Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

tw
is agreeing with
high-ranking military officials.

Maybe you did not notice. But so much of what I have posted about Iraq was quietly said by generals through their only mouthpiece - the retired generals. No, not General Miller who promoted torture and is apparently 'persona non-grata' among other generals. It should be obvious. What those retired generals are saying is what they have long been grumbling about AND what I have been saying all along.

Those who strongly reiterated decrees from a mental midget president were only subverting the troops. That should have long been obvious if you are anything close to being a supporter of the American military. You don't do to soldiers what we have done to ours in Iraq. And yet some Americans so hate American servicemen as to put them into Iraq - into a no win situation - without a strategic objective and without an exit strategy.

Notice things have gotten so bad that the retired generals are now getting loud - saying same things I have been saying all along. George Jr has screwed the American serviceman big time. The officers know it. Only political extremists would deny it. What you have read in my posts are what supporters of America's military have long been saying.

BTW, Rumsfeld even looks a lot like McNamara.

All very true. I have been posting endlessly about the low morale of our troops, stretched far too thin in what promises to be an endless war. There are no Iraqi's on our side. They hate our presence there and want us out. Some of them are glad to be rid of Saddam, but now they want to be rid of us as well. A soldier back on leave from Iraq told me stories of little kids one day selling cans of pop at the entrance to a command post and the next day that same little kid is throwing explosive devices at the soldiers. Shades of Vietnam, indeed.

[Maui Nick]

Originally Posted by tw

Maybe you did not notice. But so much of what I have posted about Iraq was quietly said by generals through their only mouthpiece - the retired generals. No, not General Miller who promoted torture and is apparently 'persona non-grata' among other generals. It should be obvious. What those retired generals are saying is what they have long been grumbling about AND what I have been saying all along.

Those who strongly reiterated decrees from a mental midget president were only subverting the troops. That should have long been obvious if you are anything close to being a supporter of the American military. You don't do to soldiers what we have done to ours in Iraq. And yet some Americans so hate American servicemen as to put them into Iraq - into a no win situation - without a strategic objective and without an exit strategy.

Notice things have gotten so bad that the retired generals are now getting loud - saying same things I have been saying all along. George Jr has screwed the American serviceman big time. The officers know it. Only political extremists would deny it. What you have read in my posts are what supporters of America's military have long been saying.

BTW, Rumsfeld even looks a lot like McNamara.

It's believed that 75 percent of serving Army officers agree with what the retired generals have said. As someone who joined the Army out of high school, then went on to college, I have to agree with them as well.

I just don't get the feeling that Rumsfeld --- who served as an active-duty pilot in the years between Korea and Vietnam, thus neatly avoiding anything like real combat --- has a feel for what a real ground war is like. And I agree with the comparison to McNamara.

I can serve up a real rant on this, if you really want to set me off. Suffice it to say I'm dead certain Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow zealots dramatically underestimated the amount of ground troops that would would be needed to pacify Iraq, a mistake which has been paid for by the everyday grunt.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Maui Nick

It's believed that 75 percent of serving Army officers agree with what the retired generals have said.

So what is wrong with the other 25%? Are they ostriches? Too few troops is so obvious as to not even be debateable.

Principles upon which the Iraq invasion were predicated and justified were defined by Project for New American Century. A political agenda where unilateral miliary action should be applied liberally to fix the world. Iraq is a perfect example of that agenda. And yet even in Project for New... , it is a no brainer, slam-dunk, obvious. From Project for New American Century of 12 July 2005:

Bring The Troops Home?
Secretary Rumsfeld has time and again said that he defers to his generals in Iraq about the number of troops needed. No one vaguely familiar with how decisions are made in this Pentagon believes that to be the case. And, indeed, as visiting members of Congress and military reporters have repeatedly reported from Iraq, the military officers there know quite well that more troops are needed, not less.

Why do 25% of the officers so deny reality? Even the 'strike first and ask questions later' Project for New... identified this problem long ago because it was that obvious. But not to Rumsfeld or to a president who could not even name the countries adjacent to Israel.

If your closest friends and allies were saying this a year ago, then why is it not true today? Denial. Blind denial. Clearly those field officers must be demented or unpatriotic. Good Morning Vietnam. 500,000 troops for one year is required.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Jesus, TW....just because some don't agree doesn't make them "demented or unpatriotic". They just don't agree with that assessment. It would depend on where they are and if they need more manpower.

Do you think every "field officer" has a handle on the whole of Iraq? I'm not convinced any of them see the big picture, more likely they're trying to control their sector and if it's a fairly quiet one they may not need more men.

The ones in and around Baghdad know they need manpower because that's where the action is right now.
Hence, different perspectives, different assessments.

[FloridaDragon]

The only comment on this I have to make is why did these generals wait until they were retired to come out public like this? If they honestly felt as they claim they do now then they would have done everything possible to save the lives of the troops under their command. But instead, they wait till they retire to jump up and shout. Seems to me they had held their retirement pay and careers ahead of their own troops. Money and political motives over loyalty to their own men. Sad.

[richlevy]

Zinni came off very good with Bill Maher this past week. In the end, all 3 guests agreed that we have to stay to the finish in Iraq, although I'm not sure about where they stood about starting it in the first place.

Heather Higgins was the only one who even attempted to defend the handling of the war up to this point.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

The only comment on this I have to make is why did these generals wait until they were retired to come out public like this?

Because they would have been put in prison. The military has no free speech rights. If you want to criticize your superiors in public, you have to retire.

[tw]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

The only comment on this I have to make is why did these generals wait until they were retired to come out public like this?

Active duty generals cannot talk. Anyone who spoke too accurately to Rumsfeld was retired - as was well known back then (it’s my way or the highway). You heard retired generals saying back then how wrong the Iraq invasion would be. Too few troops were reported before the invasion began. Did you not listen or were your sources Fox News? Once the invasion of Iraq started, retired generals went quiet as they must. Too many Americans chose to stay ignorant - a definition of anti-American - and did not demand a smoking gun to justify war.

You are supposed to know what justifies war. YOU are required to understand concepts such as a 'smoking gun'. That knowledge is required to be a patriotic American. Speaking publicly against a lying president is not a general's job. You (all) are required to learn basic concepts so as to make an informed decision. Did you? Did you demand a smoking gun - or were only mythical threats sufficient to justify war?

From 2003 are the concepts - what generals can and cannot say has long ago been discussed here:

Iraqis welcome coalition forces
Planning for this war was constantly rejected by the political leaders in George Jr's administration who complained the army wanted too much for the job. Generals never dispute their political bosses. But active generals let their opinions be known via retired generals. Widespread quotes from Generals of the 1991 Gulf War. This force does not have sufficient assets to complete the task.

After 'the war', retired generals began talking again.

So, UT, what do you think of the Iraq big picture now?
Tonight on PBS Newshour is Gen Zinni who says quite bluntly, "We are stuck". He then says he hopes we can find a way to get out of Iraq. He also says, as so many others, that we need more people in Iraq. And we need the Bremmer team to get out of Baghdad; into provincal capitals where the leadership is really needed.

Like a good MBA, this George Jr administration will solve all problem from Baghdad - centralize bureacracy. We have a serious management problem in Iraq. Not the least of it was exposed by that lady from an NGO who many it bluntly obvious - this administration's people will not even go into Baghdad streets to find out what people are really saying.

As we clearly now know, those retired generals (speaking for active duty generals) were correct (it was too much information for Dave and MaggieL said, "I'm not readin' that crap ..." - IOW how to define anti-American).

Every general who commanded in Iraq and who is now retired is saying these same things. When they were active duty, they could not speak. These generals are simply saying what their retired peers were saying for them before the war. How blunt could they be? Did you listen? Or do so many Americans so hate America as to instead listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? Do so many Americans so hate America as to even refuse to learn facts as MaggieL did? Therein lies the only problem. Iraq was 'Pearl Harbored' without even smoking gun justification.

The generals did everything they could to protect American lives. Failure was back here in America where propaganda and emotion replaced hard knowledge and a grasp of history. Demonstrated is the problem in years of previous posts in The Cellar. Notice the number of Cellar posts dedicated to promoting George Jr myths. Notice how Dave found reality too long and MaggieL somehow just knew otherwise - reality be damned. That is where the problem was then and still remains. Generals were as loud and obvious as they could be. But so many Americans instead listened either to their 'big dic' mentality or Fox News / Rush Limbaugh.

An anti-American is defined as one who does not learn facts before somehow knowing. Problems in Iraq today were long understood by active duty generals - now retired. We were told the problem. And yet some still so hate America as to criticize those generals. Many instead listened to a mental midget president who was clearly lying. Generals are not at fault. They did everything possible to inform you. Did you listen or were you hyped by neocon inspired testosterone?

To be a patriotic American, you are expected to learn the lessons of history. Generals did everything they could to encourage you to become a patriotic American. To many were anti-American - could not bother to first learn facts. Somehow just knew - decisions based only upon emotion - that Iraq must be invaded. Knowlege - not love of country - defines a patriotic American. Retired generals warned us. Did you listen?

[FloridaDragon]

These generals still had the choice of their careers or to speak up. They choose their careers. If they honestly felt as everyone thinks they do now, do you think them "being [forcibly] retired" would stop them? BTW I do not watch Fox News very often and believe about as much off it as I do CNN, or CBS, or ABC. They all lie and they all promote their own agendas. To trust in what ANY of them says is ludicrous. You can only use your best judgment since none of us (NONE) knows the whole truth and you are delusional if you think you do.