Posted on 04/13/2006 3:15:15 PM PDT by jmc1969
The White House gave a new vote of confidence to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday as yet another retired general demanded Rumsfeld resign.
"Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
A fifth retired general, Major Gen. John Riggs, added his voice to those opposing Rumsfeld. In an interview with National Public Radio, Riggs cited an atmosphere of "arrogance" among top civilian leaders at the Pentagon.
Rumsfeld "should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic," he said.
Of the Pentagon's civilian leadership, Riggs said: "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."
Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni kept up the pressure for Rumsfeld's scalp by telling CNN Rumsfeld should be held accountable for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."
"I think he should (resign). This is not personal, believe me. We grew up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting your mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said.
A recently retired two-star general, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Germany-based 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, called on Wednesday for Rumsfeld to resign.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.today.reuters.com ...
Since when did spending their entire adult lives serving their country in peace and war mean that these men forfit their right to speak freely once they are out?
What's going on here? I don't remember retired generals ever speaking out against an administration before - regardless of the party. Does this have something to do with the "all volunteer" army?
see post #16...
Clinton Generals.Go figure.Clinton replaced one of the greatest Generals we ever had during the Bosnian fiasco.General Joulwan for Ramsey Clark.Ramsey Clark was not qualified to shine his shoes,let alone replace him.I met General Joulwan when he was a LTC.Colonel,and he is a great man.If you notice,I never referred to Ramsey Clark as a General.It had a devastating impact on all involved.
Obviously a traitorous malcontent and Clinton suck-up. </sarcasm>
It's damned difficult taking orders from those who so obviously did not.
Perhaps because Ramsey Clark was Attorney General under Johnson? Wesley Clark was Joulwan's replacement, and Joulwan had been SACEUR for 4 years.
Zinni and these other generals have the amazing arrogance. So far, Rummy has pretty well designed not one, but two successful invasions. Yes, some things could have been done better (some people blame Tommy Franks, actually). But you are hard pressed to find ANY---I repeat, ANY---military operation in human history that has accopmlished so much with so few casualties. Churchill was right: the best thing generals can do when they retire is SHUT UP.
Rummy is absolutely hated by the top brass so I expect a hell of alot more to come out. What that means I am not sure of.
Gee, I would think military protocol or at the very least, their duty as patriots would keep any retired general from publically speaking out against their commander in chief's decision making during a time of war. I have no problem with any retired general bending our President's ear in private, but to willingly become political pawns, speaking out against our Secretary of Defense during wartime is unforgivable, IMO.
i would bet he has a greater understanding of the scope and magnitued of all issues. the generals are merely tools in his tool box to be used in the mix of the greater agena of which they are not typically aware.
although the one trick ponies call for his dismissal because he did not meet their needs but met the optimal mix.
let them say what they will, i doubt there is a more savy man for the role.
imo
M. O'BRIEN: And then he(Batiste) went on to say he thinks Secretary Rumsfeld should step down. What do you say to that?
DELONG: Well, when he was in command over there, Tommy Franks and I had retired. When he was working for then -- Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz, the people who had access to -- who needed access to the secretary were the combatant commanders. That was Tommy Franks. And when we ran our plan through, our plan was run through the joint staff, every single one of the administration's secretaries played at an input in that operations plan, and I just don't see that. Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO. When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared. You've got to what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed, but that's the way it is, and he's effective.
snip
M. O'BRIEN: Final thought, is Secretary Rumsfeld arrogant?
DELONG: I don't know if I'd use the word "arrogant." He's very sure of himself. And if you're not sure of himself, I guess you may consider him arrogant. But if you walk and know what you're talking about, you can have a very pleasant, professional conversation with the man.
So what's your take? Should rummy resign?
He should have them put back on active duty and give them each a drum of Pine-sol. Send them to McGuire or Travis AFB terminals to make sure the latrines are patrolled better than their mouths.
I know that historical parallels are invidious, but I think that it is conceded that if Hitler had not taken the advise of Guderian in 1940, the Wehrmacht would have repeated the invasion of 1914 through Belgium , the Allied positions along the Meuse would have held. The Germans simply did not have the weight that they had in 1914.
""Since when did spending their entire adult lives serving their country in peace and war mean that these men forfit their right to speak freely once they are out?"
I absolutely agree. I'm really disturbed that we treat retired generals like traitors on this board, simply because they spoke out. Do we, sitting at home typing on our computers, know more about the failures and accomplishments of our war strategy than retired generals who actually served in this war? I believe that supporting our troops should mean actually SUPPORTING them, even when we disagree with what they say.
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.