Retired Generals finally calling for Rumsfeld resignation

OK, so according to Pace, The Military is just as, or more responsible, for this huge fubar than the Bush Team!!

Anon

Resignation hell. Incarceration would be more applicable. The way he has f*cked up the military is criminal. It makes me wonder who's side he is on.

bommer
Boomer, I agree with you to some extent---except we are dealing with ideological civilians who know almost nothing about their charge. If it were military leaders in charge, I would say you are right. But that is not the case with Rumsfeld and his gang of ideolog idiots.

I wish Rumsfeld, who micromanages the Military from an ideological viewpoint, would take as many vacations as President Bush. If he were out fixing fences instead of directing our troops, maybe he wouldn't be able to do as much damage.

BBB

General Peter Pace is a perfect fit in this administration. A boot licking A$$ kisser.

In the US, UN and Iraq thread, Sumac posted the following:

There was an article in the news several days ago regarding the shortage of captains in the army. Rather than extending their enlistment's they are resigning as soon as their military obligations are satisfied. That speaks volumes regarding the moral of our military and the subsequent availability of future leaders.

Setanta
Thanks, Setanta. I saw the TV interview of Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste. He obviously is very pissed at the Rumsfeld cabal for damage it has caused the military.

BBB

I think Rice's comment about "thousands of tactical errors" but no "strategic errors" has a lot of the military entirely pissed off. I suspect that we will be seeing more and more retired officers speaking out in the coming weeks and months.

Sadly, General Peter Pace is destroying his reputation by supporting defending the Rumsfeld cabal. I'm sure Pace has been a great soldier and a credit to the military. I guess this is the price one pays who puts career promotion before ethics and the protection of his troops. Pace might be wise to resign before his integrity is completely destroyed. Might as well because as long as Rumsfeld is in charge, nothing will change from within---unless there is massive revolt among the troops, which is not likely due to punishment. Only an outside political revolt by the public will cause change.

BBB

For the record, i consider that retired officers are justified in speaking out in a manner which is unacceptable in serving officers. I consider it completely inappropriate to attack serving officers with an accusation of self-seeking in a culture in which they are only interested in career advancement, to the detriment of the troops for whom they are responsible. I consider such an accusation an unfounded slander.

Boomer


They should be pissed. To blame the military for the idiotic civilian strategic errors is outrageous.

BBB

Much food for thought here.

I do believe that military morale is in the toilet, and not because of what is happening in Iraq. But rather, by what they see happening in the military, and how it can be hurt by civilian leadership. For that reason, even though there are more than a couple of reasons why they should not do it, I think we will find some active military leadership finding a way of expressing their views. On the QT, of course.

I have no idea of Pace's real views, but he is being a good soldier. As did Powell as SOS. You might remember that he was duped by the intel and White House take on it - along with lots of other folk.

As for Franks, my memory is hazy, and this report might not be true, but I have a memory of, on hearing of the plans for Iraq, Franks saying: "What are they, out of their f*cking minds?" But he was a good soldier too - at least for a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq-britain-court.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

April 13, 2006

"British Officer Jailed for Refusing to Go to Iraq

By REUTERS
Filed at 12:24 p.m. ET

ALDERSHOT (Reuters) - A British Air Force doctor was sentenced to eight months jail on Thursday for refusing orders to go to Iraq.

Australian-born Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, was convicted by a five-member panel of officers of what the judge called ``calculated and deliberate disobedience'' of five orders to train, prepare and deploy to Iraq last year.

Kendall-Smith said he viewed the war as a crime and could not participate in any form.

But judge Jack Bayliss ruled British troops were in Iraq in 2005 with the permission of the United Nations, and that Kendall-Smith's view of the war's legality was no defense.

``Obedience to orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Refusal to obey orders means that force is not a disciplined force but a rabble,'' he said.

``Those who wear the queen's uniform cannot pick and choose the orders they follow.'' "

Sumac
The problem is know-nothing civilians directing the military in areas where their ignorance takes lives, is destructive to the military and the US.

Rumsfeld is a bean counter businessman and polititian who should concentrate on supporting and strengthening the military, not telling it how to fight. In a turf war with Colin Powel, Rumsfeld, in a snit, ignored ten years of planning by the State Department for dealing with the aftermath of a successful regime change military campaign. What the military won brilliantly in Iraq was destroyed by the ideologue and his minions who were micromanaging everything without the competence to do it and without the wisdom to listen to those who knew what was needed. A world class arse hole.

BBB

More...out of the woodwork. A similar story is the lead article in today's New York Times.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060414/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AjGhnCxT622wcwiTsEj6oSwb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

"Generals demand Rumsfeld's resignation By Steve Holland
Thu Apr 13, 10:58 PM ET



Two more retired U.S. generals called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign on Thursday, claiming the chief architect of the Iraq war and subsequent American occupation should be held accountable for the chaos there.

As the high-ranking officers accused Rumsfeld of arrogance and ignoring his field commanders, the White House was forced to defend a man who has been a lightning rod for criticism over a war that has helped drive President George W. Bush's public approval ratings to new lows.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni told CNN Rumsfeld should be held responsible 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."

The spreading challenge to the Pentagon's civilian leadership included criticism from some recently retired senior officers directly involved in the Iraq war and its planning.

Six retired generals have now called for Rumsfeld to step down, including two who spoke out on Thursday.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," said retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq.

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces," he told CNN.

Retired Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership.

"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," Riggs said.

But at the White House, the 73-year-old Rumsfeld drew unflinching support. "Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq before his retirement, urged Rumsfeld on Wednesday to resign.

Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton have also spoken out against Rumsfeld.

The outcry came as opinion polls show eroding public support for the 3-year-old Iraq war in which about 2,360 U.S. troops have died and Bush is struggling to bolster Americans' confidence in the war effort.

IGNORING THE CALLS

Rumsfeld has offered at least twice to resign, but each time Bush has turned him down.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said Rumsfeld is ignoring the calls for him to quit and they have not been a distraction.

"Has he talked to the White House? The answer is no, he's not. And two, the question of resignation: was he considering it? No."

Ruff added: "I don't know how many generals there are -- a couple thousand, at least. And they're going to have opinions."

Critics have accused Rumsfeld of bullying senior military officers and disregarding their views. They often cite how Rumsfeld dismissed then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's opinion a month before the 2003 invasion that occupying Iraq could require "several hundred thousand troops," not the smaller force Rumsfeld would send.

But retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong rejected the idea that new leadership was needed at the Pentagon.

"Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," he told CNN. "When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared. You've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."

The White House pointed to comments supportive of Rumsfeld from Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said criticism was to be expected at a time of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We are a nation at war and we are a nation that is going through a military transformation. Those are issues that tend to generate debate and disagreement and we recognize that," McClellan said.

(Additional reporting by David Morgan) "

The miltary serves at the pleasure of the President. It is touch for generals to dissent.

The following are excerpts from today's lead story in The New York Times - but only comments which have not appeared previously anywhere that I am aware of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"April 14, 2006
More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation
By DAVID S. CLOUD and ERIC SCHMITT

....But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.

There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Mr. Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.

Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Mr. Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles is often viewed as inappropriate.

....Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to invade Iraq. But a common thread in their complaints has been an assertion that Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily into military decisionmaking, often disregarding advice from military commanders.

....No active duty officers have joined the call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. In interviews, some currently serving general officers expressed discomfort with the campaign against Mr. Rumsfeld, which has been spearheaded by, among others, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the United States Central Command in the late 1990's before retiring from the Marine Corps. Some of the currently serving officers said they feared the debate risked politicizing the military and undercutting its professional ethos.

Some say privately they disagree with aspects of the Bush administration's handling of the war. But many currently serving officers, regardless of their views, say respect for civilian control of the military requires that they air differences of opinion in private and stay silent in public.

"I support my secretary of defense," Lt. General John Vines, who commands the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said when questioned after a speech in Washington on Thursday about the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down. "If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign. My advice should be private."

Some of the tensions between Mr. Rumsfeld and the uniformed military services date back to his arrival at the Pentagon in early 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld's assertion of greater civilian control over the military and his calls for a slimmer, faster force were viewed with mistrust by many senior officers, while his aggressive, sometimes abrasive style also earned him enmity.

...."My belief is Rumsfeld does not really understand the dynamic of counterinsurgency warfare," General Swannack said.

The string of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's removal has touched off a vigorous debate within the ranks of both active-duty and retired generals and admirals.

....The criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld may spring from multiple motives."

Rumsfeld hell. The ultimate responsibility for the Iraq debacle still rests with that %$#@& in the oval office. That is the a**hole that should resign and take the rest of his with him,inorder to heal the wounds he has inflicted upon this nation and the rest of the world.

White House rebuffs generals' calls for Rumsfeld to resign
Posted on Thu, Apr. 13, 2006
White House rebuffs generals' calls for Rumsfeld to resign
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The White House said Thursday that President Bush had confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld as more retired military officers called for Rumsfeld to step down.

"The president believes that Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

But the public expression of support didn't dampen what appeared to be a rising controversy and political headache for the Bush administration, as a fifth and sixth retired general came forward to demand that Rumsfeld resign.

In an interview broadcast on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered," retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs said Rumsfeld created an "atmosphere of arrogance" at the Pentagon in which military advice on Afghanistan and Iraq was ignored or discounted.

As a result, Rumsfeld and his deputies miscalculated badly when it came to planning for how Iraq would be secured after Saddam Hussein's ouster, Riggs said.

"We just grossly underestimated the numbers of soldiers we would need," said Riggs, who spent 39 years in uniform, rose from private to lieutenant general and won a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in Vietnam.

Riggs was forced to retire in 2004 minus one star after he gave an interview in which he said the Army had been stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq and needed thousands more troops. He said Thursday that it was time for someone to lead the Pentagon who could work with the top military brass in a more practical manner.

"They only need the military advice when it fits their agenda," he said of Rumsfeld and his civilian deputies. "I think that's a mistake, and I think that's why he should resign."

Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr. told CNN on Thursday that he also thinks Rumsfeld should make way for new leadership. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, told CNN that Rumsfeld "carries way too much baggage with him."

"There's nothing wrong with people having opinions," Rumsfeld said at a briefing Tuesday in response to a question about the criticism. "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."

A Pentagon spokesman said Thursday that he had nothing to add to what Rumsfeld had said.

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, who served as the deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command from 2000 to 2003 and had a chief role in planning the Iraq invasion, defended Rumsfeld on CNN on Thursday.

"Dealing with Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," DeLong said. "When you walk into him, you've got to be prepared; you've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."

But retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, who served as the top military officer in the Middle East, kept up the pressure Thursday for Rumsfeld to step aside. Zinni first called for the defense secretary's ouster April 2.

Speaking on CNN, Zinni said Rumsfeld should be held accountable for a series of blunders in Iraq, including "throwing out 10 years' worth of planning" for a postwar occupation after Saddam's removal.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said. "Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste also has called for a change in Pentagon leadership. Batiste retired after he commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq from 2004 to 2005.

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, in an essay in this week's Time magazine, castigated himself and other top generals for not being forceful enough in opposing the Iraq war, which he called an "unnecessary war" orchestrated by "zealots."

"The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort," wrote Newbold, who served as the Pentagon's top operations officer until he retired in October 2002, partly out of opposition to the war.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton was the first prominent retired general to say publicly that Rumsfeld should resign, in an opinion piece March 20 in The New York Times. He was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.

"I think Rumsfeld has lost some important allies on (Capitol) Hill and in the senior military," said Charles Stevenson, who teaches at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "But I don't see how the president would find it in his political interest to get rid of Rumsfeld unless he also wants to change policy and use Rumsfeld as kind of a scapegoat or whipping boy or whatever. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the president wants to blame anybody or change his mind."

Stevenson, the author of "SecDef: The Nearly Impossible Job of Secretary of Defense," said the only historical parallel to the current situation was during the Vietnam War, when several generals testified to Congress about their disapproval of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's bombing campaign in North Vietnam.

Wade Zirkle, the executive director of Vets for Freedom, a recently formed group of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans, said the controversy could have a corrosive effect on morale in the ranks if it continued.

"I think the bottom line is that the troops on the ground want to win the war, and they want someone who is going to lead them to success," said Zirkle, a former Marine officer who served two deployments in Iraq and was awarded a Purple Heart.

The Revolt Against Rumsfeld
The Revolt Against Rumsfeld
By Fred Kaplan
Slate.com
Wednesday 12 April 2006

The officer corps is getting restless.
It's an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence. Not that an actual coup is pending; still less is one desirable. But we are witnessing the rumblings of an officers' revolt, and things could get ugly if it were to take hold and roar.

The revolt is a reluctant one, aimed specifically at the personage of Donald Rumsfeld and the way he is conducting the war in Iraq.

It is startling to hear, in private conversations, how widely and deeply the U.S. officer corps despises this secretary of defense. The joke in some Pentagon circles is that if Rumsfeld were meeting with the service chiefs and commanders and a group of terrorists barged into the room and kidnapped him, not a single general would lift a finger to help him.

Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."

But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls "the unnecessary war" but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002 - quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq. The public and the president did not. He writes in Time:

I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat - al-Qaeda. … [T]he Pentagon's military leaders … with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. … It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.

Newbold isn't urging active-duty senior officers to go public, just to speak out directly to the president (whose handlers famously filter the bad news from official reports before they hit the Oval Office). Still, in a climate where the secretary of defense hammers three-star generals for daring to suggest that our troops in Iraq are fighting "insurgents" and not just "terrorists," Newbold's invocation reads like a revolutionary manifesto. Generals of the Pentagon, unite! You have nothing to lose but your stars!

If Rumsfeld is in less danger than these calls for his head might suggest, it's in part because not many generals want to lose those stars - and quite a lot of colonels would like to earn some. (Remember: Zinni, Eaton, and Newbold are retired generals; they have no more promotions to risk.)

The patron saint, but also the object lesson, of the many officers who are mulling their options - whether to heed Newbold's rallying cry or keep their heads down and shoes polished - is Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff who spoke truth to power and got slammed for his troubles. Shortly before the invasion, Shinseki told the Senate armed services committee that "a few hundred thousand" troops would be needed to impose order after the war was over. Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, upbraided him in public the next day; Rumsfeld named Shinseki's successor a year in advance of his scheduled retirement, thus undercutting his authority for the rest of his term. In his Times op-ed, Gen. Eaton wrote of Shinseki's punishment, "The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since."

Zinni, Eaton, and Newbold are explicitly trying to supplant the lesson of Shinseki with an earlier lesson - one that was propagated throughout the U.S. armed forces in the late 1990s but laid aside once the war in Iraq got under way. It came from a book called Dereliction of Duty, by H.R. McMaster, then an Army major, now a colonel. Based on extensive research into declassified files, the book concluded that during the 1960s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff betrayed their constitutional duties by failing to provide their honest military judgment to President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as they plunged into the quagmire of Vietnam. When McMaster's book was published in 1997, during the Clinton administration, Gen. Hugh Shelton, then the JCS chairman, ordered all his service chiefs and commanders to read it and follow its lessons to the letter - to express disagreements to their superiors, even at the risk of getting yelled at. William Cohen, Clinton's secretary of defense, echoed the sentiment. Ever since, Dereliction of Duty has been a must-read for all senior officers.

At a small, on-the-record press lunch last week with Gen. Zinni (who was promoting his new book, The Battle for Peace), I asked him what would have happened had even two other active-duty generals appeared before Congress - or resigned and called a press conference - to support Shinseki's testimony. Gen. Zinni said he thought President Bush would have had a harder time rallying political support for the invasion. I also asked him why, in the three years since the war's start, not a single active-duty general has mustered the courage (or recklessness, disloyalty, call it what you will) to follow Shinseki's example - or, to put it another way, to follow the lesson in Dereliction of Duty.

Gen. Zinni referred to another book, a favorite of officers for nearly four decades now - Anton Myrer's 1968 novel, Once an Eagle. It's about two Army officers, friends from childhood, and their rise through the ranks: Sam Damon, a straight-arrow field commander, and Courtney Massengale, a scheming Pentagon careerist. Gen. Zinni said the two characters are widely seen in his profession as symbols for the two types of military officer - and the two paths of military promotion. He stopped short of saying so explicitly, but he suggested that the Pentagon's upper ranks contain too many Courtney Massengales and not enough Sam Damons.

He acknowledged other reasons many generals have declined to follow Shinseki, et al. into dissent. Some have no problem with the war or the way it has been conducted. Many others take very seriously the principle of civilian control; they firmly believe it is not their place to disagree with the president and his duly appointed secretary of defense - certainly not to do so in public, especially while the nation is at war. As a matter of principle, we should be glad that they feel this way. There are plenty of lessons from books, movies, and history that support this view as well: Seven Days in May (a charismatic general mounts a coup to keep the president from signing a nuclear-test-ban treaty with the Soviets), Dr. Strangelove (a loony general launches a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union without presidential authority), and the true-life tale of Gen. Douglas MacArthur (heroic commander of Korean War troops publicly advocates going beyond the 38th parallel and invading Communist China, forcing President Harry Truman to recall him).

MacArthur's legacy in particular has kept even the boldest generals deeply reluctant to criticize civilian leaders over the decades. Rumsfeld's arrogance, his "casualness and swagger" as Gen. Newbold put it - which have caused so many strategic blunders, so much death and disaster - have started to tip some officers over the edge. They may prove a good influence in the short run. But if Rumsfeld resists their encroachments and fights back, the whole hierarchy of command could implode as officers feel compelled not merely to stay silent but to choose one side or the other. And if the rebel officers win, they might find they like the taste of bureaucratic victory - and feel less constrained to renew the internecine combat when other, less momentous disputes arise in the future.

Both paths are cluttered with drear and danger. Does President Bush know this is going on? If he does, he would do the nation - and the Constitution - a big favor if he launched a different sort of pre-emptive attack and got rid of Rumsfeld now.