Posted on 05/29/2006 12:22:23 PM PDT by gwb43_2004
Washington: A senior American general who served as a combat commander in Iraq has accused the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, of squandering the lives of United States soldiers by ignoring military advice on how to conduct the campaign.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Major General John Batiste, who resigned last year after 12 months stationed in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, said the Pentagon chief had caused "unnecessary deaths" by committing "strategic blunders of enormous magnitude".
(Excerpt) Read more at gulf-news.com ...
He is a candyas$ who doesn't like hard chargers who are willing to make decisions. His comments and demeanor at this time in our history is pathetic. The U.S. Army is better off with him out of service and that is the bottom line.
Not the first time this jerk has sounded off against Rummy. Must have gotten his stars under Clinton and Wesley Clarke.
Gen Batiste has no intention of keeping quiet during his retirement. Instead, the former career soldier, who resigned after commanding 22,000 troops of the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, is planning a sustained public offensive aimed at driving Mr Rumsfeld from office.
The transformation of a once-loyal soldier into an outspoken rebel is a stark indicator of the growing disquiet at the heart of America's military establishment.
Gen Batiste, 53, alleges that Mr Rumsfeld not only went to war with too few troops, but then refused urgent pleas from commanders on the ground for more.
He says Mr Rumsfeld's "contemptuous, arrogant and dismissive attitude" led him to ignore military advice and hamstring ground commanders with troop shortages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/wirq28.xml
In a further public relations blow for the Bush administration, a general who served as a combat commander in Iraq told The Sunday Telegraph that Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has squandered the lives of American soldiers by ignoring military advice on how to conduct the campaign.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/wirq28.xmlMajor Gen John Batiste, who resigned last year after 12 months stationed in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, said Mr Rumsfeld had caused "unnecessary deaths" by committing "strategic blunders of enormous magnitude".
His outspoken comments come as the US military death toll in Iraq approaches 2,500, and put him at the forefront of the chorus of six former generals who have called for Mr Rumsfeld to step down.
Gen Batiste has no intention of keeping quiet during his retirement. Instead, the former career soldier, who resigned after commanding 22,000 troops of the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, is planning a sustained public offensive aimed at driving Mr Rumsfeld from office.
The transformation of a once-loyal soldier into an outspoken rebel is a stark indicator of the growing disquiet at the heart of America's military establishment.
Gen Batiste, 53, alleges that Mr Rumsfeld not only went to war with too few troops, but then refused urgent pleas from commanders on the ground for more.
He says Mr Rumsfeld's "contemptuous, arrogant and dismissive attitude" led him to ignore military advice and hamstring ground commanders with troop shortages.
Information here http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Transcript_Retired_general_says_criticism_of_0414.html
and here http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1753266,00.html
and here http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html
Note that these are not what we consider truely reputable news sources.
Great timing, Batiste!!!
Yeah, Memorial Day is a good time to tell the families of the fallen that their lives "were wasted".
Babtiste? Sounds French. Perhaps a heavy conributor to the 'Rat$?
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. If this was the case we would have heard about it long time ago. I hope that other commanders who are serving or served in Iraq will come forcefully and crush this little bug and his lies.
PS: Servinng in a military does not immune a liar from being exposed to who he realy is. Not only he should be exposed but he should be crushed.
What do we know about Major General John Batiste? I am not assuming anything about him until I know some facts.
Yet Gen Batiste would have been in a position to know. In fact, he could have been one of the combatant commandars asking for more. The question I have is, was he?
Also, why is he lashing out now?
It's a wonder he didn't throw in insufficient uparmor, preparation for chemical warfare that didn't exist and faulty intelligence about how his troops would be received in occupation.
Sounds to me like another Wesley Clarke in the making."The transformation of a once loyal soldier into an outspoken rebel..."The msm love "rebels"when they badmouth the administration.Kind of like the msm calling John McCain a "maverick republican".
Message to all Presstitutes:
If you resign you resign your commission. You have no military retirement benefits except for same VA bennies for the time served like everyone else (different legal controlling authority), you no longer have a right to claim honors and privelages of a retired officer, wear the uniform at special events as a retiree or even wear your military awards and decorations. Honorably discharged personnel and retirees have all these and the respect of the public. If you resign you're a quiter no matter what the reason you told yourself for resigning - hear that all you Presstitutes out there a quiter.
The enemy does not need a Mata Harri or Tokyo Rose, we have enough homegrown scum to take their place.
i think we need to get him and the centcom commander in a live one-on-one interview and discuss this alleged effort on Rummy's part to deny troop increases. every single comment i've heard has been that the cdr on the ground determines troop strength, not rummy. if that's not true, according to batiste, then let's hear it. just because batiste may have himself asked for troop increases here or there doesn't mean that the centcom cdr agreed with him and went with the idea to rumsfeld.
of course, if such were the case, then batiste is looking like an idiot for not knowing how small a fry he was in the grand scheme of things. (a two-star really ain't much when it comes to determining national policy).
jveritas has a LOT of credibility here. N00b.
That's an out-right lie based on the quick finish of major combat operations. The Iraqi military forces collapsed against the invasion at dizzying speed.
You could make an argument that by not garrisoning Iraq completely, but by doing so, would be no guarantee that it would have stopped the terrorist attacks that have been happening throughout certain areas of the country.
Have to disagree on this one in a big way. I resigned to go to NASA. Many officers I worked with and respected did so as well at the end of their terms of service. There is no dishonor in resigning a commission after serving faithfully for 11 years.
does.this.man.really.think.that.rumsfeld.acts.without.consulting.others?
he.overlooks.the.fact.rumsfeld.has.access.to.the.greatest.inentory.of.both.intelligence.and.great.brains.available.and.consults.with.them.
it.is.from.this.distillate.on.which.he.acts
poor.common.fool.wanting.to.be.heard
I thought it was ALL Bush's fault!
Yet, Bastiste, you didn't resign. You wanted to retire with another star.
You put your career ahead of your men by remaining in service.
You are a moral coward.
Funny it never seemed to be an issue when I was in Iraq......
I'll go and check the rules again.
It's hardly surprising that some men who have invested so much of their lives in one particular way of running a war would be angry, rebellious, and confused by a completely different way of running a war... or that some of them would lash out at the symbol of that change. They are no different from vice presidents at General Motors or IBM who furiously denounce splitting those companies into self-reliant business units instead of the normal corporate divisions they've had for twenty years.
Here are a few snippets from the Washington Post article that I believe tend to prove my case:
[Retired Army MG John] Batiste said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle -- ensuring there are enough forces -- helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.
Unity of command and unity of effort
Literally, the first means a soldier (of any rank) has one and only one commanding officer above him; but when combined with unity of effort, it implies not only bottom to top heirarchy but top to bottom. That is, at each level, the soldier makes only the little decisions and leaves the big decisions to his CO.
From Chapter 4 of the United States Army Field Manual FM 100-5:
Unity of command obtains that unity of effort which is essential to the decisive application of full combat power of the available forces. Unity of effort is furthered by full cooperation between elements of the command.
Wikipedia expands this slightly:
Unity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.
This has more or less been standard military doctrine for centuries, from Julius Caesar through Washington, Napoleon, Eisenhower, and Westmoreland.
However, in the modern era with modern communications and intelligence technology, this doctrine sometimes leads to soldiers being "over-officered," as in Vietnam -- where a platoon might have a lieutenant in command with them, a major in constant communication from a nearby command truck, a colonel giving direct orders from back at the base, and a general flying overhead demanding to know the situation on the ground every five minutes.
It also can make militaries unwieldy and too slow to react, like the Soviet officers who had to clear every attack with the Kremlin, no matter how urgent it was.
One of Secretary Rumsfeld's reforms is, without question, to bend this doctrine without actually breaking it. Thus, rather than have one fellow ultimately directing every operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld wants units to operate more or less independently and on their own initiative -- while keeping in contact with the other units around them and bearing in mind the ultimate goals. Rumsfeld believes that the lieutenant, captain, or major on the ground -- or in many cases, the first or master sergeant -- is in a better position to respond quickly and appropriately to situations that can literally change by the minute.
The Colin Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force
I'm sure the Powell Doctrine is what MG Batiste means by the principle of "enough forces."
The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated. [Emphasis in original]
Again, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush reject this doctrine as outdated with today's warfare/statecraft challenges... hence, though we used a half a million troops to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), we used a scant 200,000 troops to take over the entire country of Iraq -- though it would have been about 220,000 if the 4ID had been able to traverse Turkey and invade Iraq from the north.
Each doctrine has its attendent advantages and disadvantages; but Secretary Rumsfeld has concluded that contemporary warfare is better handled with the "small footprint" of OIF than the "overwhelming force" of the Gulf War. Clearly, MG Batiste completely disagrees... which is why he felt compelled to leave the Army rather than fight under Donald Rumsfeld.
But the fact that an old general dislikes the new style of warfare is not a refutation of that style. It just means MG Batiste is "Old School." But Old School is not necessary the best school.
Back to the New York Times article:
Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."
Um... wasn't 2003 and 2004 the period during which our training of the Iraqi Army was completely botched? There was a lot of controversy at the time among those who thought we should have just kept the Baathist Iraqi Army and put new commanders in charge. The training during this period was a disaster, with Iraqi Army units literally fleeing in panic from the insurgents and the terrorists, the first Fallujah campaign (where the Iraqi Army let Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda In Mesopotamia escape), and so forth.
I don't grant MG Eaton much credibility to talk about what Rumsfeld is doing wrong!
Let's not forget the WELL-DOCUMENTED, VERIFIABLE PLAN Democrats published, BEFORE the 2004 Elections, to WORK WITH THE MEDIA TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC AND ENGAGE IN WIDESPREAD MANIPULATION AND PROPAGANDA TO ATTACK AMERICA AND UNDERMINE BUSH!
Here is the original version of the story, in the WAYBACKMACHINE even though it has LONG been removed from the web site!
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1476.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USA Today Reporter a (D) Operative - Phone Company Demands Retraction of NSA LIE
Why the NSA STORY is CRUCIAL to the TREASONOUS MEDIA
Why the Media Doesn't See its TREASON
Media miscues seem bulging with left-wing bias (The never ending media propaganda on behalf of the DNC)
The Never Ending DNC Media Propaganda Machine (Exposing DNC media propaganda where it hides)
ABC's of Media Bias (Anti-American Radical Left Control of Corrupt Media)
2 posted on 05/28/2006 10:22:38 PM EDT by woodb01
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639906/posts
This guy is BS'ing.
"Gen Batiste, 53, alleges that Mr Rumsfeld not only went to war with too few troops, but then refused urgent pleas from commanders on the ground for more. "
Wait I thought they were complaining we had too many troops over there?
I stand corrected by AR 600-8-24 • 11 May 2005
AR 600–8–24 • 11 May 2005
Chapter 3
Resignations
Section I
Scope
3–1. Introduction
a. This chapter prescribes the tasks, rules, and steps for processing voluntary resignations. Except as provided in b below, any officer of the Active Army or USAR may tender a resignation under provisions of this chapter. The Secretary of the Army will accept resignations and orders will be issued by direction of the CG, HRC. An officer whose resignation has been accepted will be separated on the date specified in Department of the Army’s orders or as otherwise directed by the Department of the Army. An appropriate discharge certificate as specified by the CG, HRC, will be furnished by the appropriate commander at the time the officer is separated. The date of separation, as specified or directed, will not be changed without prior approval of HQDA nor can valid separation orders be revoked subsequent to the specified or directed date of separation.
b. Except when resignation is under section VI of this chapter, USAR officers in an AGR status or on ADT, ADSW, TTAD and soldiers on AD pursuant to 10 USC 12304 (Presidential Selected Reserve) will request resignations under the provisions of AR 135–175. Before such a request is submitted, they must be released from their active duty status.
c. Under normal circumstances any officer (RA or other than Regular Army (OTRA)) may submit a request for unqualified resignation, provided all Service Remaining Requirements (SRRs) have been met. Such application will be submitted not earlier than twelve months or less than six months prior to the requested separation date. The six month requirement may be waived by the Separation Approval Authority. Appropriate documentation must accompany the request.
Section II
Task: Process Unqualified Resignation
3–5. Rules for processing unqualified resignation
a. Any officer on AD (for more than 90 calendar days) may tender a resignation under this paragraph except when action is pending that could result in resignation for the good of the Service; officer is under a suspension of favorable actions, pending investigation, under charges; or any other unfavorable or derogatory action is pending.
b. Normally, resignations will not be accepted unless on the requested date of separation the officer has fulfilled the service obligation below.
(1) Graduates of fully funded commissioning programs must complete the ADSO incurred by participation in such programs. However, this obligation may be waived if the monies are recouped.
(2) An officer must serve in the Armed Forces until completion of his or her statutory military service obligation (MSO). An officer has an 8–year MSO. Time spent as a cadet at the United States Military Academy or as an ROTC cadet does not count towards fulfilling the MSO. An officer who requests resignation before completing the 8–year MSO must agree to accept an indefinite appointment in the USAR to complete such service obligation. The act of taking the Reserve officer’s oath by an RA officer is sufficient to simultaneously terminate the officer’s RA status by operation of law.
(3) Service academy graduates and ROTC DMGs who are released/separated from active duty before completing their ADSO will complete the remaining portion of their ADSO in the Selected Reserve. This requirement may only be waived by the ASA (M&RA) or his or her delegate. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 or his or her delegate will determine if unit positions are available for these officers.
(4) An officer who has received a PCS must complete the ADSO incurred by the reassignment. (See AR 614–30.)
(5) An officer who has attended or is attending a service school, civilian educational institution, or special training for which a utilization tour is required will complete any period of service specified by AR 350–100 and appropriate regulations.
(6) An officer on orders for assignment to a military mission, a military assistance advisory group, or attaché office must complete his or her training and the overseas tour of duty prescribed by AR 614–30.
(7) An officer on orders to a course of instruction, an OCONUS station, or any other assignment that will incur an ADSO will comply with such orders unless an exception is granted by HRC. Exceptions will be considered on an individual basis, provided the resignation is submitted within 30 calendar days of receipt of the alert or reassignment order, whichever is earlier.
c. The first colonel in the officer’s chain of command or supervision will counsel the officer (except for chaplains, judge advocates, and AMEDD personnel) with less than 10 years AFCS when he or she submits an unqualified resignation. The counseling will be as stated in paragraph 1–12b.
d. Judge advocates, chaplains, and AMEDD officers will be counseled by a senior officer of their branch in their chain of technical supervision or as specifically designated by their branch. This counseling will be as stated in paragraph 1–12b.
e. HRC–Alexandria (AHRC–OPD–A) will issue separation instructions on approved requests to the appropriate PSC/MPD.
f . If disapproved, HRC–Alexandria (AHRC–OPD–A); HQDA (DAJA–PT)(judge advocates);or HQDA (DACH–PER)(chaplains), as applicable, will return requests through channels to the officer.
g. An unqualified resignation accepted in HRC will be Under Honorable Conditions. A DD Form 256A or DD Form 257A discharge certificate (based on the officer’s record of service) will be provided.
This whole thing is beginning to take on the tone of Les Aspine as Secretary of Defense. He was the fool who refused a general's request for heavy tanks in Somolia. We know how that cost American blood.
This pot may have some fire under it.
Then we might not have enough troops when Turkey wouldn't let us cross their territory.
Then is was we had too many troops and looked like occupiers, and of course took the troops away from the hunt for Bin laden in "Tora Bora."
Then it was we needed more troops to quell the in insurgency.
Then it was we need to bring the troops home.
Now it's back to we shoulda had more troops...
I wish they'd make up my mind for me :)
LOL
"He is a candyas$ who doesn't like hard chargers who are willing to make decisions. His comments and demeanor at this time in our history is pathetic. The U.S. Army is better off with him out of service and that is the bottom line."
Oh, this is great! We've got a bunch of whimps as Generals?? They're supposed to be running the military, not the Boy Scouts. Where's Patton when you need him?
Not a bunch in the least. Very few in actuality...but the MSM will use them for all they are worth -
Our military has fought and continues to fight the most successful unconventional war in history. The success we have had over the last 4 years is utterly amazing.
Is this guy yet another Clintonista perfumed prince?
Something smells...and I don't mean Donald Rumsfeld.
We need to find out, even if he is not, what he is saying is pure lies and undermining of the war effort. Shame on him.
Exactly! The only way anyone would follow this a-hole is out of sheer curiosity.
Why is this crap being posted on this Memorial day.
What hidden agenda does the poster have.
Ex military Generals are all the time running their mouths.
What unit were you in?
He damn well better have some pretty good evidence that will convince us that his way would have had no needless casualties and that Rumsfeld was directly negligent in not responding to his chain of command in the theatre.
These guys are setting the damn bar so damn high that pretty damn soon any conflict without zero casualties will be considered a failure.
And I say that having just returned from honoring our brothers and sisters who never made it back alive.
North-Central Iraq Ready for Election, General Says
By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2005/n01132005_2005011302.html
CHECK THIS OUT:
right-wingydingy
http://www.freerepublic.com/~rightwingydingy/index?U=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Fperl%2Fprofile
Also, please note the jumping from conclusion to conclusion in his post, with absolutely no reasoning or substantiation to connect
ANYTHING to ANYTHING ELSE.
There is not one whit of substance there to buttress the charge against Secretary Rumsfeld. Every bit of it -even if true and who knows if it is- is tripe and twaddle when it comes to supporting Batiste's attacks on the Secretary.
Who by the way has one heck of a resume himself.
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.