| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Third retired general calls for Rummy to step down |
| 2006-04-10 |
| The three-star Marine Corps general who was the military's top operations officer before the invasion of Iraq expressed regret, in an essay published Sunday, that he did not more energetically question those who had ordered the nation to war. He also urged active-duty officers to speak out now if they had doubts about the war. Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who retired in late 2002, also called for replacing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and "many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach." He is the third retired senior officer in recent weeks to demand that Mr. Rumsfeld step down. In the essay, in this week's issue of Time magazine, General Newbold wrote, "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat — Al Qaeda." The decision to invade Iraq, he wrote, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results." Though some active-duty officers will say in private that they disagree with Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of Iraq, none have spoken out publicly. They attribute their silence to respect for civilian control of the military, as set in the Constitution — but some also say they know it would be professional suicide to speak up. "The officer corps is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but not their careers," said one combat veteran who says the Pentagon's civilian leadership made serious mistakes in Iraq, but has declined to voice his concerns for attribution. Many officers who served in Iraq also say privately that regardless of flawed war planning or early mistakes by civilian and military officers, the American public would hold the current officer corps responsible for failure in Iraq. These officers do not want to discuss doubts about the mission publicly now. General Newbold acknowledged these issues, saying he decided to go public only after "the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership" and in order to "offer a challenge to those still in uniform." A leader's responsibility "is to give voice to those who can't — or don't have the opportunity to — speak," General Newbold wrote. "Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important." General Newbold served as director of operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 through the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war in Afghanistan. He left military service in late 2002, as the Defense Department was deep into planning for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. "I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy," General Newbold wrote. His generation of officers thought it had learned from Vietnam that "we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it," General Newbold wrote. The "consequence of the military's quiescence" in the current environment, he wrote, "was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, Al Qaeda, became a secondary effort." A senior Pentagon official on Mr. Rumsfeld's staff said Sunday that the Pentagon leadership provided ample opportunity for senior officers to voice concerns. "It is hard for the secretary and the rest of the policy leadership to understand the situation if they are not getting good, unvarnished advice from military commanders," the civilian official said. While General Newbold said he did not accept the rationale for invading Iraq, he wrote that "a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake" because it would tell the nation's adversaries that "America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts." General Newbold's essay follows one on March 19, by another retired officer, Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi security forces in the year after Baghdad fell. General Eaton wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times criticizing Mr. Rumsfeld's management of the war, adding, "President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once." When asked about that essay, President Bush rejected the call to dismiss Mr. Rumsfeld, repeating as he often has that he was satisfied with Mr. Rumsfeld's performance. On April 2, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who previously led the military's Central Command, responsible for operations in the Middle East, said in a television interview that Mr. Rumsfeld, among others, should be held accountable for mistakes in Iraq and that he should step down. General Newbold has been quoted previously describing his concerns about Iraq planning, including in "Cobra II," a book by Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for The New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general who is a former military correspondent for the newspaper. In the book General Newbold is described telling fellow officers that he considered the focus on Iraq to be a strategic blunder and a distraction from the real counterterror effort. He is also quoted as expressing concern about Mr. Rumsfeld's influence on war planning, in particular his emphasis on assigning fewer troops to the invasion. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #18 A big hint about why he retired? |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-04-10 15:38 |
| #17 GEN Clark is a straight up asshat. If Monica sucked the Presidents dick, Wesley was tounging his balls for an appointment as the EUCOM Commander. There was not one damn soldier in Europe that liked him. He was a politician before being a military officer.... and we saw through that. |
| Posted by: Armylife 2006-04-10 15:30 |
| #16 Raptor, I have a signed copy of that book. I was an escort officer for (ret) GEN Franks and driving him around was like have audio tapes of that book. He asked what my security clearance was and the stories got better. A great man. The press would have you believe that many amputees from this war are the first to re-enter military service. Not true. (ret) GEN Franks lost one of his legs in Vietnamn and fough his way back to military service. But like you said, the book is highly reccomended. |
| Posted by: Cold war architechture rules 2006-04-10 15:24 |
| #15 I don't know why the MSM is counting, because it's not decided by a vote. "we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it," So he retired? That's not even standing by quietly. The decision to invade Iraq "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results." Not only was he not privy enough to the decision making to make such a claim, but he retired when he could have stayed to provide four critical months of expertise and influence. "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." -- Thomas Paine |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-04-10 14:44 |
| #14 You know when the time came around, Eisenhower was promoted from below a good number of generals. If Rummy can id a good Marshall who can select people like Col MacMaster to fast track and get beyond the Clinton era crowd, doing away with the usual good o'boy club, we'd be far better served. |
| Posted by: Elmereng Ebbaimp7658 2006-04-10 12:56 |
| #13 The General expresses regret but doesn't offer to bear any of the consequences of his self-confessed screwup. Tell you what, General: If you really think you screwed up, donate half of your retirement pay to the families of Marines who died while you held rank. Or at least drop and give the nation twenty. But maybe you're just putting your hat in the ring for the number two spot on Hillary's ticket. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-04-10 12:09 |
| #12 Now, if he was a retired general who favored the war and the SoD, do you think he would have gotten any pub in Time or the other MSM? I just hope there is enough arm chairs on the sets for ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. for all these disgruntled retired generals. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-10 11:16 |
| #11 Hmm three (or maybe a dozen) retired gernerals out of 100s don't agree with Rummey and thats the ones that get coverage? FYI Shinseki had already put in his paperwork to retire before he stated any disagreement. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-10 10:41 |
| #10 Well put. This guy is a DNC ball licker. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-04-10 10:38 |
| #9 Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, was a MISERABLE FAILURE by all standards - look at the mess we had to clean up after he left - Gen Abazaid bascially had to completely redesign and reimplment the training process Eaton was in charge of, it was WORSE than starting from scratchin that they had to UNDO the damage Eaton and his policies had left. Eaton made rank kissing ass politically under Clinton. And don't get me started on McPeak, that dick. Nor Clark, a friggen showbaoter who made things a lot worse in the whole ops of KFOR with this prima donna behavior. As for Fred Franks (Tom Clancy book), I served indirectly under him in GW-1 (2ACR, corps asset), he was a good, if cautious, general. As did Col MacMaster Tal-Afar fame, commander of the 3ACR today (who was in 2ACR, 2nd squadron as a LT I recall, in GW1). Notice they dont say anything about the 3 dozen or so other retired generals in recent years who back up the invasion, but are not out braying about it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-04-10 10:11 |
| #8 All the yahoos were Clinton "yes" men and ball lickers. No real fight to 'em. Not surprised they are crying like the babies they are now that they don't have to worry about being early retired. I got out when these jokers came into power. They, and Clinton screwed up the military so fast it made my head spin. So long suckers, and don't let the door hit you in the ass. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-10 09:55 |
| #7 "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat — Al Qaeda." But now that I have my retirement pay in hand and I know fir sure I ain't gonna get that 4th star, I can say whichever I wants. Semper somethin. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-04-10 09:24 |
| #6 The troops really lost faith in McPeak when he tried to make them wear Navy uniforms. This all puts me in mind of the Bing Crosby song from White Christmas, "What can you do with a general" When the war was over, why, there were jobs galore For the G.I. Josephs who were in the war But for generals things were not so grand And it's not so hard to understand [Refrain:] What can you do with a general When he stops being a general? Oh, what can you do with a general who retires? Who's got a job for a general When he stops being a general? They all get a job but a general no one hires They fill his chest with medals while he's across the foam And they spread the crimson carpet when he comes marching home The next day someone hollers when he comes into view "Here comes the general" and they all say "General who?" They're delighted that he came But they can't recall his name Nobody thinks of assigning him When they stop wining and dining him It seems this country never has enjoyed So many one and two and three and four star generals Unemployed |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-04-10 09:19 |
| #5 I'm in the process of reading Clancy's(with Gen.Fred Franks)"Into the Storm(a study in command). Gen.Franks commanded VII Corps. It's primarily about GW1,but goes into great detail about the rebuilding of the U.S.Army after Vietnam.This is a very good read,I highly recommend it. |
| Posted by: raptor 2006-04-10 08:30 |
| #4 Amazing how big these guys balls get when they're out of the chain of command. At least Shinseki spoke up on the job and has kept his mouth shut since. My only fear is that Clinton got to the colonels as well as the generals. Any vets got opinions about how deeply Clintonism is in the high command? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-10 07:39 |
| #3 Rvrdog- I've been waiting for Red Mike McPeak to open his big mouth as well, but there is the liklihood that his own actions were so egregious that any protest on his part will be run right into the dirt. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-04-10 06:51 |
| #2 Ninny-Zinni, Weasly Clark and now this Notbold. Scratch their brass and you'll find Clintonian pot metal underneath it. All of these guys were in the inner circle under Clinton, were told that they were losing their high positions when Rummy took over (civilian control of the military was still in the Constitution last time I checked). Weasly Clark ran for Pres as a Hellary seat-warmer financed by the Clintons and their wing of the (D)onks, and now we get the books from the others who have been under rocks since the war started. Next to join the cabal will be the former USAF Chief of Staff Merrill McPrick, the bonehead that made USAF officers dress like waiter captains. McPeak was the one who reorganized the USAF to get rid of the Strategic Air Command, figgering we would have no use for strategic nukes ever again. Then along comes Iran, North Korea, and maybe now Venezuala eventually. Whadda maroon! Bah! But...it's better to have all these maroons in one club where we can keep an eye on 'em. |
| Posted by: Rivrdog 2006-04-10 05:56 |
| #1 After the battle, everybody is a general. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-04-10 03:36 |