Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go

Time. ^ | Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 | LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

[Leisler]

Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. ...

[HawaiianGecko]

"Why did Rumsfeld fire Garner? Did Garner ask for more troops?"

From and article by Michael Young a leading columnist in Lebanon on Mar 19, 2003 just prior to the start of the war. Jay Garner was considered a protégé of Sec. Rumsfeld so I have no doubt he was removed for a good cause. I simply cannot imagine Sec. Rumsfeld make a mistake and sacking one of his own trusted people. Now firing a highly qualified person that is not "on your team" may be a mistake, but I simply don't buy into this as a mistake. The alternative had to be worse at the time. (Note, I said "at the time")  Is it far fetched to believe that we had contact with powerful or future powerful people in Iraq that simply refused to work with General Garner?  The following snippet of an article gives a bit of insight into that train of thought.

Iraq's New Rulers

Handicapping the postwar administrators
 

By Michael Young

Jay Garner famously signed onto an October 12, 2000 statement by the archconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which praised the Israeli army for having "exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority that deliberately pushes civilians and young people to the front lines."

The statement noted: "What makes the US-Israel security relationship one of mutual benefit is the combination of military capabilities and shared political values—freedom, democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law." That Garner himself benefited from the security relationship is well known: As president of California-based defense contractor SY Technology, he oversaw the company's work on the US-Israeli Arrow missile defense system.

David Lazarus reported in the San Francisco Chronicle prior to the war "that Garner's former company is also working on missile systems the US will use against Iraq. Not only does this appear to be a conflict of interest, it also happens to be peculiar politics. As Ben Hermalin, a professor at UC Berkeley who studies professional ethics, told Lazarus: "You have to wonder what the Iraqis will think of this guy and how much trust they'll place in him."

In another pre-war article by Michael Hirsh and Melinda Liu written 2/12/2003 Back in Washington, US officials who are quietly – and gingerly – making plans for postwar Iraq dismiss comparisons (of Garner) to the imperial MacArthur. The last thing they want to emulate in Iraq is the seven-year occupation of Japan. In fact, some officials at the Pentagon and State Department tell NEWSWEEK they hope to be able to withdraw US troops in as little as 30 to 90 days after President Saddam Hussein’s ouster – if Iraq’s military can be swiftly purged of his henchmen and turned into a pro-Western security force. That, they admit, is optimistic; more “realistically,” says a Pentagon official, the talk is of a maximum five- to six-month occupation. “The plan is to get it done as quickly as possible and get out,” says Lt. Col. Michael Humm, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s chief planner, Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith.Administration officials who are part of the Future of Iraq Project, underway since April (2002), caution that no plans are definite. That's in part because they don't know yet which countries will be in the invading coalition, nor what Iraq's political landscape will look like after Saddam. But they are keenly wary of a long-term occupation in the heart of the Arab world, where anxieties about Western invaders date back to the Crusades. "Every day you get past three months, you've got to expect peacekeepers to have a bull's-eye on their head," said one State Department official. So eager are the Bushies to avoid being seen as occupiers that General Garner, who commanded a task force in the Kurdish north in 1991, is tentatively being dubbed "senior civilian administrator" rather than "military governor," NEWSWEEK has learned. Now in my opinion, as unlearned as it is... the speed with which this article claims (1-6 months) to get out is the mistake that Rumsfeld made. But it's not the kind of mistake that you howl over unless you have a political agenda to push.  You have to take into consideration that we really didn't know what Iraq's political landscape will look like after Saddam so I'm not sure I'd call it mistake.  Before you roll your eyes let me say that Roosevelt didn't know how long WWII was going to take either, nor did George Washington and his ilk believe that it would take thirteen years to establish a constitution. If you are building a house and you suddenly realize that it's going to cost more than planned, do you throw up your hands and leave it? Probably not because the finished product is the prize. You very well might not have started to build it if you knew the costs were treble but once you are $500K into a $1500K home you can walk away and lose all $500K or you can keep going. Although you spent a heck of a lot more than anticipated you still have an asset worth $1.5 million. The same thing applies to Iraq in my very humble opinion. Control of the Middle East is of paramount concern to the United States whether we want to believe it or not. If it costs $300 billion instead of $100 billion then that is the value of the deal, period. It's still cheaper than the costs to the United States when countries start literally fighting for oil. When the demand for oil outstrips the supply then oil is no longer a fungible asset. Who do you think Iraq, Iran and Venezuela would rather sell their oil to, India & China or the Great Satan?

 

 

 

[attiladhun2]

That line has probably been used by lefties in relation to the war on Iraq at least a dozen times, each one thinking he is being or so original and avant garde in doing so. You know idiots on the left get their best material from anti-war movies and rock and roll lyrics. Remember Richard Clark said when he saw the smoke rising from the Pentagon on 9-11 he thought of a line from Apocalypse Now, "Oh! The horror!" Its all for drama and to be taken seriously by the left-wingnut MSM.

[HawaiianGecko]

"You might want to do a little reading, including the story that spawned this thread"

Well I just reread this transcript of General Wayne Downing (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command; General Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Armed Forces Southern Command; General Montgomery Meigs (Ret.), Former Commander, NATO Stabilization Force in an interview with Tim Russert about 3 months ago and didn't get any insight into what is really happening inside the Pentagon. They all did however praise Sec Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Downsizing the military seems to be their only complaint. McCaffrey stated clearly that the plans were exactly as he thought to be proper.

Gen. Wayne A. Downing Jr. just completed a study of a new Special Operations Command (SOCOM) created in 2003 in Tampa. He was asked by Secretary Rumsfeld to perform this study. Rumsfeld felt that in over two years the command couldn't react quickly enough and wanted to know why. The quote from a senior Pentagon official was that Rumsfeld's question was: 'With all this new money and all these extra people and all this wider latitude to maneuver, why haven't you won the war on terror for me yet?'

Downing's response is that "the command's new global role in counterterrorism has rankled some officers at the Pentagon and in regional war-fighting commands who previously took charge of that mission. Some of the command's new efforts, in particular the placement of small teams in American embassies to gather intelligence on terrorists and to prepare for potential missions, has outraged some intelligence officers and career diplomats."

"More broadly, the review found that the government-wide national security bureaucracy still does not respond rapidly and effectively to the new requirements of the counterterrorism campaign. The report said more streamlining was necessary across a broad swath of the civilian bureaucracy and military, including civilians in the policy office that reports to Mr. Rumsfeld and the office of the secretary of defense, the military organization that reports to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the regional combatant commanders and even the National Security Council staff at the White House."

That doesn't sound to me like criticism of the changes Rumsfeld has made, it sounds more like criticism of the way the Pentagon has operated for years and that it needs to be changed further.

Phrases like "rankled some officers at the Pentagon that previously had charge of that mission" sounds to me like the old guard fighting necessary changes. Another, similar phrase "outraged some intelligence officers and career diplomats" sounds again like people fighting changes. I'm sure these are the very same intelligence officers that blew Iraq completely, the fall of the Soviet Union and the Shaw of Iran.

"One Pentagon official who read the review said it criticized the Defense Department and National Security Council bureaucracy for not creating ways to answer Socom's real-time needs, forcing the command to navigate plodding bureaucratic channels whenever it wanted to adjust course. The official said this made it difficult to mount the quick action required to single out insurgents or terrorist leaders whose locations may become known only for brief periods of time." I may be wrong here and Lord only knows it would be the first time today, only, but Donald Rumsfeld comes across as a man that knocks down bureaucratic barriers rather than a man that would build barriers. After all, he is the guy that wants to streamline and speed up the military.

In Zinni's book he writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

My questions to the General are:

• What dereliction?
• What negligence?
• What irresponsibility?
• What lying?
• What incompetence?
• What corruption?

He says to Congress: This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.” 

But like so many others, he doesn't say why. He drew up a plan to invade Iraq prior to Tommy Franks taking over CENTCOM and it called for 300,000 troops whereas, Frank's plan called for 180,000.  Honest men can disagree, but General Frank's deposed Hussein and rendered the Iraqi Army toothless in 3 weeks. The charge is always that with 300,000 soldiers we could secure the country. I'm not sure. Can two soldiers driving down a road keep an IED from exploding more effectively than one soldier? Out of 120,000 soldiers aren't 20% or 24,000 actually shooters or able to stand guard while 80% or 96,000 are in support?

So now I've read all these vaunted men's thought's on this war and I'm still of the opinion that they offer nothing to the debate.

 

 

 

 

[Sprite518]

It makes me wonder when I see Generals say things such as that. How the heck did they get that high? I guess its politics after Major.

[KillTime]

Hah funny..that's when I stopped reading, too.

[Mr Rogers]

I agree with you.

Rumsfeld is like some generals I've met - too arrogant to listen to advice. They assume those who disagree do so because they are slow of mind. It doesn't seem to occur to them that their opponents may have more knowledge that has led them to caution.

I'm more familiar with Rumsfeld from an acquisition perspective, and I think he's been a disaster there.

[big'ol_freeper]

One toke over the line sweet Jesus, one toke over the line...

[stylin19a]

From Butler's own book:

" Butler recalls: I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.'... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq. Butler's order to withdraw is made without the permission of the UN Security Council.

[centurion316]

You've certainly done your homework and you have my admiration for it. I agree with you that its tough to draw conclusions with the limited information that's made it to the public domain. Add in the various agendas, axes being ground, etc. and its hard to put a finger on what the real issues are.

The real story won't be written for years, but my humble take is boiled down to three issues:

1. Rumsfeld ramroded us into the War with Iraq (minority opinion, not shared by me)

2. Rumsfled exercised McNamara-like micromanagement over the war plans even when they were in execution. His changes were highly successful in Afghanistan which led him to disregard the military advice that he got on Iraq - with disasterous results

3. His mind is made up on Transformation and he believes that air and naval technology trumps ground forces and therefore the Army and Marine Corps can be safely downsized and portions of their budget shifted to USAF and USN. This idea is not popular with Army and USMC, and increasingly with others given the implications on its effect on the Long War (GWOT).

The final reason is entirely personal and not to be given much weight - he's a prick.

[LA Conservative]

That may be true, but it does not dispute what I said. Their access to sites of interest had already been blocked by Iraqi Republican Guard troops.

Is that a good book by the way? Sounds interesting. Does say anything about that sh*it sack Scott Ritter?

[Ichneumon]

Hah funny..that's when I stopped reading, too.

Ditto.

But what's *really* funny is that he apparently hasn't listened real closely to the lyrics.

In the song, the idealistic "rebels" the song is singing about in first person swear they "won't get fooled again" if they overthrow the current "Establishment".

Two thirds of the way through the song, they win their "revolution"... and discover that the new leaders, the ones they put into power, are just as bad as the old ones. Thus the lines, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss...", "there's nothing in the street Looks any different to me...", and "pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday". The final irony is that they *did* get "fooled again".

Although it came out in an era when youthful idealism and dreams of overthrowing "The Man" were ubiquitous and countless hippy-dippy songs were written about it, the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" was actually a bitingly cynical song which said, "if you hippies ever actually got your revolution, you'd probably f*** it up through naivety, and end up with the same kind of oppressive government you bitch about now, because the power-hungry are a lot smarter than you starry-eyed unrealistic dopes."

It's amusing that Newbold can't even figure out what the song's about, but he feels qualified to second-guess the President and the other Pentagon generals.

[SteveMcKing]

Did you know that Whitney Houston's debut LP, called simply Whitney Houston, had four number one singles on it? Did you know that, Christy?

It's hard to choose a favorite among so many great tracks. But "The Greatest Love of All" is one of the best, most powerful songs ever written; about self-preservation, dignity. Its universal message crosses all boundaries and instills one with the hope that it's not too late to better ourselves.

Since, Elizabeth, it's impossible in this world we live in, to empathize with others. We can always empathize with ourselves. It's an important message. Crucial really, as beautifully stated on the album.

[EGPWS]

Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go

One of three reasons.

Either you are a member of Al Qaeda, your an idiot, or both.

[stylin19a]

More and more areas were becoming off limits.

Butler's book:
"Saddam Defiant: The Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Crisis of Global Security", was published in 2000.

Re: Ritter:

"I have no idea what has overtaken him," his former boss Richard Butler said. On another occasion, Butler said, "I'll say this about Scott, either he's misleading the public now, or he misled me then.

[centurion316]

I think a discussion of JCIDS might be a little off the track, but its an ugly baby. Again, IMHO, its not the overall goal that off track, its the execution that leaves alot to be desired.

[centurion316]

Interesting observation, they both seem a little tone deaf to the demands of the political process. Agree that his integrity is not at question, he's always honest, just not always right.

[TankerKC]

Why I think retired Generals should STFU

Agree or disagree..retired generals are the only ones that should speak out in this manner.

[MikefromOhio]

That may be true

It is true. I work with someone who was there at my current job.

[Thebaddog]

My personal opinion is that the whole article was written for him by the same goofs that wrote and still write Clinton's stuff. That's their way of talking down to us from their intellectual thrones.

[Leisler]

Doesn't say much for the depth or quality of the General thinking, does it? No doubt he will write a full length book, in detail. The troops deserve it.