Retired Generals finally calling for Rumsfeld resignation

Eh, Sumac - all people pointed out was that:
a) you happened to post the same article twice here, and
b) a link (or, my preference: a link plus intro or summary or excerpts of the relevant bits) is usually better than the full copy/paste.

Noone said that you know, we dont want any links or references, because we prefer to each of us go find back the same thing ourselves... ok? Thats just silly. Why not just post the link?

Pentagon Memo Aims to Counter Rumsfeld Critics
April 16, 2006
Pentagon Memo Aims to Counter Rumsfeld Critics
By MARK MAZZETTI and JIM RUTENBERG
WASHINGTON, April 15, 2006

The Defense Department has issued a memorandum to a group of former military commanders and civilian analysts that offers a direct challenge to the criticisms made by retired generals about Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The one-page memorandum was sent by e-mail on Friday to the group, which includes several retired generals who appear regularly on television, and came as the Bush administration stepped up its own defense of Mr. Rumsfeld. On the political front, Republican strategists voiced rising anxiety on Saturday that without a major change in the course of the Iraq war, Republican candidates would suffer dearly in the November elections.

The memorandum begins by stating, "U.S. senior military leaders are involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process in the Department of Defense." It says Mr. Rumsfeld has had 139 meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the start of 2005 and 208 meetings with the senior field commanders.

Seeking to put the criticism of the relatively small number of retired generals into context, the e-mail message also notes that there are more than 8,000 active-duty and retired general officers alive today.

The message was released Friday by the Pentagon's office of the Directorate for Programs and Community Relations and Public Liaison, but it was unclear who wrote it.

It is not uncommon for the Pentagon to send such memorandums to this group of officers, whom they consider to be influential in shaping public opinion. But it is unusual for the Pentagon to issue guidance that can be used by retired generals to rebut the arguments of other retired generals.

The memorandum quickly followed President Bush's statement on Friday in which he gave a strong endorsement of Mr. Rumsfeld.

The memorandum spoke directly to the thrust of the retired generals' complaints that Mr. Rumsfeld was a "micromanager" who often ignored the advice of military commanders.

The group that received the message was made up of both staunch Bush administration supporters and some who have been critical of administration policies. They are brought in periodically to consult with Pentagon officials and were notified on Friday that Mr. Rumsfeld wanted to meet with them this Tuesday.

A Defense Department spokesman, Eric Ruff, called the memorandum a "fact sheet" that was developed to provide detailed information to an influential group of analysts. In no way was it meant to enlist retired officers to speak out on behalf of Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Ruff said.

"The fact sheet was sent out to provide people with the facts," he said. "We would be doing a disservice to the analysts and the American public if we didn't provide exactly what the facts are."

One retired general who regularly attends the Pentagon meetings said Saturday that he found it unusual for the Pentagon to send such a memorandum in the middle of a heated debate, because it was almost certain to appear politically motivated.

"I think it's part of the charm offensive," said the general, who was granted anonymity because he said he was afraid he would not be invited to future Pentagon sessions.

For a president who has responded to critics of the war by saying he takes his cue from commanders in the field, not politicians in Washington, the past week has put the White House in an uncomfortable position. Administration officials acknowledged that unlike past criticisms from lawmakers, the comments by the generals ?- who say they have only military objectives in mind ?- could carry extra weight.

Consequently, administration officials were quick to note that supportive generals were stepping forward to give television interviews. They indicated that they were far more comfortable seeing retired generals fight it out on the airwaves rather than having to debate uniformed war critics themselves from the civilian confines of the White House.

Hours after the president released his statement Friday, two prominent retired generals, Richard B. Myers and Tommy Franks, moved to defend Mr. Rumsfeld. General Myers also criticized the former commanders who had called for his ouster. But the men are not part of the group of retired officers who were the main recipients of the memorandum.

The memorandum states that the secretary of defense meets four times a week with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and goes on to note that he also "meets approximately twice each year with individual service chiefs to review general/flag officer personnel assignments and planning to the two-star officer level."

The retired generals' critical comments have come as the White House has tried to buoy support for the war.

On Saturday, Gen. Wesley K. Clark became the latest retired officer to call for the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld. General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

White House and Republican strategists have identified the war as the single largest reason for the president's sinking approval ratings and say it is adding to the challenges facing Congressional Republicans in the midterm elections.

On Saturday morning, two Republicans with close ties to the White House said that they were deeply concerned about the situation and that Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation could help improve the party's prospects for the November elections.

Both men were granted anonymity because they feared that speaking publicly would damage their relations with the White House. They also said they would be surprised if Mr. Bush did force Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, because he had tended to stand by his top aides in the face of public criticism.

A senior Republican Congressional adviser who was granted anonymity for the same reason said of the war: "There needs to be signals sent ?- major signals ?- that some things are going to be different. That could, or should, mean that changes must be made. If not, and things go exactly the way they are, our candidates will pay a dear price."

Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican whose campaign opponent has made Mr. Shays's support for the war an issue, said Saturday that he believed his prospects would be brighter if Mr. Rumsfeld were to go, though he has not called for his resignation.

"Do I think someone else would do a better job, and if someone else would do a better job, does it help me?" said Mr. Shays, who has previously criticized the conduct of the war. "Of course it would."

Mr. Rumsfeld still enjoys support in many Republican circles. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his resignation would be a mistake.

"If this were to happen," Mr. Cornyn said, "it would encourage demands for other members of the cabinet or other people close to the president to resign." Echoing administration officials, he said some good news out of Iraq could go a long way toward quieting critics.
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Nagourney contributed reporting from New York for this article.

nimh,

Your pointsw are well taken, and I will post some links, and perhaps a few words.

But generally speaking, people are less likely to do something that involves work, or an extra step. If folks wo n't read material that is handed to them here, why should I think that they will go to the length of clicking on a link, when they don't know if they would be interested in the article.

Maybe Robert Novak can do an article about how those generals critical of Rummy got their positions because their wives recommended them.

Doesn't Cheney have a new chief of staff that can leak information damaging to them?

Permission to Speak Freely, Sir
Permission to Speak Freely, Sir
By Stephen Pizzo
News for Real
Saturday 15 April 2006

I am sorry that high school and college kids no longer have to face a couple of years of mandatory military service. That may be a strange thing to say for a guy who protested the draft back in the '60s. Maybe it's the inevitable aging process. Or maybe it's the perspective you get from the higher altitude of experience.

What got me thinking about this were the extraordinary statements being made by recently retired U.S. generals. Those who have never served in the military don't understand how extraordinary it is for career military officers to say the things these guys are saying about their former civilian superiors.

I hit Marine Corps bootcamp on July 7, 1965, a wimpy kid from suburbia. The first thing we were told was that we were the lowest forms of life on earth - and that meant lower than civilians. I was to learn as time went on that this was not just drill instructor blather. It was a genuine, deeply ingrained belief that permeated the highest ranks of the military for civilian control. We were repeatedly told that the lowest civilian we met on the street outranked the highest grade military officer. And that was not show. They believed it, not just as a principle, but a sacred trust.

Those who never served will likely see that as corny, empty rhetoric, window dressing, quaint - at best. But those who did serve know of what I speak. We get it. That's one reason I bemoan that two generations of kids have since been spared a stint in uniform. It changed my life in ways I now understand and appreciate in ways I could not back then.

This is not a column about reinstituting the draft. I just want to make the case that you pay close and respectful attention to the recent statements by retired top Pentagon brass. Because never in my life did I ever expect to hear these kinds of things coming out of the mouths of such men. Never. Here's a sampler:

"[Donald Rumsfeld] has proved himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."
-General Paul Eaton, who oversaw training of Iraqi army troops, 2003-2004

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there."
-retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.

"I think we need a fresh start … We need leadership up there (the Pentagon) that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them."
-Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, 2004-2005

We won't get fooled again … Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach should be replaced."
-Marines Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000-2002

"The problem is that we've wasted three years … absolutely, Rumsfeld should resign."
-Marines Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command

"A lot of them [other generals] are hugely frustrated. Rumsfeld gave the impression that military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war.
-Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, former commander of Marines forces in the Pacific Theater

"Everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out. [Rumsfeld and his advisers have] made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict."
-Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs
The administration is trying to counter these devastating statements by noting that none of the generals voiced such reservations during the lead-up to the war. And, because so many Americans now lack any direct experience with the military, the tactic may just work. After all, it's easy to dismiss these retired generals just that easily. "So, where were your qualms when we really need them, general?"

I know the answer to that question - and it's not the answer the Bushies want you to get.

When an officer has a particularly sticky problem with the actions or orders of a superior officer, s/he can "request permission to speak freely, sir."

Well, that was tried, by Army Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was promptly and unceremoniously "****-canned." (Another term my fellow vets may find familiar.)

The Pentagon's civilian leaders sent a clear message to the rest of the Pentagon brass: "Do what we want, or we'll find a junior officer who will."

With the "permission to speak freely" option off the table, the brass was left only with their prime directive: Civilians rule.

So, their silence leading up to war was not cowardice or careerism, as some have suggested. It was instead the manifestation of that deeply ingrained principle that civilians not only outrank them, but that the most dangerous thing that can happen in a democracy is for the military to start preempting civilian leadership.

We can quibble over that notion, of course. We can wave around the Nuremberg principle that "just following orders" is no defense for wrongdoing. I agree. But let me tell you, my experience in the military left me with a deep respect for the way the American military views its place in our democracy. They really do believe civilians rule. I would have it no other way. And neither should you.

Which is why we old vets understand better than most how gut-wrenching it must have been for these recently retired officers to go public. I am certain it was not the way they wanted to end their lifetimes of service to their country. Because, as far as these men are concerned, under normal circumstances, such behavior smacks of treason.

Retired two-star Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Big Red One (the Army's 1st Infantry Division) in Iraq until November, said Rumsfeld must go for ignoring and intimidating career officers. "You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense. (Full Story)

So, no one should take their statements lightly. This is serious business … especially at the very moment these same civilian leaders are grunting eagerly over satellite images of Iran.
--------------------------------------------

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

I'll read it sumac! Honestly, I do read all of them until I notice that I am rereading something that has already be posted.

An article in my newspaper today raised an interesting point, I'll have to seek out the article but basically it said that this current speaking out by retired Generals could actually hurt the ability of active duty officers to do their jobs as it sows suspicion and mistrust between the military and its civilian control.

What I found online differs a bit from what my paper said:




My paper adds...

He also said he feared the public statements would "poison the civil-military relationship inside the Pentagon and with the president" sowing mistrust between senior civilians and officers.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16generals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

OK. boomer, you're on.

You quoted a passage above:



From what we have been reading, the civil-military relationship was already seriously damaged, even before any of the retired generals opened their mouths.

It has been a fairly quiet day regarding this topic. Other than NM Gov. Bill Richardson making a statement basically suuporting the retired generals who spoke out, I haven't run across anything else.

The latest Rasmussen poll could the first indicator that the generals are hurting Bush more than Miers or New Orleans ever did ...

Yes, sumac, I agree that the relationship was already damaged but I think it was probably more functional than it is now.

I do think if either "side" starts holding back ideas/information/whatever for fear of what someone might say down the road that we could really be in for some big trouble.

From BBB's post above:



I think this is BIG and IMPORTANT.

That's a damn complex issue, isn't it?


I am aware that Rumsfeld rode roughshod over the opinions of most of the senior military people in the Pentagon, and expert Middle east opinion in going to war, and in insisting on the small force in so doing.

But...the military lawyers who have spoken out on the illegality of Guantanamo, torture etc.....are speaking as professionals, just as I have a professional obligation to speak out against MY employer if they are violating legal and professional standards.


Re the generals...I understand the problem, but is there not sometimes an overriding moral imperative to speak?

At what point does this become so, and override the imperative not to challenge civilian authority?

With Bush? With Hitler? With Stalin? With Noriega?


It seems to me the retired generals are providing a professional opinion....that people still inside may be encouraging them is more concerning.


Damned if I know.


What are the historical precedents in your country?

I have stated this before in another post but it applies here as well. The reason that the generals are waiting until after they retire to call for Rumsfeld's resignation is because if they do it while still on active duty they can and will be punished under Article 88 of the UCMJ. This article prohibits ANY officer in the US military from saying ANYTHING derogatory about ANY ELECTED official which also includes Cabinet members.

This article has been in place for about 100+ years. Any officer who disagrees with this article has the simple choice of resigning his or her commission. Once we are in the military we vow to follow the orders of those appointed above us. Public opinion is not part of our enlistment oath or the oath officers take.

Once the Civilians appointed above us make a decision involving armed force we are then obligated to obey those orders.

And, just remember that through out ALL of American history, there has never been 100% agreement by the civilian population obout our being in war. This also includes WW's I & II.

that ends my class on basic US military obedience.

It is a complex issue, dlowan.

I think what ralpheb is saying is the biggest reason it is so complex. I think that within the militray the over-riding moral imperative is to follow orders.

From my own strange perspective of inside/outside I do understand this even though it sometimes pains me.

It is so hard for me to find the balance that I can't even imagine what the inside/inside people have to deal with.

Well, yes...but I beieve the Nuremberg trials.... just as one influence...established a belief that there are limits to when one ought to follow orders?


That soldiers have a responsibility not to follow some orders?

We on the inside follow the orders. We are guided by things such as the Genieva Convention, the Articles of War and the Rules of Engagement. We do our best (I hope that holds true for all people wearing th US uniform) and then we go home and kiss and hug our families. And, I hope my fellow brothers and sisters use their stong moral values to get them through everything.
And yes, it is an internal conflict, but it is one that we all chose to accept.

I think we all get that there are laws against speaking out while still in the military, Ralpheb...part of this discussion is about the effect on the fabric of democracy if serving generals encourge others to speak out...and when morality might require them to do this, but at what cost?

I would hope that if I were a serving soldier I WOULD speak out, and take the legal consequences, if I saw real evil...as some are beginning to do.

But, as you say, no war has total support.

That was very informative, ralpheb.

(Would it mean as a consequence, military personal can't be political active ... in an opposition party for example?)

Other polls have shown similar numbers. If the generals have a real impact, it should go down further. I would be interested in seeing a breakout by various groupings of people; such as military families and communities.

There is nothing wrong with politicians being in charge of starting a war. It seems wrong that civilians should tell generals how to fight battles.
.
Kissinger was another civilian who liked to order generals around. He was in charge and had a very low opinion of the military.
...............................
quote:
Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.
.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266114.shtml