Skip to comments.Rebellion of the Generals
Posted on 04/30/2006 3:50:40 PM PDT by XR7
First, if there is a rebellion of any active duty General, this writer has not heard about it, but if one believes the media, Generals are in full-scale revolt. As Colonel Sherman T. Potter of MASH fame said, horse pucky. Of course there are disagreements, and should be. On the other hand, if there was an actual rebellion, Houston, we have a problem.
Second, disagreement is the fire that refines arguments and thinking. The decibel level may vary, but in the end, after the arguments have been heard, active duty Generals have a UCMJ and Constitutional obligation to keep silent.
Third, should an active duty General disagree publicly with the civilian leadership, he or she should suffer the same consequences that my American General officer hero of all time suffered, he/she should be fired if not referred to a Courts Martial. If, on the other hand, a General (in particular a General), does not disagree when it is plain that there should be debate, he/she should be ashamed and should fade away a long way away.
Fourth, and in the final analysis, an active duty General is required both by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution to remain aloof of political discussion of the merits of military matters that are plainly the purview of civilian leadership.
Fifth, in defense of retirees, and despite the fact that this writer disagrees with the retired Generals attacks on the Secretary of Defense as misguided and untimely, the retirees have every right to express their opinions, just as this writer does at this very moment under the provisions of the First Article of Amendment.
Sixth, when a retired General voices disagreement, he or she should temper the disagreement with the understanding that his or her disagreement may well have an adverse effect on the morale, combat efficiency and effectiveness of US forces. A US Generals derogatory public commentary most certainly enhances the morale of the enemy and spurs it on. The net result is to increase casualties among US forces; and thats reason enough for the treason provision of the Constitution to come into play.
Seventh, the so-called, rebellious Generals have supporters who profess that these are men of great integrity and patriotism. They may profess that their intent is pure as driven snow, but by their untimely and unsavory behavior they have as a practical matter, abrogated both integrity and patriotism.
Finally, Generals rose to their exalted status ostensibly because, among other reasons, they possessed and exercised good judgment. For them to abandon that quality while the nation is at war is to their discredit and shame, and Congress should strip them of their grade.
Putting the Generals rebellion into perspective one cannot help but conclude that they have allowed themselves, or on the other hand, alleged purity of motive notwithstanding, they have become patsies of the liberal media for personal gain, or partisan and clearly unpatriotic purposes.
What Would Patton Do?
To use an old Groucho Marx line and tweak it just a bit;
AIDE: Sir,...Sir,...The Generals are Revolting!
Groucho: They Certainly are!!!!
Well said Col. Robert L. Pappas, USMC -
Probably would have kicked the crap out of Iran by now, driven through to Afghanistan and killed OBL then taken a lean on Pakistan just to show who's boss.
Yes, but they are ONLY supporting the rebellious Generals. Where were these supporters when the Generals were on active duty?
I think these anti-Rumsfeld generals are betting on Democrats winning the White House in 2008. And the 'rats are more than happy to have generals up on the stage with them to lull the gullible into thinking they'll defend this country.
Then General Groucho observed,
"But, hark! They are playing `The Mayonnaise'! The army must be dressing!"
Seriously, Col. Pappas is right that retired generals should temper their public statements for the effect upon morale.
But somebody somewhere has to point out that the anti-Rumsfeld generals are a drop in the bucket of the total retired flag/general officer population.
Saddly it's been pointed out on Fox and Here that nearly 2,000 flag officer support Rummy and only seven are crying in their beer. Smells of sour grapes and severly bruised hyper-egos to me.
Now getting the Alphabet Spews to point it out is a different story.
I think he's right about this. They may have expressed concerns about that very thing, and the may have received assurances that no disadvantage would come to them.
Remember during the 2004 campaign when liberal newsie Evan Thomas boasted that the MSM's pro-sKerry bias added fifteen points to his election total?
The question this year is how many Congressional seats will the Dems owe to MSM patronage and support?
That point gain was only in the exit polls and not the actual election results though so the L/MSM still haven't learned.
Probably write up his own war plan and then write the Army Chief of Staff and the President claiming that if they back his plan he will win the war in 3months.
Read up on what Patton did for the Invasion of France, His invasion plan was actually given to the Wehrmact.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:09 p.m. EDT
Gen. Anthony Zinni: USS Cole Blunder Is My Fault
Former CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni - who has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign because of Rumsfeld's alleged incompetence in running the Iraq war - admitted six years ago that he made the disastrous decision to have the USS Cole use the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling, where the ship was blown up by al-Qaida terrorists.
Worse still, at least one report indicates that Gen. Zinni may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2000, a week after the Cole attack, the then-recently retired Zinni said: "I pass that buck on to nobody."
The Rumsfeld critic explained that he personally signed off on berthing the Cole in Yemen even though "their coast is a sieve for terrorists."
It's been a while since I studied this, but I believe you're mistaken about Barbara Bodine. My recollection is that she rejected the warnings of FBI terrorist expert John P. O'Neill (who later died in the WTC on 9/11) and sided with Zinni and Clarke. Technically speaking, she acknowleged the danger, but insisted that diverting the Cole would be a diplomatic insult to Yemen.
This is all DNC listening to Professor Lackoff who is trying to spin the republicans as "weak on security" or "republicans made us weaker".
This is pure politics and disgraceful men who never ever should have had a star on their univorm.
Could USS Cole tragedy have been avoided?
World Tribune.com ^ | October 18, 2000 | John Metler
Posted on 04/07/2004 6:00:45 PM PDT by detch
October 18, 2000
UNITED NATIONS The terrorist attack on the USS Cole, refueling in the port of Aden again sharply focuses the stark vulnerability of American interests in the Middle East. While it's easy to play "Monday morning quarterback" after such a tragedy, its equally prudent to question the set of circumstances which witnessed a planned suicide attack on the destroyer Cole tragically sending seventeen American sailors to their untimely deaths.
All the pieces were in place; An overextended fleet--today 325 ships down from 600 in Ronald Reagan's fleet--a mandate patrolling the Persian Gulf enforcing sanctions on Iraq, a lack of oilier vessels because of cutbacks, thus prompting the fatal choice to make a questionable port call in a place like Yemen.
Allowing the USS Cole, a modern guided missile destroyer go unescorted into Aden was possibly safe, but probably better avoided given regional tensions, emotions and threat profiles, especially in the wake of renewed Palestinian /Israeli fighting.
One must not underestimate the visceral anti-American hysteria, emanating from the Palestinian uprising on the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. An American ship is like a red flag to a bull during such times throughout the Islamic world, even far from the political epicenter; whether one is in Yemen or Pakistan.
The small boat suicide attack on the Cole, impacted hundreds of pounds of high explosives against the ship's hull causing a gaping 40 hole in the vessel. FBI investigators, soon to be backed up by 1,200 Marines for security, are searching for the culprits likely to be the Osama Bin Laden organization or some of the other terrorists who Yemen home.
Why were we operating in such a dangerous environment? Where's our planning? While its common knowledge that US ships have gone into Aden for refueling since early 1999, bunkering was not done in times of violent upheaval and high octane hate. Furthermore, the US Embassy in Yemen has prudently warned about the risks of American ships visiting Aden.
General Anthony Zinni, recently retired Pentagon Chief for Middle East operations defended his original decision to use Aden as a refueling port and the desirability of bringing Yemen closer to American interests. General Zinni told the New York Times that several ship visits had been vetoed by the American Ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, who worried about the threat of terrorism.
Importantly National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were not opposed to the Yemeni port calls for US Navy ships. "Mr. Berger, Mr. Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, defended the decision to use Aden as a refueling point despite concerns about security in a country the State Department itself called `a safe haven for terrorists,' earlier this year," cites the New York Times .
Thus we again ask the painfully poignant question? Why would a US Navy vessel be in Aden in the first place? Mountainous Yemen has a well earned reputation as a wild and woolly place for friend and foe alike, kind of an Afghanistan by the Red Sea. It seems that Yemen rarely enters the media except when hapless foreign tourists, usually Europeans, stumble into kidnaps, ambushes, and afoul of some local militia.
Moreover as a old Soviet client state, there are more than enough people who don't quite welcome an American presence even if it means needed revenues for the Port of Aden.
Though Aden and its famous Steamer Point was woven into the strategic planning and lore of the British Royal Navy until 1967, modern Yemen has suffered the vicissitudes of civil war, national division with South Yemen, the former the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, being an classic Soviet client.
Washington has worked on improving relations with the current regime of Field Marshall Ali Abdullah Saleh. Clearly there's a case for better ties with strategic Yemen . Yet, a seeming nonchalance about credible threats underscores a larger problem. Sadly the Clinton/Gore Administration's usual sloppy planning, Alice in Wonderland worldview, and "it can't happen here" mindset, creates such a glaring vulnerability.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
October 18, 2000
Sadly the Clinton/Gore Administration's usual sloppy planning, Alice in Wonderland worldview, and "it can't happen here" mindset, creates such a glaring vulnerability.
They ignored the threat - and it did happen here.
Thanks for posting the Metler article and correcting my faulty memory. I went back and checked my sources also and verified that Bodine had warned against the visit. I was confusing her opposition to and interference with John O'Neill's investigative efforts after the Cole attack.