Retired Generals finally calling for Rumsfeld resignation

Shame on Pace.

There was another retired general ob CNN last night who made a good point though. These guys who are pointing fingers ahould have had the cajones to speak up before they retired. Only one didas I recal , shinsecki. (sp?)

Rox


One of the of the biggest problems with military leadership is that they must be team players to advance their careers. Too many military leaders betray their troops to protect their career advancement and job security. What we are seeing with these retired generals is an example of that mind set that resulted from Rumsfeld's retaliation against any officer that disagreed with him. The troops paid for this culture with their lives.

BBB

I have to disagree to some extent. The military must submit to the will of the civilian leadership, even when the military leaders disagree. Anything else leads to the military determining the leader(s) of the country.

You disagree in private, then follow orders. Public disagreements would undermine morale, and ultimately be a greater disservice.

Now, Powell, I thought, was in a position that had some real leverage. Had he chosen to resign rather than go along with the invasion, things may have turned out quite differently.

Which is not to say he is responsible for the debacle.

This sentence leaves me sputtering and speechless so I'm just going to let my speechlessness serve as a bookmark.

DrewDad


I wonder if the families of the troops killed and wounded would agree with you? One must also include the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and wounded.

It's a tough issue you raise. I think loyalty to the civilian leadership can only go so far as long as it is not a military coup to take over the country by eliminating the president. In this case, it was only opposition to the Secretary of Defense and not the president.

BBB

Top general defends pre-war planning for Iraq
General Peter Pace is a disgrace to the Military and is Donald Rumsfeld's whore as well as a disgusting liar. ---BBB

Posted on Tue, Apr. 11, 2006
Top general defends pre-war planning for Iraq
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top military officer on Tuesday defended the pre-war planning for Iraq, saying he and other top generals "had every opportunity" to voice dissent if they disagreed with Bush administration officials over the invasion plan.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he and other senior military officials had discussed plans for invading Iraq "50 or 60 times" with Gen. Tommy Franks, who was then the top U.S. general for the Middle East. Pace was vice chairman of the joint chiefs at the time.

"Not once was Tom told, `No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, you can't have that,''' Pace said during a Pentagon news briefing.

He was responding in part to an essay last weekend in Time magazine by retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who accused top military leaders of failing to stand up to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials over war planning. Newbold said intelligence used to justify the war was flawed and that the invasion plan didn't include enough troops to effectively control the country after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Newbold served as the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until the summer of 2002, when he retired partly out of opposition to invading Iraq. He's the latest in a string of retired generals who have spoken out in recent weeks over the Bush administration's handling of the war and who have called for Rumsfeld to be replaced.

He accused Rumsfeld of squelching dissent among the generals, noting that the defense secretary had sidelined former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki after Shinseki told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. Newbold also accused Rumsfeld of "arrogant micro-management that at times crippled the military's effectiveness."

Pace, however, said Tuesday that he and other top brass had "every opportunity to speak our minds" if they questioned the invasion plan.

"The plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers and blessed by the senior leadership, " he said.

Pace said he thought the invasion plan was "a solid plan and that the resources that (Franks) needed were going to be allocated."

U.S. forces numbered around 150,000 for the invasion and have fluctuated from around 110,000 to 160,000 in the three years since. Pace said he was "very comfortable" with prewar planning and the way the invasion was executed.

"I would go back, given the same facts and figures, and reach the same conclusion," he said.

With so many calls for his ouster, Rumsfeld was asked whether he thought that his continued presence at the Pentagon was hurting the war effort. He said he wasn't bothered by the criticism and that it didn't affect his ability to do his job.

"There's nothing wrong with people having opinions," he said. "And I think one ought to expect that. When you're involved in something that's controversial, as certainly this war is, one ought to expect that."

Top general defends pre-war planning for Iraq
General Peter Pace is a disgrace to the Military and is Donald Rumsfeld's whore as well as a disgusting liar. ---BBB

Posted on Tue, Apr. 11, 2006
Top general defends pre-war planning for Iraq
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top military officer on Tuesday defended the pre-war planning for Iraq, saying he and other top generals "had every opportunity" to voice dissent if they disagreed with Bush administration officials over the invasion plan.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he and other senior military officials had discussed plans for invading Iraq "50 or 60 times" with Gen. Tommy Franks, who was then the top U.S. general for the Middle East. Pace was vice chairman of the joint chiefs at the time.

"Not once was Tom told, `No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, you can't have that,''' Pace said during a Pentagon news briefing.

He was responding in part to an essay last weekend in Time magazine by retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who accused top military leaders of failing to stand up to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials over war planning. Newbold said intelligence used to justify the war was flawed and that the invasion plan didn't include enough troops to effectively control the country after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Newbold served as the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until the summer of 2002, when he retired partly out of opposition to invading Iraq. He's the latest in a string of retired generals who have spoken out in recent weeks over the Bush administration's handling of the war and who have called for Rumsfeld to be replaced.

He accused Rumsfeld of squelching dissent among the generals, noting that the defense secretary had sidelined former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki after Shinseki told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. Newbold also accused Rumsfeld of "arrogant micro-management that at times crippled the military's effectiveness."

Pace, however, said Tuesday that he and other top brass had "every opportunity to speak our minds" if they questioned the invasion plan.

"The plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers and blessed by the senior leadership, " he said.

Pace said he thought the invasion plan was "a solid plan and that the resources that (Franks) needed were going to be allocated."

U.S. forces numbered around 150,000 for the invasion and have fluctuated from around 110,000 to 160,000 in the three years since. Pace said he was "very comfortable" with prewar planning and the way the invasion was executed.

"I would go back, given the same facts and figures, and reach the same conclusion," he said.

With so many calls for his ouster, Rumsfeld was asked whether he thought that his continued presence at the Pentagon was hurting the war effort. He said he wasn't bothered by the criticism and that it didn't affect his ability to do his job.

"There's nothing wrong with people having opinions," he said. "And I think one ought to expect that. When you're involved in something that's controversial, as certainly this war is, one ought to expect that."

Top general defends pre-war planning for Iraq
General Peter Pace is a disgrace to the Military and is Donald Rumsfeld's whore as well as a disgusting liar. ---BBB

Posted on Tue, Apr. 11, 2006
Top general defends pre-war planning for Iraq
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top military officer on Tuesday defended the pre-war planning for Iraq, saying he and other top generals "had every opportunity" to voice dissent if they disagreed with Bush administration officials over the invasion plan.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he and other senior military officials had discussed plans for invading Iraq "50 or 60 times" with Gen. Tommy Franks, who was then the top U.S. general for the Middle East. Pace was vice chairman of the joint chiefs at the time.

"Not once was Tom told, `No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, you can't have that,''' Pace said during a Pentagon news briefing.

He was responding in part to an essay last weekend in Time magazine by retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who accused top military leaders of failing to stand up to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials over war planning. Newbold said intelligence used to justify the war was flawed and that the invasion plan didn't include enough troops to effectively control the country after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Newbold served as the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until the summer of 2002, when he retired partly out of opposition to invading Iraq. He's the latest in a string of retired generals who have spoken out in recent weeks over the Bush administration's handling of the war and who have called for Rumsfeld to be replaced.

He accused Rumsfeld of squelching dissent among the generals, noting that the defense secretary had sidelined former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki after Shinseki told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. Newbold also accused Rumsfeld of "arrogant micro-management that at times crippled the military's effectiveness."

Pace, however, said Tuesday that he and other top brass had "every opportunity to speak our minds" if they questioned the invasion plan.

"The plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers and blessed by the senior leadership, " he said.

Pace said he thought the invasion plan was "a solid plan and that the resources that (Franks) needed were going to be allocated."

U.S. forces numbered around 150,000 for the invasion and have fluctuated from around 110,000 to 160,000 in the three years since. Pace said he was "very comfortable" with prewar planning and the way the invasion was executed.

"I would go back, given the same facts and figures, and reach the same conclusion," he said.

With so many calls for his ouster, Rumsfeld was asked whether he thought that his continued presence at the Pentagon was hurting the war effort. He said he wasn't bothered by the criticism and that it didn't affect his ability to do his job.

"There's nothing wrong with people having opinions," he said. "And I think one ought to expect that. When you're involved in something that's controversial, as certainly this war is, one ought to expect that."

Re: Retired Generals finally calling for Rumsfeld resignatio

How many retired generals are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation? Who are they? What fraction are they of the total number of retired generals?

Interesting that you state Pace is betraying the troops, but fail to state how.

BBB
Donald Rumsfeld is not the only major leader responsible for the mess in Iraq. I find General Tommy Franks culpable. His betrayal the nation and of his troops was his poor judgment in becoming a true believer in the Neocons program. He should have known better. He also was a protective filter between Rumsfeld and the Generals who tried to educate him about Iraq before the war and during when it turned sour. Franks' failure was not challenging Rumsfeld more vigorously and not resigning in protest.
--------------------------------------------------

Iraq Troop Levels and Conduct of the Iraq War

In their book, COBRA II, military historians Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor argue that Franks failed to recognize the threat the Saddam Fedayeen irregular fighters posed to the invading ground forces in 2003 and their potential to form the core of a post-war insurgency. For instance, in their book, they make a disputed claim that Franks threatened to fire General William Wallace, commander of the Army's V Corps, for his comments to the press during that war where he said that the enemy the U.S. was facing was different than the enemy the military had planned against.

The authors also suggest that Franks was worn down by repeated pressure from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to reduce the number of U.S. troops in war plans and cancel the deployment of the 1st Cavalry Division, a scheduled follow-on unit that was slated for deployment in April of 2003. (New York Times: Dash to Baghdad Left Top US Generals Divided 13 March 2006) More generally, they argue Franks' command was somewhat understandably focused on the immediate task in front of it -- defeating Saddam Husseim and taking Baghdad -- and few were willing to divert resources away from that effort and toward the long-term post-war needs.

The writers also question his decision during the war to keep sealift ships carrying the equipment for the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at sea instead of bringing the equipment ashore in Kuwait sooner so the division could have entered Iraq earlier than it did to add to the force levels in post-war Iraq. Frank argues that by keeping the ships at sea the Iraqis were deceived into believing a U.S. attack was yet to come from the north through Turkey, though Colin Powell and others have questioned his view (Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward, 2004).

Franks wanted to retire after the major combat phase of the war, tired from having planned for and prosecuted two major wars and led a war on terrorism since September of 2001. As a result, Gordon and Trainor argue he was slow to act during the crucial months following the fall of Baghdad. They suggest there was a leadership void at U.S. Central Command until General John Abizaid succeeded Franks in the middle of the summer of 2003. They also note that there was a command transition in Iraq as V Corps and General Ricardo Sanchez took command of U.S. forces in Iraq without being fully resourced and trained for the mission in advance. (COBRA II Gordon and Trainor 2006)

Statements on nuclear attack against the United States

According to TIME magazine, on November 21, 2003, Tommy Franks said that in the event of another terrorist attack, American Constitution liberties might be discarded by popular demand in favor of a military state. His quote:

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that "the worst thing that could happen" is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."

Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

Re: DrewDad

So... what would you have serving military officers do, if they disagree with the policy they're being asked to carry out?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, Boomer. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Disagree. Very much disagree.

Thought so, but wanted to be sure....

I'm going to have to come down on DrewDad's side on this one. I'm certainly glad they are speaking up now, and I believe that our civilian leaders should have listened to the ones that spoke up before, but our civilian leaders are replaced every 4 to 8 years and our military generals are not. It's our fault for letting them get into office in the first place, and for putting them back even after we knew how bad they were. I can only hope that next time, we will elect leaders who are worthy to command the armed forces.

Re: DrewDad


I would expect them to strongly object with threat of resignation of their commissions regarding no-nothing civilian policies they know, from their military experience and their knowledge of the subject country, that will produce massive casualties to their troops and to the civilian population, that will not result in achieving the civilian's goals, and will be a disaster for the US. Their resignations and retirements would free them to voice their objections to the public and perhaps prevent terrible mistakes.

Even though he was retired from the Military, I regret that Colin Powell did not take such honorable action as Secretary of State. What a tragic mistake that he must regret every day of his life.

I wonder what Tommy Franks now thinks of his behavior? I think he also is an honorable man and must have terrible regrets.

BBB

Speaking AS* someone who has discussed just this issue with one Pentagon military leader I can only say this....

They have a much greater likelyhood of being heard by the people who make the big decisions when they stay on the inside as opposed to objecting and resigning.

They have a much greater likelyhood of protecting their troops when they can directly influence planning and strategy.

To suggest such soldiers are careerist who betray their troops is really so insulting. They ARE troops. They didn't just wake up one morning with stars on their collar.

I'm sure there are a few bad apples. Should the good apples resign only to leave all of the planning to the bads? (But I guess then we could throw apple cores at them for leaving and making a bad situation worse by taking their education, experience and knowledge with them.)


*I would never ever presume to speak FOR said person.