0
   

Retired Generals support Rumsfeld

 
 
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 01:57 pm
Battle of the generals continues with article defending Rumsfeld
Four retired generals fire back at critics of defense secretary

Monday, April 17, 2006; Posted: 2:13 p.m. EDT (18:13 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The media skirmishes over Donald Rumsfeld continued Monday, as four retired generals wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal defending the secretary of defense and suggesting that some of his critics don't understand the war on terrorism.

"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats," the article said.

"Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past ... which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare," the writers continued.

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

The op-ed piece was written by retired Lt. Gen. John Crosby, former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, former assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force; retired Maj. Gen. Buron Moore, U.S. Air Force, who was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm; and retired Maj. Gen Paul Vallely, former deputy commander of the U.S.. Army, Pacific.

Of the two Rumsfeld critics the article singled out, retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni is a former chief of the U.S. Central Command; retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002.

In The Wall Street Journal article, the four retired generals wrote, "We do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war," and called the Rumsfeld critics' feelings "irrelevant."

The article concluded, "So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions."

At the White House briefing on Monday, press secretary Scott McClellan reiterated President Bush's support for Rumsfeld, and mentioned The Wall Street Journal article as evidence that retired generals stand behind the defense secretary.

Also on Monday, U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Tennessee Democrat running for his state's Senate seat, suggested replacing Rumsfeld with former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"General Powell's experience resolving complicated and sensitive national security challenges is needed now more than ever. He will bring a respect for our military, a willingness to listen, a capacity to admit and correct mistakes, and an attention to detail that is absent now in the top job at the Pentagon," Ford said in a press release.

And CNN learned that the Pentagon has called a Tuesday meeting of all of its "TV generals," retired generals who serve as analysts for television and newspapers and get regular Pentagon briefings. They're expected to meet with Rumsfeld and discuss the current controversy.

The Pentagon made public Sunday a memorandum it sent to supporters and critics of Donald Rumsfeld, after a week in which several retired generals called for the defense secretary's resignation.

The memo is an apparent attempt to challenge accusations that Rumsfeld has not adequately considered the views of U.S. military leaders in formulating decisions. Its existence was first reported in Sunday editions of The New York Times.

The memo came after six retired generals, including commanders who lead combat troop in Iraq, last week publicly stated their criticism of Rumsfeld's leadership and called for his resignation.

Retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the retired generals' criticism is "inappropriate, because it's not the military that judges our civilian bosses."

Rumsfeld also drew support from retired Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the former deputy chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East. Writing in The New York Times, DeLong said the generals were wrong to blame Rumsfeld for the problems the United States now faces in Iraq, "and when they do so in a time of war, the rest of the world watches."

On the Sunday news shows, Rumsfeld received the support of some GOP politicians, while Democrats continued to call for his resignation. (Full story)

Bush said Friday that Rumsfeld has his "full support and deepest appreciation." The president said he had spoken with his defense secretary hours earlier and expressed "strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation." (Full story)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 704 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 02:15 pm
the proof of the pudding is in the eating... no matter who says what... and Iraq is a gigantic mess... the American electorate is disgusted and their morale is broken.... world opinion of us is negative by and large.... the White House is running scared and bush can't get anything done.... I'd say that no matter whether Rummy is part of the problem or merely being scapegoated doesn't matter... he's helped make an overall mess of things....
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 02:15 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/RumsfeldFanClub.jpg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 09:21 pm
It's interesting that this thread doesn't see as much attention as the one where some retired generals are opposed to Rumsfeld...
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 09:42 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's interesting that this thread doesn't see as much attention as the one where some retired generals are opposed to Rumsfeld...


Any person with an iota of ability to think critically would know why.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 09:42 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's interesting that this thread doesn't see as much attention as the one where some retired generals are opposed to Rumsfeld...


Want to know why? Here you go:

Quote:
the four retired generals wrote, "We do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war," and called the Rumsfeld critics' feelings "irrelevant."

The article concluded, "So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions."


Maybe they would have a point if the war was going even half as well as we were told it would. But time and again it has been shown that there have been serious f*ckups by this administration in this regard (in many instances ignoring the advice of very experienced military men who's job it is to know these things).

I can fully understand a general seeing the situation go from bad to worse, to worse still, wanting to clear the air as to who is responsible for all these screwups. After all, it's not the soldiers who are making these mistakes, or the commanders or generals whose input is dismissed when they try to speak their mind. Ultimately, all they can do is follow orders. And Rumsfeld has been the one calling the shots.

He and this administration have made statement after statement that has contradicted reccomendations by experienced military men, and has repeatedly downplayed very valid criticisms. Now that the sh*t has hit the fan, he has to take responsibility.

Anyway, the whole "don't criticize during war" theme has been played out by this administration. People are starting to see through that nonsense. Bush's credibility is shot. He's in a tailspin and it shows.

As for the whole "History will grade their decisions" comment... it's the perfect out. "Sure, it may look like crap now, but just you wait! What's that? It may take 50 years to ultimately see it? Oh well."
It's a great way to dismiss criticisms while being able to flaunt the "I'm still right, and your wrong" attitude.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4847/rummy19ng.gif
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 01:25 am
Kick Rummy out before we win. If we win in Iraq, its over for the Democrats and they know it. This is just another beat of the drum in the drumbeat of failure. The U.S. is rotten, Bush lied, Hussein never had WMD, the terrorists are nice if we would just treat them nice, and yes, the U.S. is an arrogant, aggressive country that does not deserve to win, we are creating more terrorists when we kill some off, and Iraq was better off under Hussein. Kick Rummy out, impeach Bush, elect a Democrat, get rid of all our weapons, join the world community, be nice, and we will all live happily ever after.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 02:46 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
the proof of the pudding is in the eating... no matter who says what... and Iraq is a gigantic mess... the American electorate is disgusted and their morale is broken.... world opinion of us is negative by and large.... the White House is running scared and bush can't get anything done.... I'd say that no matter whether Rummy is part of the problem or merely being scapegoated doesn't matter... he's helped make an overall mess of things....

There might be merit in the idea that the Iraq war isn't being prosecuted effectively (although not winning a war quickly doesn't necessarily indicate bad strategy), but that's not to say that it shouldn't have been initiated.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 08:07 am
Did they actually support Rumsfeld, or just denigrate others for criticizing him? There is a difference.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 07:00 pm
http://www.economist.com/images/20060422/D1606US0.jpg
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 09:40 am
What's this? No defense from McGentrix yet? Your slipping, man!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Retired Generals support Rumsfeld
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:27:29