| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| The Generals War - What's Behind The Attacks On Rumsfeld |
| 2006-04-17 |
| I stand by Rumsfeld - his management of the overthrow of Afghanistan and Iraq, The Face-to-face with Syria and Iran and NK, and the capitulation of Libya would be called the masterpiece of American power if he were a Democrat So when did Generals cease to be responsible for outcomes in war? We ask that question amid the latest calls by certain retired senior military officers for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over U.S. difficulties in Iraq. Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr., for one, was quoted last week as saying the Defense Secretary's "absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq" mean he is not "the right person" to continue leading the Pentagon. Mr. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq, joins other ex-uniformed Iraq War critics such as former Centcom Commander Anthony Zinni and retired Army Major General John Batiste. But there's far more behind this firefight than Mr. Rumsfeld's performance. Mr. Zinni in particular neither fought the Iraq War nor supported it in the first place. He is a longtime advocate of "realism" in the Middle East, which is fancy-speak for leaving Arab dictators alone in the name of "stability." What Mr. Zinni really opposes is President Bush's "forward strategy of freedom," not the means by which the Administration has waged the Iraq campaign. As for those who've raised the issue of competence, we'd be more persuaded if they weren't so impossibly vague. If their critique is that Mr. Rumsfeld underestimated the Sunni insurgency, well, so did the CIA and military intelligence. Retired General Tommy Franks, who led and planned the campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein, took a victory lap after the invasion even as the insurgency gathered strength. If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation. Our point here isn't to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there's a reason the word "snafu" began as a military acronym whose meaning we can't reprint in a family newspaper. But if we're going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it. A recent article by former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the Center for Defense Information details how the U.S. advance on Baghdad in March and April 2003 was slowed against Mr. Rumsfeld's wishes by overcautious commanders on the scene. That may have allowed Saddam and many of his supporters to escape to fight the insurgency. General Abizaid also resisted the first assault on Fallujah, in April 2004, which sent a signal of U.S. political weakness. We don't agree with all of Mr. Macgregor's points, but it is likely that these Rumsfeld critics are trying to write their own first, rough draft of historic blame shifting. Our own view is that the worst mistakes in Iraq have been more political than military, especially in not establishing a provisional Iraqi government from the very start. Instead, the U.S. allowed itself to be portrayed as occupiers, a fact that the insurgency exploited. But the blame for that goes well beyond Mr. Rumsfeld--and would extend to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and to Mr. Bush himself. Mr. Rumsfeld's largest mistake may have been giving L. Paul Bremer too free a hand to govern like a viceroy in 2003 and 2004 when a more rapid turnover of political power to Iraqis, and more rapid training of Iraqi forces, might have made a big difference. More than anything else, that unnecessary delay in Iraq's political and self-defense evolution has contributed to the current instability. But that is for the historians to sort out. What matters now is doing what it takes to prevail in Iraq, setting up a new government and defeating the terrorists. How firing Mr. Rumsfeld will help in any of this, none of the critics say. They certainly aren't offering any better military strategy for victory. More than likely, Mr. Rumsfeld's departure would create new problems, starting with a crisis of confidence in Iraq about American staying power. What do Mr. Rumsfeld's critics imagine Iraqis think as they watch former commanders assigning blame? And how would a Rumsfeld resignation contribute to the credible threat of force necessary to meet America's next major security challenge, which is Iran's attempt to build a nuclear bomb? Sacking the Defense Secretary mid-conflict would only reinforce the Iranian mullahs' belief that they have nothing to worry about because Americans have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in their part of the world. The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration. Mr. Rumsfeld's departure has been loudly demanded in various quarters for a couple of years now, without much success, and on Friday Mr. Bush said he still has his every confidence. We suspect the President understands that most of those calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's head are really longing for his. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #6 Bullshit RR. Dont take much stones RR to bitch in a non-specific way the way you do. How about taking a stand? Name the better strategy. Explain it. And name who could be called in as SecDef that could execute this in the poisonous political climate the press and left have created. I'll put holes in the bullseye on anything you can dredge up from 500m. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-04-17 23:50 |
| #5 RR's trolling |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-17 23:48 |
| #4 BS RR Polling, how many former Saddam supports did they include in that little poll? Considering that both military and civilian deaths are down from a year ago, I'd say the security is improving. As far as security goes, that in the end is up to the Iraqis themselves. I don't care if its a bunch of AK47 wankers in South LA or Baghdad, the locals are the ones who need to participate if they want their neighborhoods cleaned of the troublemakers. BTW, how successful has the in place LE done in purging the gangs from LA? Miami? Detroit? etc. They've been working on it for how many years with success? |
| Posted by: Slaviter Claick5725 2006-04-17 23:30 |
| #3 the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation. Bullshit. Someone's not paying attention to the polling done on the ground in Iraq. People above all else want security, blaming the lack thereof on the US. So clearly this idea ain't working. Strike one Rumsfeld. They certainly aren't offering any better military strategy for victory. Some of them are. It's just that it's falling on deaf ears. |
| Posted by: RR 2006-04-17 22:59 |
| #2 For me it looks like these Generals are worried - they know, like the Lefties and Anti-Amer agendists do, that IRAN = NORTH KOREA = TAIWAN, etc bears high risk of geopolitical- and regional/global nuclear confrontation between the USA-NATO/West versus Russia-China. The GWOT for the US-International Lefts > forcing America under national and global Socialist order, whether voluntarily or by armed force - 'tis also why the RINO CINO agenda-less US Dems are such for a reason, as anything detrimental or catastrophic must be blamed on America, the GOP-Right, Americanism-Westernism includ Democapitalism, and of course the American people/nation in general. CHICOMS OR LEFTY INTELLECTUALS CAN'T HAVE A PRE-PLANNED, AMERICA-BLAMED, US-SPECIFIC NATION-WIDE HOLOCAUST IFF AMERICAN PEOPLES-SOCIETY-ETHNIC GROUPS AREN'T BLAMED FOR ANYTHING, NOW CAN THEY??? There's always Saint Bill's "Yes, I lied to you = did I?" surreal, pc, lawyerly "MONICA DEFENSE"!? Iff AMerica needs a draft, lets have a draft - no shame in it as ALL AMERICANS ARE IN A FIGHT FOR OUR SURVIVAL, FREEDOMS. SOVEREIGNTY, BELIEF SYSTEMS, AND WAY OF LIFE ETC. IFF AMERICA LOSES, AMER'S ENEMIES ARE GONNA KILL US, ALL OF US, ANYWAYS. DRAFT > USA can always "trim the fat" once the war is de facto won. WHAT THE LEFT WANTS IS EITHER "VICHY AMERIKA" SSR = AMERICA DESTROYED - AMERICA CAN WAGE WAR/FIGHT TO WIN EMPIRE BUT THEN SURRENDER OR FORCIBLY LOSE IT AFTERWARDS. FOr me thats grotesquely immoral, treasonous, perverse and just plain D***'ed EVIL. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-17 22:14 |
| #1 Thanks for posting this, Frank. A nice summation of the current situation. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-04-17 20:46 |