| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Generals' revolt? |
| 2006-04-18 |
| As the author points out, this has serious implications for civilian control of the military. Consider two hypothetical situations. In the first, a United States Army general officer in a theater of war decides by himself that he strongly disagrees with the orders of the secretary of defense. He resigns his commission, returns to private life and speaks out vigorously against both the policy and the secretary of defense. In example two, the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree amongst themselves to retire and speak out -- each one day after the other. If an officer has no confidence in his civilian superiors then he should fall on his sword, not retire and criticize. ...This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday's Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled "Behind the Military Revolt." In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: "If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld." Article continues -- read the whole thing. Holbrooke is a clintonite toad but he is, as Blankley says, well connected. We should be very, very concerned about such a possibility. |
| Posted by:Jonathan |
| #17 RE, how many NG/Reserve generals: Each state has an Adjutant General, who holds the rank of Brigadier General. There are six(?) NG/Reserve divisions in the Army, each commanded by a Major General. There are about a dozen others in various command structures. The Air Force has about 60-70 Reserve general officers in slots ranging from ANG Adjutants to Wing Commanders to Air Division commanders to the four-star at Reserve Readiness Command. I don't have any facts, but I believe the Marines have five or six reserve general officers, and I have no clue about the Navy. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-04-18 20:00 |
| #16 These pussies are pulling this crap during a time of war which leaves me with one question, which mosques do these dirtbags belong to? |
| Posted by: Clesing Snomons8576 2006-04-18 18:56 |
| #15 They need to do the same with the State department. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-18 18:47 |
| #14 DoD needed a cleanout like the CIA. The DoD got most of one thanks to Rumsfled kicking the "Big Division" guys ass. CIA is still a work inprogress with the old boys network firmly entrenched and sabotaging Bush for having the temerity to challenge them. I still say they need to dissolve CIA and assign its functions to NSA and DIA. Until you chop Langley up, you'll never get rid of the old guard thats fighting change. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-04-18 18:39 |
| #13 This isn't about Iraq or Afganistan. It's about requiring the generals to do some heavy lifting, not be ass kissed by the SoD. It's about Army generals not getting their toys. It's about transformation. It's about certain generals being stuck on Cold War stupid. Any significant transformation of such a huge buracracy as the military services is bounded to have winners and losers. The bitchers and complainers are more concerned about their own careers and preferences over what's good for the the country. Flush! |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-18 17:43 |
| #12 As would I Val, as would I. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-04-18 17:00 |
| #11 Wonder what the LL will do if Cheney actually runs for Prez. I'd vote for him just to see the meltdown and gibbering incoherency of the left. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2006-04-18 16:59 |
| #10 But twobyfour to a leftist that 1.2% a majority. The Press hares Rummy. The LL's hate Rummy. It's a useless bunch of impotent sound expressing furry. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-04-18 16:42 |
| #9 We have 266 generals on active duty. That must be just for the Army. There are about 900 active duty generals/admirals total. Anyone know how general billets are handled in the reserve and NG? Are they classified as active duty or just for the time they are activated? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-18 16:40 |
| #8 Does Rumsfeld have to prove his support? I'm puzzled. Is he running for some sort of "election"? Do the generals get to vote who their boss is? Because my guess is they would like a general to be Sec. Def. How many generals did Lincoln fire? I bet they didn't like him very much, either. Who the heck works for who here? |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-04-18 16:38 |
| #7 Not all, RR, ~ 6 of the retired ones don't. So, if there is about 100 generals retired annually, and from these retired in the 5 years (~500) about 6 seem to be peeved about Rumsfeld, that translates to about 1.2%. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-04-18 15:59 |
| #6 Okay, 6 months MeltDown Future started. But with R2 I need to be a little conservative... okay - $67. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-04-18 15:55 |
| #5 Any idea how many generals there are in the US military at any given time? We probably retire around 100 every year. And your point is....?? That they all support Rumsfeld? |
| Posted by: RR 2006-04-18 15:41 |
| #4 That's right Dems. Its all about power. Methods don't count. Remove those self-imposed restraints the military in modern times have put upon themselves. Politicize the military. Don't worry about getting the office of President back. Cause Caesar/Cromwell doesn't share power. If you failed to notice, your desperate assaults to regain power have only undermined the people's confidence in the ability of this form of government to accomplish anything. For retired generals the route is clear. You have an opinion, run for office. Didn't work for Clark or Macarthur. It did work for Eisenhower, Garfield, Harrison, Grant, Taylor, Jackson, Harrison, Washington. Put the money on the line and see if the people buy it. Otherwise, retire gracefully. You know, you got to wonder if these 'critics' ever tolerated similar comments upon their performance from their subordinates? |
| Posted by: Thaitch Graviling3173 2006-04-18 15:31 |
| #3 I checked. We have 266 generals on active duty. After a major double enterprise like Iraq and Afghanistan, I would expect a LOT of retirements and a LOT of promotions. And since generals have to go, to be replaced, many will be encouraged to go. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-18 15:00 |
| #2 Good lord. Any idea how many generals there are in the US military at any given time? We probably retire around 100 every year. You figure that right now, the last remaining Clinton appointee generals are running out their string. He had eight years to appoint turkeys, that were probably rubber-stamped by even the republican congress. "...the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree amongst themselves to retire and speak out -- each one day after the other." Ah, now there's the point. The "top" 100 generals. Would Wesley Clark's or Zinni's peer review put them at the "top" among our generals? Most likely they were "Peter principaled", that is, promoted to their level of incompetence. And, more to the point, what are the hotheads complaining about? How the war was conducted, at least officially. But that was a Pentagon plan, and the war went smoothly. Why are they still bitching about it? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-18 14:52 |
| #1 The important point is the historical comparisons cited, MacArthur-Truman, Singlaub-Carter, McClellan-Lincoln. I sense a trend in who wins and looses in these match-ups. This would be a good way to sweep out the Clinton command and open up a lot of slots for Schoemaker to fill. I hope he has a black book. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-18 13:08 |