Retired officers to criticize Rumsfeld

Reuters ^ | DAVID ESPO

[em2vn]

It might be time to see if what the men say is valid. I'm not a Rumsfeld hater but he does remind me of Robt. S. McNamara, a great deal.

[TexKat]

Thanks leadpenny for the heads up!

[Fee]

I should have added more to my posting. I think it would be dumb to pull Rumsfeld off the team. I think he has learned a few lessons as well as the generals. Not everything Rumsfeld believed in was wrong. Example we went to war with no ground systems, except all our tactical commanders were linked into a net centric command and control system. Result was a smaller invasion force with enhanced awareness and communications outran and out gunned the Iraqi forces. I for one do not believe this is the time to fire Rumsfeld and opennly air out our dirty laundry for the enemy to see.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"...Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask "the tough questions."
"...He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.

"Hammes said in his prepared remarks that not providing the best equipment was a "serious moral failure on the part of our leadership." "Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University.

"Eaton was responsible for training the Iraqi military and later for rebuilding the Iraqi police force. He said planning for the postwar period was "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."

I don't have a problem with former generals/admirals criticizing our civilian/military leaders after they retired. Because frankly, I want them retired, rather than do it while on active duty, OR be disingenuous of contempt by staying on a little longer due to gaining some more retirement pay. But if they have points to make, then specifically make them in a public forum, that allows questions from anyone that wants to know. Two or three sentences in a report doesn't do anyone any good.

For instance:
Batiste: Congress failed to ask tough questions. Did HE ask tough questions? Is this documented? Where are the examples of his recommendations being shot down?

Hammes: Responsible for establishing bases for iraqi armed forces. What were his specific recommendations, and when did they get shot down?

Eaton: Responsible for rebuilding Iraqi police force. What suggestions of his did not get adequate review? Go down them, line by line.

We have to realize that either what they are saying is either the truth, or is politically motivated fallacy driven by the failure of their own leadership and command. What better way to cover yourself than to blame a supposed mess on others because of your own incompetence? If they want the spotlight, then they need to be given the heat from a 2million illum bulb of public scrutiny.

[Fee]

I should have added more to my posting. I think it would be dumb to pull Rumsfeld off the team. I think he has learned a few lessons as well as the generals. Not everything Rumsfeld believed in was wrong. Example we went to war with no ground systems, except all our tactical commanders were linked into a net centric command and control system. Result was a smaller invasion force with enhanced awareness and communications outran and out gunned the Iraqi forces. I for one do not believe this is the time to fire Rumsfeld and opennly air out our dirty laundry for the enemy to see.

[mugs99]

They tried to fight this war on the cheap and it will cost more to fix it than if they'd done it right the first time.

That's exactly what Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, says about this administration.
Army's Top Officer Signals Pentagon Budget Revolt

It looks like FEMA is in charge of this war.
.

[jblair]

I see two of these guys were two stars. It is 'up or out' once an officer gets the first star(or, it used to be). Somebody might have been waiting for that 3rd star, seeing Rumsfeld as the Grinch who stole promotion.

[jblair]

McNamara is, perhaps, the smartest idiot ever. A guy who ran a large corporation, selling planned obsolescence, does not a SecDef make.

Rumsfeld is imperfect, but he does not merit comparison to McNamara. JMHO

[ASOC]

Rummy is not exactly popular with the troops either.

The 172nd now has an 'official' protest group and the 3rd Herd (just extended) may have one soon. Lets not forget the US Marines are calling up IRR troops for the first time in a long time.

Rummy and his picked staff have made a hash of logistics.

Consider also just how many 'contractors" are currently working in theater. How this this private army fit into Rummy's 'small, fast, lethal' force?

I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but no more.

[dfwgator]

More perfumed princes speak out.

[Mr. Silverback]

I have not heard a single complaint about Rumsfeld from any soldier I've spoken with, including conversations off the record and conversations with OIF vets who are no longer active duty. In fact. most of them were angry with the media, you know, those guys who are trumpeting these retired officers you are ready to praise?

Rumsfeld could be the worst SecDef ever, and the pavlovian reaction of Freepers like you at ever leftist effort to harm the war effort would still be embarassing.

[Mr. Silverback]

Do you have comments that cite your "early on" certainty?

Seconded!

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm probably not telling you anything new, but Batiste is a known weasel. Batiste says Rumsfeld is a disaster and has called him “contemptuous, dismissive and arrogant” toward career officers. But that’s not what he told his men when Rumsfeld visited them in Tikrit in 2004: “This is a man with the courage and the conviction to win the war on terrorism.” Sure, Batiste wouldn’t have criticized Rumsfeld in front of the troops, but why the flip-flop from courageous to contemptuous? Either he's too much of a coward to say "boo" to someone who's getting his troops killed (or even fail to publically kiss their butt) or Rummy's just fine and this guy is a political weasel. I think I'm going to bet on the latter.

[Mr. Silverback]

Somebody might have been waiting for that 3rd star, seeing Rumsfeld as the Grinch who stole promotion.

Hell has no fury like a general whose opinion has been ignored. We can add "or a two/three star who didn't get his promotion" to that.

[Mr. Silverback]

You guys would have been tons of fun during WWII.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

WASHINGTON - Retired military officers on Monday are expected to bluntly accuse Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public."

I'm thinking these fellas are, "BIG TIME BUNGLERS" who have been "convinced" by the tactics of the left. These, BUNGLERS are probably the ones Clinton was referring to in his tyrade interview with Chris Wallace...

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"this guy is a political weasel."

I wonder why Swartzkopf hasn't weighed in with his opinions. The lack of input is deafening.

[Mi-kha-el]

Could you BE more right on the money? For some people history begins from scratch each monday.

[SunkenCiv]

Gosh, it's almost as if we've heard exactly the same allegations before, including in the few days before Saddam's statue was torn down in Baghdad.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear it was an election year...

[TexKat]

Retired Officers Slam Rumsfeld Handling of Iraq War

Retired military officers on Monday bluntly accused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," he added in testimony prepared for the hearing, held six weeks before the November 7 midterm elections, in which the war is a central issue.

The conflict, now in its fourth year, has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American troops and cost more than $300 billion.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, the committee chairman, told reporters last week that he hoped the hearing would shed light on the planning and conduct of the war. He said majority Republicans had failed to conduct hearings on the issue, adding, "if they won't ... we will."

Since he spoke, a government-produced National Intelligence Estimate became public that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the attacks of September 11, 2001. (Full story) Several members of the Senate Democratic leadership were expected to participate in the hearing. Dorgan said Republican lawmakers had been invited.

It is unusual for retired military officers to criticize the Pentagon while military operations are under way, particularly at a public event likely to draw widespread media attention.

But Batiste, Eaton and retired Col. Paul X. Hammes were unsparing in remarks that suggested deep anger at the way the military had been treated. All three served in Iraq, and Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask "the tough questions."

He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.

Batiste said if full consideration had been given to the requirements for war, it's likely the U.S. would have kept its focus on Afghanistan, "not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."

Hammes said in his prepared remarks that not providing the best equipment was a "serious moral failure on the part of our leadership."

The United States "did not ask our soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the same armor they trained on in 1941. Why are we asking our soldiers and Marines to use the same armor we found was insufficient in 2003," he asked.

Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University.

Eaton was responsible for training the Iraqi military and later for rebuilding the Iraqi police force.

He said planning for the postwar period was "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."

Public opinion polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq, but division about how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops. Democrats hope to tap into the anger in November, without being damaged by Republican charges they favor a policy of "cut and run."

By coincidence, the hearing came a day after public disclosure of the National Intelligence Estimate. The report was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an intelligence official.