| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Rummy's Generals |
| 2006-04-15 |
| EFL from the blog In From the Cold General Zinni, the former commander of U.S. Central Command, has been a long-time critic of Bush Administration policies in the Middle East and the war effort. During the early years of the Bush Administration, General Zinni was a special U.S. envoy to the Middle East, charged with mediating talks between Israel and the Palestinians. But Zinni proved to be an ineffective negotiator, and displayed a slightly lopsided approach in dealing with the two sides. On his first trip to the region as an envoy, Zinni criticized Israel for building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, while demanding to know that the Sharon government was "prepared to do" if the Palestinians offered a cease fire. Needless to say, Zinni's tone didn't exactly endear him--or his efforts--to the Israelis. A more recent Rumsfeld critic is another retired Marine officer, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, former Operations Director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Newbold now says he opposed the war, despite his position as J-3 for the JCS--a job that gave him great influence over U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Newbold says his opposition to the Iraq invasion--and plans for the operation--were "well known" within the Pentagon. But apparently, his opposition was not enough for General Newbold to resign over principle. In fact, one Donald Rumsfeld attended Newbold's retirement dinner in 2004. At that dinner, Pentagon insiders report, a tape was played from a 2001 press conference conducted by Newbold. During that session, held shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, Newbold announced that the Taliban had been crushed--or something to that effect. Problem was, major combat operations were still underway, so the Pentagon (and the White House) had to backtrack and cover Newbold's gaffe. By 2004, it was a running joke, but in the early days of the Afghan War, it was a serious mistake. I'm guessing that Newbold's mistake earned the ire of Mr. Rumsfeld, and soured relations between the two men. And not surprisingly, Newbold never earned his fourth star. Another Rumsfeld critic is retired Army General Major General Paul Eaton, who has described the defense secretary as "incompetent." But General Eaton also has some spots on his resume, notably his 2003-2004 tour as chief of the U.S. training mission in Iraq. Admittedly, General Eaton faced a tough assignment, but as Big Lizards reminds us, his tenure was characterized by uneven training efforts and some embarassing moments--notably, Iraqi units breaking under fire. Eaton was eventually replaced by Lieutenant General David Paetraeus, who turned the program around, and oversaw the training of more than 80 Iraqi battalions during his tenure. Retired Army Major General John Riggs has his own issues with Rumsfeld. In 2004, Riggs was accused of contracting improprieties, and given 24 hours to retire from the Army. We wrote a column sympathetic to General Riggs, noting that he had been vocal in his concerns about Army units being "over-stressed" by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and suggesting that his criticism may have been an underlying cause for his dismissal. It is also worth noting that General Rigg's abrupt retirement came with a reduction in grade from Lieutenant General (three stars) to Major General (two stars) with a substantial reduction in retirement pay. General Riggs's forced retirement still requires clarification (in our opinion), but there's no doubt that Mr. Rumsfeld was instrumental in that event, and it did nothing to foster friendly relations between the two men. Riggs was also a protege of former Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, who retired early after announcing that the occupation of Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops." Opponents of the war claim that events in Iraq prove that Shinseki, Riggs, and other uniformed critics were right--but they ignore an equally salient fact: virtually all of these officers were in senior positions in the mid-to-late 1990s, when the Clinton Administration cut four divisions from the active Army. Did any of these generals oppose that move, realizing that it would mean "fewer boots on the ground" in a future conflict? Ironically, some of these generals--including Shinseki and Riggs--seemed willing to trade troops for the next generation of super weapons, like the Comanche helicopter and Crusader self-propelled gun--both cancelled by Rumsfeld as being too expensive. Now in retirement, these former flag officers are eager to claim that the military is "stretched thin" in Iraq, but none have acknowledged their role in creating today's "undersized" force structure. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #8 Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is a success yet, so I'd hold off on portraying Rummy as a genius. He's been wrong more often than he's been right. |
| Posted by: Rich Saudi 2006-04-15 23:27 |
| #7 And if it wern't for that idiot Bell Hood litter Mac might have won the election and I wouldn't be a trivia question. |
| Posted by: J Johnston 2006-04-15 16:23 |
| #6 Fellow generals and media pukes of the 1860s were critical of Gen. Grant. To which Lincoln replied - I can't spare that man, he fights! President Lincoln had a fair track record of relieving generals. I don't think he was shy about dumping ineffectives, to include the man who would be his opponent in the 1864 race. |
| Posted by: Sligum Cromogum2349 2006-04-15 15:47 |
| #5 bk, no doubt there's more rumbling. Rummy is a tough SOB. I'll bet you can find lot's who used to work at G. D. Searle who will say the same things. Until these guys start talking about how things should be done instead of how they should have been done, they can be easily ignored. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-15 14:47 |
| #4 I've heard the rumbling, cant be ignored... it's not just these guys. |
| Posted by: bk 2006-04-15 14:40 |
| #3 they're defended on Fox by Wesley Clark, and we know he's an honorable man with no axe to sharpen, eh? He might even blink |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-15 13:46 |
| #2 You think, having studied history, these generals would understand that history will be unkind to them for doing this. All they are doing is calling attention to the fact that they were trusted with doing a job which they don't think they did it well, for a variety of excuses. Some will defend these 5 and say that they did their duty and are now free to speak their minds. It's true, That would be fine - if they had a better plan. But they don't. They are just bitching about how mean the Sec Def is and how they knew better, usually because they are running for office or hakwing a book. Personally, if it was me, and I had a big role that would be written in history books, I'd use the right to remain silent and wait until all of the evidence is presented in the courtroom of history before I gave away my case. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-15 12:39 |
| #1 Some will dismiss this article as character assassination. But the reality is that their criticisms of Rumsfeld aren't based on fact - the Iraqi and Afghan expeditions have been characterized by historically low losses. These men are now saying that they could have done better. The historical record goes against their assertions. They are therefore making an appeal to authority, i.e. "trust me - take my word for it - I was a big shot general", as opposed to being able to say that the US has done worse than other American or non-American armies have historically done. We must therefore see if they're worth trusting. Appeals to authority don't do much for me. People in a position of authority must be able to make arguments backed up by the historical record. But for people who do trust authorities based on them being "important people", this article is an important reminder that "important people" have their own agendas independent of the issues. "Important people" don't always tell the whole truth about their motivations. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-04-15 12:22 |