re in the position,” Schoomaker said.
“But if you’ve gone through all of that, and lived with it, I’m not quite sure what we’re doing here cleansing our consciences afterwards,” Schoomaker said.
“I think it’s inappropriate.”
Way too many chiefs for the number of Indians available.
That's a shame, and you're a class act.
I'm so glad that (in a later post) you told us that you finally received an "appropriate" retirement certificate, signed by our current President. Congrats!
We started about the same time. President Nixon signed my commission. It's a badge of honor, and I fully understand why you wouldn't want a tainted retirement certificate with Slick Willie's signature on it. Best wishes for a great retirement.
Still, it is regretable that they are having to speak out.
How many of the 8 achieved flag rank under Bill the Schill Clintoon?
Does anybody here know?
The general said "inappropriate" and "unfortunate."Maybe a few pensions are about to be lost. Also sedition is a word that is not too strong to use.
These 8 gnerals are lining up to be Sec Def. etc. under an anticipated Billory Clintoon Presidency.....a disaster!
I do not believe that the generals' asking Rummy to resign has done much but unite the republican vote.
Hey, how you do that? I retired in 96, and would like an update.
"Many of the retired generals have made a point of noting Rumsfeld’s allegedly abrasive management style."
Hmmmm. Sounds like bruised egos floating around. So, grow up...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe Rummy asked THEM to retire....
"I could not accept..a certificate with Clinton's name on it."
Outstanding, Chief, outstanding!
(from a fellow CWO) :^)
And those 8 generals don't like it one little bit. I think they all should be made active and stick them some place that's about as uncomtforable as it can be.
Military officers have to end their career in order to comment on how civilians treat the military -that's a very high price.
Once they are retired they have the same God given right to criticize their government that the rest of us have.
I think these particular generals are not acting out of a desire to help the country but to settle grudges and for politics but they have the right as the rest of us to makes asses of themselves in public.
I find it interesting that these generals have nothing to say about the Clinton administration but they're all kinds of upset about how the Bush admin is running things. If that's how they really feel about things, it's probably because they were able to take advantage of Clinton administration chaos and they're not happy that Bush and Rumsfeld made them straighten up and fly right.
I'd be interested in knowing how much their careers benefitted from Clinton's admin. I've seen it said that Weasely Clark was catapulted over quite a number of more senior (and better) Generals, though I certainly would not know.... if these are mainly 'political' Generals who preferred the Clinton era, that in itself says a great deal about "where they're coming from." I don't question their right to speak out as civilians, but they'd better not be coordinating with active duty officers, and no one should take what they say without many many grains of salt. Lots of people dislike change, and especially when the WOT makes it imperative that the Army be transformed even faster than expected. They may have some valid points but that does not mean, going forward, Rumsfeld is not one heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
Also, let us not forget, whatever someone may think of Rumsfeld, the real point of this onslaught (which I am sure is being coordinated by some Weasely Clark or DNC type, just look at how they all spoke out in close succession to keep the story alive) is to cripple to Bush administration as a whole leading into the 2006 elections. Just imagine the circus act that the charlatans of the DNC will give us in Congress if there had to be confirmation hearings for a new Secy. of Defense between now and November. It must not happen!! The Bush-haters would drag things out, hurting the nation and the WOT while they pretended that they had to 'investigate' everything under the sun. If you think 'Borking' was brought to a low art before, just wait to see what the Congresscritters and Senators would do to any new Bush nominee for Defense.
Exactly!!
This is a report you will never, ever see in your local fishwrapper. Howsomeever, just for fun, I'll send it into my local fishwrapper. Fruitless, I know.
I've always thought that Colin Powell is an example of one General who the Klintoons advanced way ahead of his capabilities and ahead of more capable Generals.
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.