It's time for Rumsfeld to go

As has been noted, the strategy is already clear: Pin the blame on a few soldiers (the fools who posed for those photos), make statements about how these actions don't reflect the American that Bush knows and loves, and hope the whole thing blows over.

Let's not forget the real goal here: To reelect Bush in 2004. If the team in charge gets the sense that Americans want all this to go away, they'll breathe a sigh of relief...

GI Letters to Editor of Stars and Stripes re Iraq
Monday, May 10, 2004


Letters to the editor for Sunday, May 9, 2004

European and Mideast editions

(EDITOR'S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date.

Iraq resembles Vietnam

I follow the worsening situation in Iraq daily, and it's beginning to resemble Vietnam. Our military is fighting a guerrilla war that cannot simply be won with force. The so-called sensitive areas the insurgents use to attack our forces are creating restrictions just like in Vietnam, where the U.S. military was prohibited from invading North Vietnam by ground for fear that Russia or China would get involved. The port in Haipong, North Vietnam, couldn't be mined because Soviet ships that were supplying the North Vietnamese could have been damaged. There were South Vietnamese known as Viet Cong who supported the communist North. They would pretend to be the pro-American South Vietnamese and launch ambushes and conduct terrorist attacks.

In Iraq, U.S. forces, especially those stationed near Najaf, are not permitted to launch a full-out offensive against the insurgents who are holed up in mosques and schools, which they use as fortresses and storage depots to stockpile their weapons and ammunition. To do so would anger Iraqis, just like invading North Vietnam by ground would have prompted the Soviets or Chinese to get involved. We're seeing that many of our soldiers are restricted from even defending themselves for fear of damaging holy sites that insurgents are using to fire mortars and rocket-propelled grenades because that would promote anger among Iraqis and cause the uprising to be more widespread. Insurgents use ambulances as personnel carriers, but we can't fire at them because we'd be the bad guys and it would anger Iraqis.

Why haven't we learned our lesson from Vietnam? I thought that post-Vietnam administrations vowed never to fight a limited war again. But Iraq is definitely such a case because of the many restrictions imposed on our troops. Why are we in Iraq when the majority of the Iraqi people don't like Americans? Just look at all the kidnappings, uprisings, protests and constant terrorist acts that our troops ?- the same troops who toppled Saddam Hussein ?- have to constantly endure. It's true that many of these terrorist acts are al-Qaida related, but most of them are the work of the very Iraqis we liberated. There's gratitude for you. The signs are there, and the situation is only going to get worse if the restrictions imposed on our troops remain.

If we're fighting a war on terror, then why are we breaking the most obvious rule in warfare, the one that says never split your forces in half and fight on two fronts ?- Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't get me wrong. Our troops are doing an amazing job within their limitations. But we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. We should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan. At least when Saddam was in power he denied the use of Iraq as an al-Qaida battlefield.

I find it extremely strange that President Bush still has so much support considering that he's responsible for sending more than 750 soldiers to their deaths for a war without a cause. And that's not to mention having tainted America's reputation in the world, as well as standing to lose Afghanistan as a valuable ally in the hunt for al-Qaida.

Gregory A. Palermo
Ramstein Air Base, Germany

Distortion and deception

Recently Stars and Stripes published a "Doonesbury" cartoon depicting a character talking to a Bush administration official. The character referred to going down the rabbit hole a la "Alice in Wonderland." Current events only serve to reinforce the sense of unreality that appears on a regular basis in the news.

On April 30 Stars and Stripes published pictures of dead Iraqi children on page one and page four. As I understand the policy, news organizations are forbidden by the Department of Defense to show photos of flag-draped coffins of U.S. servicemembers killed in Iraq, partly out of respect for the deceased soldiers and their families. I guess dead Iraqi children aren't deserving of the same respect because they're the enemy. Well, children of the enemy anyway. Maybe. Needless to say, the real reason for the photo ban of American coffins is to avoid any reminder that our folks die in wars, too. If people were reminded of this too often, they might not like it.

Further down the rabbit hole, in the same issue of Stripes we encountered the story "Eight 1st AD soldiers killed near Baghdad." In it, a public affairs officer said it would be a disservice to the eight recently-deceased 1st AD soldiers and their families to infer that the soldiers wouldn't have been killed had their deployment not been extended. I believe the real disservice to the soldiers and their families is that the soldiers are dead. There is no inference here. The soldiers are dead because their Iraq tour was extended.

The distortion and deception goes on and on. We invaded Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. No. We invaded Iraq because it might have had weapons or Saddam Hussein was thinking about having them. Wait. We invaded Iraq because Saddam was hand-in-hand with al-Qaida. No folks. We really invaded Iraq because Iraqis are freedom-loving people, and they had a really bad man running their country. Of course Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was a four-star general during the first Iraq war, claimed we didn't invade Baghdad at that time because of his fear that if we removed Saddam from power, Iraq would be plunged into chaos. Old, repressed hatreds would re-emerge, and religious and political fighting would result. I guess Sec. Powell was right the first time.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld swept into the Pentagon in 2001 with grand ideas of downsizing, resizing, rightsizing, or something sizing our military. In the midst of the destruction of the armed forces as we knew them, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks happened. Suddenly, the military had a lot of work to do. Not to worry, said the Potomac pundits. We have lots of National Guard and Reserve forces to fill the gaps, just like we planned. Besides, President Bush declared that major combat was over a year ago. So all we need to do now is mop up a little light resistance. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Our soldiers in Iraq ?- active duty, reserve and National Guard ?- are performing magnificently. They are simply following orders and doing a fine job in a dangerous and politically uncertain area. Our servicemembers are carrying out their duties with the same courage, bravery and dedication to duty that American soldiers have done for the last 200 or so years. And as usual, they are doing it quietly and professionally.

Somebody once commented toward the end of the Vietnam War: How would you like to be the last man to die for a mistake? I believe the situation in Iraq is rapidly approaching that point.

Ed Lada
Heidelberg, Germany

Scandal embarrassing

This is regarding the story "Geneva Conventions never taught to 6 accused GIs" (May 2). What occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison with Iraqi prisoners has irrevocably embarrassed our Army and our nation, and has severely damaged our strategic level information campaign in the war on terrorism. The blatant abuse of prisoners clearly violated rudimentary common task level training regarding the handling of prisoners. But more importantly, the conduct violated any norm of human decency that could be associated with American values.

The lack of judgment to perform such abuse was compounded even further by the inherent stupidity of creating photographic evidence. There is no excuse regarding a lack of more "in-depth training," and any suggestion of such reasoning further derides the reputation of the armed forces as an institution. These folks need to do some serious time.

Maj. Scott Morrison
Boblingen, Germany

Abuse of prisoners

It now seems as though it has really happened. This is a genuinely revolting development. I read that reprimands have been given out and investigations continue concerning the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Reprimands! What a dishonor to our Army and nation.

Reprimands are probably suggested in the Uniform Code of Military Justice for walking on the grass or forgetting to put fuel in one's Army tank or truck. But not for torture! All soldiers have to deploy with a "Geneva Convention card." If not, there are falsified records that they did. This card does not come close to allowing torture, humiliation or deprivation. It's just the opposite.

Capt. James J. Yee, the Army Islamic chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was put in confinement while being investigated. Yet in the Iraqi abuse case, I read that only "several have received reprimands" and the female general in charge went home. Nowhere have I read or heard anything about the source of the pictures. Did the participants themselves take them and give them out? Are they fakes, as the pictures in the case of British troops are being called? Are any of the American faces in the pictures in confinement now?

Straightforward Army procedure would strongly suggest that everyone even remotely involved, down to those merely having suspicions and taking no action, should have their liberty constrained pending completion of all the investigations, including those from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency suspected of being involved. And those deemed to have committed criminal acts punishable under the UCMJ should be referred to the most severe "court" appropriate. "Reprimands" are a very unlikely outcome of this proper process.

I have also heard and read that Iraqi leaders have demanded that Iraqi legal officials be included in these investigations. That seems quite proper, too. Who knows, some of the suspects might even be turned over to them for justice!

I'm just sickened by this situation. How do the decent soldiers over there feel about this betrayal of trust that they placed in others? How do they and their families feel when their mission, efforts and sacrifices have been jeopardized by this revolting development? And why have none of the reports so far in Stars and Stripes been by Stripes reporters? Aren't there any in Iraq?

Robert D. Doleman
Landstuhl, Germany

The blame game is blooming:



Raise your hand if you think Rumstud (that's what Bush has nicknamed him; no kidding) wasn't kept informed by Sanchez nor Miller.

Time for Rumsfeld to go...where? Syria, Iran...China?

And who's he going to take with him 101 airborne or just himself?

BBB urges everyone to read the following
BBB urges everyone to read the following thread:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=688574#688574

Rumsfeld Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods
Rumsfeld Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods
May 12, 2:42 PM (ET)
By KEN GUGGENHEIM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner.

Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that Pentagon lawyers had approved methods such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well as rules permitting prisoners to be made to assume stress positions.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also noted that the rules require prisoners to be treated humanely at all times.

But Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. said some of the approved techniques "go far beyond the Geneva Convention," a reference to international rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

Rumsfeld spoke after two weeks of controversy provoked by photographs of American military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq. An American was beheaded in a videotaped execution posted to a militant Islamic web site on Tuesday - a killing that captors said was revenge for the abuse of Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison.

With lawmakers immersed in the flap surrounding the pictures of abuse at the prison formerly run by Saddam Hussein, President Bush declared there was "no justification" for the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq.

He said the terrorists who executed Nicholas Berg wanted to "shake" America's resolve in bringing democracy to the war-torn country.

"The actions of the terrorists who executed this man remind us of the nature of the few people who want to stop the advance of freedom in Iraq," Bush said.

The Defense Department is conducting multiple investigations into the abuse, and congressional hearings are under way, as well. At the insistence of lawmakers, the Pentagon arranged for members of Congress to view photos and videos during the day. They depict the abuse, including examples of prisoners forced into sexually humiliating poses.

Durbin noted that one American GI was missing in Iraq, his whereabouts unknown. Given the circumstances, he asked Rumsfeld, "wouldn't it help if there was clarity from you and from this administration that we would abide by the Geneva Convention when it comes to civilian and military detainees unequivocally?"

Expanding his question to include detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, he asked whether such a declaration would "also serve to help American prisoners" held captive.

Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Convention applies to all prisoners held in Iraq, but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the global war on terror are held.

Any al-Qaida or Taliban personnel taken prisoner are to be treated consistent with the Geneva Convention, under a decision made by Bush, Rumsfeld added.

He said the distinction is that the international rules govern wars between countries but not those involving groups such as al-Qaida. "Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians," Rumsfeld added.

A second Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said that a report issued in March by Human Rights Watch "corroborated such things" as sleep deprivation, prisoners kept naked in sleeping cells or forced to stand or kneel for hours.

The report covers prisoners held in Afghanistan, he said, adding it "appears to be exactly the same technique" as was employed in Iraq.

Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials have said the abuses in Abu Ghraib were unauthorized actions taken by a handful of personnel, and Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the mistreatment, testified to that effect before a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Half a world away, there were further repercussions.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt announced that two more American soldiers have been ordered to stand trial in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal although no date for the courts-martial was set. Sgt. Javal Davis, 26, of Maryland and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II of Buckingham, Va., were ordered to undergo a general court-martial, Kimmitt said. Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, of Hyndman, Pa., goes on trial May 19 before a special court martial, which cannot levy as severe a sentence as a general court-martial.

Taguba told the Senate Armed Services Committee that military police who acted improperly did so "of their own volition." But several senators questioned whether low-ranking soldiers would have created the sexually humiliating scenarios by themselves.

"It implies too much knowledge of what would be particularly humiliating to these Muslim prisoners," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "And that is why, even though I do not yet have the evidence, I cannot help but suspect that others were involved, that military intelligence personnel were involved, or people further up the chain of command."

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., challenged Taguba on his statement that Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who headed the 800th Military Police Brigade at the prison, bore responsibility for a breakdown in discipline that led to abuse.

Taguba testified that orders were issued taking tactical control of the Abu Ghraib facility away from Karpinski and giving it to Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade.

"It was clear that he was directed to be the forward operating base commander there for security detainees and force protection," Taguba said. "However, General Karpinski challenged that and she noted that in her recorded testimony."

Taguba said the order placing Pappas in charge of prison policy where Karpinski's MPs worked created a confusing situation and was contrary to Army doctrine. Nonetheless, he found that Karpinski retained overall responsibility for the MPs in her brigade and assigned much of the blame for the abuse to inadequate leadership on her part.

Asked to put in simple words how the abuses happened, Taguba said: "Failure in leadership, sir, from the brigade commander on down. Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision. Supervisory omission was rampant."

Karpinski has been suspended and issued an official letter of admonishment in connection with the abuse. She has not been charged and has asserted other officers are attempting to make her a scapegoat.

General Who Made Anti-Islam Remark Tied to POW Case
General Who Made Anti-Islam Remark Tied to POW Case
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:19 p.m. ET
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army general under investigation for anti-Islamic remarks has been linked by U.S. officials to the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, which experts warned could touch off new outrage overseas.

A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

Critics have suggested those recommendations amounted to a senior-level go-ahead for the sexual and physical abuse of prisoners, possibly to "soften up" detainees before interrogation -- a charge the Pentagon denies.

Congressional aides and Arab-American and Muslim groups said any involvement by Boykin could spark new concern among Arabs and Muslims overseas the U.S. war on terrorism is in fact a war on Islam.

"This will be taken as proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib (prison) is evidence of a broader culture of dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims, based on the American understanding of the innate superiority of Christendom," said Chris Toensing, editor of Middle East Report, a U.S.-based quarterly magazine.

One Senate aide, who asked not to be identified, said any involvement by Boykin could be explosive. "Even if he knew about the abuse, that would be a big deal," he said.

Boykin has declined comment, and defense officials could not say what the extent of his involvement or knowledge about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners might have been.

Boykin touched off a firestorm last October after giving speeches while in uniform in which he referred to the war on terrorism as a battle with "Satan" and said America had been targeted "because we're a Christian nation." He said later he was not anti-Islam or any other religion.

President Bush distanced himself from Boykin's remarks, but the Pentagon said it would not fire the general, who played a role in the 1993 clash with Somali warlords and the ill-fated hostage rescue attempt in Iran in 1980.

CALLS FOR REASSIGNMENT

Hussein Ibish, communications director for the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, said his group and others had repeatedly called for Boykin to be reassigned to a less sensitive job until the Pentagon inspector general completes his investigation of Boykin's remarks.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner and congressional Democrats have also urged Boykin to step aside, but the Pentagon has defended his right to free speech.

Defense officials said the IG investigation, begun last fall, was nearly done and a report could be issued next month.

"I'm not saying Boykin is directly responsible. ... But there is a collective failure here," Ibish said. "There is a tolerance in our society, in our government, in our media for hateful rhetoric when directed against Arabs and Muslims.

"It definitely contributes to a climate in which these young MPs apparently felt it was ... OK to abuse Muslim and Arab men like this."

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, chided the Pentagon for not acting promptly to discipline Boykin and the delayed engagement of top military leaders on the prisoner abuse scandal.

"It creates a climate in which ... the perpetrators believe they're carrying out the policies of those above them, whether those policies are explicit or not," Hooper said.

Time for a full accounting
Posted on Wed, May. 12, 2004
Time for a full accounting
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - When the people of power in this town find it necessary to issue ringing declarations of overwhelming support for one of their own, as they've done all week for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, it usually means that the object of their affection is toast.

President Bush visited the Pentagon and was shown new, even worse photos of prisoner abuse that are a harbinger of bad news still to come, then declared of Rumsfeld: "You are a strong secretary of defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." Rumsfeld's good friend Vice President Dick Cheney already had called him "the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had."

That doesn't mean Rumsfeld is out of the woods or the woodshed. Au contraire. Around here, that's usually interpreted as a sure sign that it's time to hire a moving van.

What strikes terror in the hearts of the administration isn't just the squalid photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, but also a fear that a slumbering, complacent Congress might awaken and begin doing its job for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001.

Having gotten a taste for the spotlight, and watching executive branch big shots squirming under even the most inane of questions, what's to stop the committees of the House and Senate from examining the administration's rationales and planning for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their conduct of both?

The Bush administration has gotten a free ride from Congress and the American public since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They demanded wartime powers, wartime secrecy, a wartime constriction of personal liberties and a wartime blank check from the public treasury.

With great freedom and great power, however, come great responsibility. What have they done with this? What are their successes? What are their failures?

Perhaps the time has come for a full accounting. Rumsfeld would not fare very well.

His penchant for micromanaging the deployment and use of the military was evident from the beginning of the campaign in Afghanistan, with dangerously low ceilings on the numbers of American troops that could be deployed there, and a ban on artillery in favor of close air support.

With securing Afghanistan and finding and defeating al-Qaeda still far from complete, the administration diverted its attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

When the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency couldn't find evidence that Saddam posed a real threat, neo-conservatives in the administration began working with their good friend Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress to salt the mine.

Weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's push for nuclear weapons. Chalabi produced so-called Iraqi defectors who revealed it all. No evidence has been found to substantiate the defectors' allegations. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress denies that it knowingly provided defectors who had bad information, but some of the defectors didn't fare well on lie-detector tests. Nevertheless, their tales were widely used by the administration as evidence that war was necessary.

Even worse, perhaps, the administration also accepted Chalabi's assurances that American troops would be welcomed with flower petals by a grateful Iraqi citizenry. That, coupled with Rumsfeld's desire to prove that when it comes to the military, lighter is better, meant there were never enough troops to defeat the bloody insurgency that's surprised Pentagon planners, or even to safeguard supply lines and guard prisoners.

Rumsfeld demanded and got total control of the American effort in Iraq, including the civilian administration and the reconstruction budget. With total control comes total responsibility. So we know where the buck stops when things go wrong in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq, even if those in the administration are in denial.

The 130,000 American troops on the ground today - half of them Army Reserve and National Guard - have done everything asked of them. Our secretary of defense recently described them as "fungible," which the dictionary defines as: interchangeable. Kind of like the parts in an engine.

Of all the descriptions of the American soldier I have ever heard or written - brave, selfless, weary, tired, proud or weeping - I've never heard "fungible."

Seven hundred seventy-four of them have died in Iraq; an additional 121 have died in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They and we deserve an accounting from the civilian leaders who sent them there.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at [email protected]

Rumstud? I did read in the price of loyalty book that Bush has an odd thing about nicknames, but that one is, well, curious as to what prompted it.

To tell the truth, I think what happened was that they were getting heat from all the deaths of US troops and they started whatever they could to get information out of the prisoners. I doubt Bush was kept informed based on various things I have read concerning how he operates, he just states how he wants things to turn out and does not care about the process of how it gets it done.

no more reasons needed
Read this and you will know why Rumsfeld and all Bush adm. must go:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=692852#692852

I am very much afraid that BumbleBeeBoogie will not make the decision that President Bush and/or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will "have to go".

That decision will be made by the voting public on Nov. 2nd, 2004.