Retired Generals finally calling for Rumsfeld resignation

A New Storm on the Pentagon's Horizon?
A New Storm on the Pentagon's Horizon?
By James Pinkerton
4/16/06

One particular cloud on the horizon might be no bigger than a fist right now, but everyone in the Pentagon knows that this cloud could explode with reputation-shattering thunder and lightning. That cloud has a name: H.R. McMaster.

On PBS' "Washington Week in Review" show earlier this evening, John Hendren, military correspondent for NPR, was asked about the "generals' revolt" against Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

You know, the six retired generals whose picture appeared on the front page of Friday's New York Times: all have criticized Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war and called for his resignation. Hendren and the other panelists speculated that additional generals might soon be climbing on the anti-Rumsfeld bandwagon. But why now? Why speak up more than three years after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Hendren said that one reason the top brass might be positioning themselves against Rumsfeld is that they're worried that H.R. McMaster is writing another book.

H.R. who? He's not exactly a household name, but it's safe to say that every senior officer in the US Army, and probably in the entire Defense Department, knows exactly who H.R. McMaster is. He is the author of a 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. Zeroing on 1965, the hinge year of escalation for the Vietnam War, McMaster wrote in his conclusion, "Lyndon Johnson, with the assistance of Robert S. McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had set the stage for America's disaster in Vietnam." Hot stuff, especially since "dereliction of duty" rings bells inside the armed services; it is, after all, a specific term of legal art, punishable according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The book was one long indictment. It had zero legal force, but maximum moral force.

Even hotter was the identity of McMaster. He was no college professor or foreign service officer. A 1984 graduate of West Point, he held a combat command in the 1991 Gulf War and, at the time of his authorship, was an active-duty Army officer. Yet even so, he was fierce in his criticism of two top Army men, Gen. Earle Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Harold K. Johnson, Army Chief of Staff. They were among the "five silent men"--the five being the joint chiefs as a body--whom McMaster savaged.

It's important to note that McMaster was not writing as a dove. His book begins from the proposition that Vietnam was winnable--if it had been fought the right way. And the right way, in the author's view, was the all-out mobilization of the US military. But that's not what President Johnson wanted; LBJ wanted guns (not losing Vietnam) but he wanted butter (the Great Society and low-tax domestic prosperity) even more. And so the Joint Chiefs put aside their doubts about the military strategy and saluted the Commander-in-Chief's decision; none of them resigned in protest. Here's McMaster on one of the Chiefs: "Harold Johnson also went along with the president's decision, even though he knew that the failure to mobilize was a prescription for disaster both for his service and for the war. He also recognized that the decision to obscure the cost of the war was based on the president's desire to keep Vietnam 'very, very low key' in favor of Great Society legislation.'" But the general described himself as "tongue tied" during his tenure as Army chief of staff, 1964-1968. As a result, in McMaster's telling, the Army plunged into a no-win war, leaving Harold Johnson to "preside over the disintegration of the Army." Dereliction leading to disintegration: those were serious charges for one junior officer to hurl at his senior predecessors.

But here's what's hottest of all. Nearly a decade after the publication of his book, H.R. McMaster is still in the US Army; to its credit, the military has often made room for iconoclasts in its ranks. So despite McMaster's strong words--or perhaps because of them--he's been promoted; he's now a bird colonel. Indeed, he is on duty in Iraq right now, commanding the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. Reporters know exactly who he is, but so far at least, he has said nothing that might shake things up. And who knows, maybe he never will.

But the last time H.R. McMaster raised his public voice, he raised it in anger, and the Pentagon was rocked, as if it had been hit by an electrical storm.

And now, according to one on-the-scene reporter, the storm is gathering once again. And many top officers are scrambling to position themselves so that they can ride it out without getting blasted.

Behind the Military Revolt
Behind the Military Revolt
By Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for The Post.
Sunday 16 April 2006

The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct - MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.

First, it is clear that the retired generals - six so far, with more likely to come - surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't - or don't have the opportunity to - speak."

These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing.

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)

This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations - perhaps soon - from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.

Facing this dilemma, Bush's first reaction was exactly what anyone who knows him would have expected: He issued strong affirmations of "full support" for Rumsfeld, even going out of his way to refer to the secretary of defense as "Don" several times in his statements. (This was in marked contrast to his tepid comments on the future of his other embattled Cabinet officer, Treasury Secretary John Snow. Washington got the point.)

In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because "someone must be held accountable." Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform.

The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld's famous "long screwdriver," with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom reexamination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change.

That first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge - and they will - if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes, Walter, it does mean that. Serving military personnel are not supposed to even affiliate with a particular political party.

What ralpheb is saying and what the writer of the article that I posted just above really get to the heart of the matter.

The citizens of America elect the leaders and the military works for the citizens therefore they are obligated to follow orders.

In an earlier post nimh asked BBB if she would feel the same way about military speaking out if Clinton were still president. That is a question that everyone needs to ask themselves.

I think soldiers do speak out when they witness something horrendous - think William Calley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley), Abu Ghraid. I'm sure there are countless other times but we need to get one of A2K's military historians in here because I'm am not that in the know.

Well, that's totally different to the situation here: uniformed soldiers are only not permitted to participate in political demonstrations.
But we have the principle of the "citizen in uniform": this principle presupposes that a citizen, even if in uniform, makes decisions in his function as a citizen and not in his function as a soldier - that he has in mind the interests of the whole of society, not the narrow interests of the military.
(So we have an officer as locality representative in the neighbouring village, who is a town councillor as well as two more officers are members of our town council. [A colonel and a captain, both now retired - a major general - still active - is member of the county council.])

Boomerang
Boomerang wrote: In an earlier post nimh asked BBB if she would feel the same way about military speaking out if Clinton were still president. That is a question that everyone needs to ask themselves.

I thought your question very insulting, implying that my feelings are based on political party loyalty. I didn't respond because I didn't want to divert attention from the topic of my thread with the usual Clinton diversion.

I wouldn't care which political party was in power. If you've read any of my political posts, you would know that I never voted for President Clinton. I'm apparently one of those rare citizens that put the interests of my country above any political party. Sadly, you seem not to and ascribe similar behavior to me. You are in error in your assumptions.

My concerns are for our troops, the survival, fitness and integrity of our military. I believe Rumsfeld and his cabal have been terribly destructive to our military. I support the generals who are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation (he should be fired) and do not call it an attempted political coup. Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. A coup would be against the President, not the Secretary. The Generals are not calling for Rumsfeld assination, they are asking that he resign. There is a big difference.

I remember very vividly the failure of the Generals to protest the civilian leadership of the Vietnam war.

Of the U.S. military, 58,226 were killed in action or classified as missing in action. A further 153,303 US military personnel were wounded to give total casualties of 211,529. The United States Army took the majority of the casualties with 38,179 killed and 96,802 wounded; the Marine Corps lost 14,836 killed and 51,392 wounded; the Navy 2,556 and 4,178; the Air Force lost 2,580 and 931; with the lowest deaths in terms of numbers and percentages among the branches being the Coast Guard, with seven dead and 60 wounded.

These numbers do not include the troop casualities of other countries and do not include the thousands of Vietnam troops and civilians.

I also remember the then Secretary of Defense's book in which he admitted the civilian leadership made terrible mistakes and would not listen to the wisdom of military leadership.

Why do we never learn from our past mistakes?

BBB

Thay's hilarious considering the Republican Party basically owns them.

Anon

There is a fear(real or imagined) that if the military were to make all the deciding decisions in regards to war that two things would happen. 1. the military would take over the country and 2. That they would always vote for military action. As I have stated before, and more than likely will state again, most military members I know would much rather not be involved in armed conflict.
But, armed conflict is a part of life and a part of world history. The only things we can do as part of the military is: 1. Vote! make our voices heard. The American military is for more involved politically than any other group.
2. establish and maintain a state of readiness incase we are needed.
I've been involved in the military a long time(well over 20 years) I knew that there was a good chance of being deployed. Would you rather have members of your military accept their mission, or do you want those people that stay in until something is coming around and then they bail out. Using sayings like: "I didn't sign up to go o war," or "I don't agree with that," or "I only came in for the college money."
There is a military saying "for one to be a good leader, he must first be a good follower." Our generals MUST obey the orders of those above them, just as I must obey the orders of my superiors. If the rest of the military sees tht their highers are not following orders there will be a severe break down in discipline. I will not debate whether Rumsfeld and Bush were correct or incorrect. I have been given my asssignments by those appointed above me. I will carry out my orders and my troops WILL carry out the orders I give them.

Sorry I rambled.

We're given minds to think with. In or out of uniform.

I have serious issues with this particular war.

Snood, If you wear the uniform you do whats ordered. You say yes sir, no sir, yes maam, no maam but you go where and when your told. Anyone who opts not to do that can make other decisions. It matters not at this point whether the war is right or wrong. If it is decided that we leave then we leave. What matters is that when we are finished we have fullfilled all the objectives and that we as individuals served with pride and honor and are not ashamed of what we see when we look in the mirror when we are home.

yes indeed, and only 3 times was I charged with insubordination. fully exonerated I may add.

You are you, and I am me. I have issues with this particular war. If I am deployed, I will not be going to Canada, I will go with my unit. But I do not believe in our mission in Iraq.
You're right - we do what we're ordered to do, because that's the vow we took. But I did not sell my soul and vow to mindlessly follow. If more soldiers had questioned the immoral insanity at Abu Ghraib, that mess might have been averted. If some of these generals would question the direction the war takes while they're still active, maybe more of the mission would make sense. Your jingoistic sabre rattling is wasted on me.
But I understand you have to say those things to keep up your morale while you're there.

How do you figure?

I remember reading that while most soldiers self identified themselves as Republicans that typically they held very liberal view regarding social issues.

Remember the 2000 Florida absent ballot vote from the military?? If they vote Republican, they vote for the Republican view! They vote for all the things that Republicans do and stand for! They vote for bigotry and hate for gays, they support a right wing party that is anything but liberal! Socially liberal ... that's hilarious!

Anon

There are generals who were hanged after WW2 for their crimes. All of them followed orders.
.
Some refused to obey immoral orders; one saved Paris from total destruction. One joined the anti-Hitler movement. One refused to let his men fight to the death.
..................................
http://www.thehistorynet.com/wwii/blparissavior/
.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERrommel.htm
.
http://www.answers.com/topic/friedrich-paulus

That's a mighty broad brush, Anon.

I went scouting around for the study I read. I haven't found it yet but I did come across this interesting article:



and....



Also from the article - and it was written in 2003 - I read this, which I thought pretained to this thread:



The article is pretty long but worth it if you have the time: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.wallace-wells.html

Are you trying to make some kind of moral equivalency with that comment?

Ooops sorry. I hit "code" instead of "quote".

The woman officer in charge of Abu Ghraib complained. She was removed and punished for her comments.
.
There are officers who don't follow orders like robots.

Detano, would you plese get your facts straight. She did not lose her job and was not punished for her comments. She was punished because the events happened under her command

Wow, I cant think of a single military man (in service) who fulfills a political office here, or even spoke out about political things ... I dunno.

Police chiefs (notably the one of Amsterdam, or the former one) have a annoying habit of sounding off their opinion about political matters tho, and I dont think thats right.

On the other hand we have a soldiers' trade union here, who have been known to speak up about the odd issue beyond soldiers' working conditions etc too... I think there was even a soldiers' representation in the anti-nukes demo of the 80s...