| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Generals speak out. Rumsfeld resignation calls grow |
| 2006-04-17 |
| Pressure is growing on US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with more retired generals calling for him to resign over the Iraq war. The White House has said it is happy with the way Mr Rumsfeld is handling his job and the situation in Iraq. But the backing comes as the number of retired generals calling for him to be replaced has risen to six. It is being described as a rebellion led by those who know Mr Rumsfeld's handling of the war from the inside. The two most recent retired generals to voice their unease about Mr Rumsfeld's handling of the war are Maj Gen John Riggs and Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, both of the Army. Balance at the link. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #24 The whining of these generals is sickening, my god any general in history that fought a war would love to have the casualty rate the U.S. has now. Was it not at Parkersburg were 3000 men died in 10 minutes and the attack was considered a success. I don't like losing soldiers either, but the rates are low considering what could have been. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-04-17 22:54 |
| #23 this is an absolute no brain-er, its just a s*it sandwich manufactured by the media whores. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-04-17 21:29 |
| #22 I'm posting the WSJ's response as to what's behind the carping at Rumsfeld (I stand by the man) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-17 19:55 |
| #21 The jury is still out, and won't return a verdict on Iraq until the matter of Iran is settled. |
| Posted by: Unaiger Ebbaique6879 2006-04-17 19:09 |
| #20 Part of the mess after the fall of Saddam was the stupid state department crying all the way to the white house not to let the "Hand of occupation" weigh heavily on the Iraqis. So, looters and the beginning of the insurgancy were allowed to grow without restraint. The state department and the civies and the pentagon once again screwed up everything by surrendering halfway through the attack on Fallujah (which was going very, very well) when the MSM and the terrorist propegandists turned up the media heat. Both of those led directly to the mess that we are cleaning up today. It will take longer with more blood and treasure than it would if we had just OCCUPIED and enforced the law in the first place and then stomped a mudhole in some terrorist ass. The civilian leadership at the State department is the primary failure of this whole thing. Rummie's is listening to them. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-17 18:49 |
| #19 Right again LH. Franks words will have a lot of power when he weighs in. As for occupation force size, I agree with the critics. I admit that I don't actually know anything about it, but the numbers seemed miserly to me. I read the book Cobra II and it does look like he did not concern himself sufficiently or at least dismissed some solid advice on this matter. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-04-17 17:34 |
| #18 "Force size was obviously suficient for taking Iraq. I don't know about security afterward though. Can't hardly expect Rummy to have a crystal ball. Nation building is far from an exact science" No its not. Thats why shinseki took a swag at it. He took the number of troops needed to keep order (just barely) in Kosovo, and multiplied by the ratio of the population of Iraq to the population of Kosovo. He got undercut for that - they named his successor a year before his terms was up. So the issue is not giving the commanders everything they wanted, its giving them an amount based on a sound plan. Democracy IS messy. But what was happening in Baghdad in late spring and summer of '03 wasnt the inevitable messiness of democracy. It was a collapse of order. Yup, this was a hard place to keep secure, as compared with Germany and Japan. But that was predicted before the war, and why more troops were called for. And no, from what ive heard most of these generals are not Democrats - well Wesley Clark IS, and id dismiss his complaints right off. Hell Id dismiss Zinnis complaints right off. Its the guys who had combat commands in Iraq that im listening to. Franks - does he explain why he didnt ask for more troops for the OCCUPATION? I agree, that Franks is getting to get dragged into this, and what he says will matter. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-17 16:27 |
| #17 Force size was obviously suficient for taking Iraq. I don't know about security afterward though. Can't hardly expect Rummy to have a crystal ball. Nation building is far from an exact science. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-04-17 16:06 |
| #16 How many of these General's are former Clinton stooges that needed to be replaced in any case? This being an election year, should there be any surprise that partisan ex-General's would attack this administration and the SECDEF on an issue where the Admin gets it's strongest support? GWOT. |
| Posted by: DonM 2006-04-17 16:04 |
| #15 The alternative COAs ("plans") would all be part of JOPES, either as part of the deliberate planning process or part of Crisis Action Planning and would all be classified. Anyone who has been through phase one of JPME should know that. Phase one is supposed to be taught at all of the service staff colleges. I was taught that once you are retired or have resigned, you could spout off all you want politically. Eisenhower could not have run for president otherwise. When you are wearing the uniform, there are tremendous restrictions on what you can say. While you can accuse the retired generals of poor judgment or lousy politics, you cannot accuse then of breaking any laws. The lead editorial in Army magazine (no link) this month was a Rumsfeld basher. Army is not an official publication of the Army, but rather the voice of the Association of the US Army. I can guarantee you that it would not have been published if Gordon Sullivan and Barry McCaffery and their boys had not bought off on it. I don't know the overall number of anti-Rumsfeld officers, but it's more than six. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-04-17 16:01 |
| #14 Thank you for that report, Verlaine. I wish I could've been there to see their faces when you posed that little question. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-04-17 15:18 |
| #13 I read General Tommy Franks' book. Nowhere in there does he say Rumsfield denied him anything he asked for. The Turks screwed us on the 4th Infantry Division deployment. We had considerably less transport and logistics capability than in the war to free Kuwait. It's a careful balance of how many troops you need, how many you REALLY need, and how to get them the bullets and beans. It really sounds to me thses guys don't like Rumsfield because he didn't treat them as they felt Generals should be treated, he has redifined the major combat unit down from the Division to the Brigade (let's face it, after the initial invasion division sized operations are unweildy) and they don't like the loss of power. Cry me a river. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-04-17 14:54 |
| #12 LH - ever hear of Shay's rebellion? Ever hear of something like the American Civil War. Yep, democracy can certainly be messy. Oh, by the way, how long between the surrender of Germany and Japan with relatively docile populations did it take for the first democratically elected government to take its seat? How long before they were able to field a defense force of significant size? And I am just trying to remember how both were subject to hostile neighbors supplying both volunteers and munitions to keep it all stable. Tell me the name of an American [or otherwise] general officer who ever said - 'No, thank you, I already have enough troops, equipment and material to do the job?' |
| Posted by: Omimp Craick7328 2006-04-17 14:53 |
| #11 What mistakes? 'Rumsfeld also has said he relied on what his commanders in the field told him. "I think the secretary's comments are disingenuous," Batiste told Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "I think he built that plan the way he wanted to, without regard to the Centcom work for ten years to build a deliberate plan." Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that was later provided. "And we all remember what happened to him," said Batiste. "He was retired early, and the Secretary of Defense did not go to his retirement ceremony." ' The number of troops. Not to break the Iraqi army, but to keep order afterwards. Which Rummy claimed was kept. "thats just one guy with a vase, that the media keep showing again and again" remember that? "This is democracy, and democracy is messy" Remember that? At a time when Iraq was falling into the disorder that would make rebuilding, and defeating the insurgency so difficult. Such arrogance. Such irresponsibility. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-17 14:28 |
| #10 Ed: do you have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths or do you just speak out of your ass? So why did you bring it up? Verlaine: when I reminded him the US succeeded so fast in 2003 at such a low cost That's an odd definition of success you have there. And a nice strawman. No one's arguing about how well Iraq was taken. It's what came after that's the sticking point. |
| Posted by: RR 2006-04-17 14:21 |
| #9 OldPatriot, glad you pointed this out. It's been bothering me since the outset (long before this current silly MSM/Beltway jihad against Rummy) - just what - EXACTLY - were the mistakes, and EXACTLY what was the alternative visible at the time and EXACTLY what would have been its likely consequences, to include risks and trade-offs. So today I had a chance to pose this question - in condensed form - to a correspondent for a major news outfit here. First, confusion - he of course seized on "more troops!", but appeared to think that (widely and enthusiastically echoed but empty mantra) so-called "criticism" was most meaningful in relation to the 3-week kinetic war in 2003. Next, when I reminded him the US succeeded so fast in 2003 at such a low cost that we had trouble staying out of our own way, he had nothing to say. This stuff is literally empty sloganeering, unexamined in any respect. One substantive query, and poof - nothing there at all. He and his colleagues smiled and agreed when I playfully suggested that, oh, just maybe, some reporter could grill a Rummy critic next time one popped up. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2006-04-17 13:53 |
| #8 I find it very interesting that these Generals all come out at relatively the same time. Many said the Rumsfeld "micro" managed his generals. That rich. If I had a dollar for everytime a general micromanaged commanders or staff, I would own the Army. Its the same for going in front of him not prepared. Rummie would rip generals apart for not being informed and prepared on their briefing topic. What a big surprise! Almost all generals are like that as well. The irony is delicious. |
| Posted by: Armylife 2006-04-17 13:51 |
| #7 RR, do you have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths or do you just speak out of your ass? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-17 13:06 |
| #6 It would be dangerous for the military community, retired or not, to be given the authority to 'dictate' to its civilian bosses (step one on the way to military coup mentality.) The actual 'issues' - things like 'too small an invading/occupying force', 'should not have disbanded Iraqi army' etc. are FAR from having been clear mistakes. The assumption is generally that the outcome of the path not taken would have been the 'right' path, but there are trade-offs everywhere, and that path would more likely have been even more wrong. But we'll NEVER KNOW, so it is the easy political thing to argue. From what I can gather, the real grievance with Sec. Rumsfeld is his 'style' - it is not an uncommon executive style, and it often works, but it definitely makes a lot of people uncomfortable. That style confronts, challenges, and belittles, and its practitioner can seem like a real a**, but it is pretty efficient at forcing people to be prepared, to know their stuff, and to be able and willing to defend themselves. Generals may not be used to being treated like grunts in Basic. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-04-17 13:05 |
| #5 9000 living retired generals All of them support Rumsfeld? How do you know? |
| Posted by: RR 2006-04-17 12:58 |
| #4 KEY WORD!! RETIRED!! |
| Posted by: ARMYGUY 2006-04-17 12:30 |
| #3 All these retired generals say there were terrible mistakes made, and that Sec. Rumsfeld didn't listen to them. I haven't heard word ONE about what was done wrong, what their "better ideas" might have been, or how they recommended doing things differently. I think the whole thing is retaliation for Rumsfeld's reorganization and the downgrading of the importance of general officers (combat brigade-size units instead of divisions, more special forces, etc.). Until I see something I can evaluate and judge, I won't believe the words of these six whining a$$holes. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-04-17 12:28 |
| #2 9000 living retired generals. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-17 12:21 |
| #1 Watch the MSM promote the number like they do the casualty figures in Iraq. Since Iraq has quieted down, I guess this is the next MSM push to run America. Six huh? Just how many retired generals are there? Somehow MSM has to portray these guys as 'victims' to qualify as special status for 'moral authority' to trump thousands. |
| Posted by: Omimp Craick7328 2006-04-17 12:15 |