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?

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