Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

[tw]

Even The Washington Times demonstrates a problem that is well beyond Rumsfeld.

Retired general's call puzzles Rumsfeld aides
"I was particularly taken aback by Batiste," said Larry Di Rita, a senior Rumsfeld adviser. "It seemed very contrary to the interaction I saw in Iraq."

Where has he been besides at extremist indoctrination seminars? Batiste stated why he would not return to Iraq as second in command. Even Rumsfeld's own senior staff somehow did not know this? Or do they even lie to themselves? Where do they think reality lies? With a president who still says we are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war and who says "Nobody expected the levees to be breeched"?

Add another general to a list of critics:

Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a former commander of the Army War College, said the Army, Marines and special operations need 100,000 more troops.
"If you're going to fight a long war," Gen. Scales said, "if this war is generational, and if our grandchildren are going to be fighting this war, and if this war continues to be principally ground warfare, then it just seems overwhelmingly obvious that over the long term we are going to need a bigger ground force."

If our grandchildren will be fighting this war? Leaked was that "Mission Accomplished" would only take 20 years? Our grandchildren will be fighting this?

Is this word from Homer Simpson found in the Oxford dictionary? Duhhhhhh....

[Elspode]

If I comment any further on this thread, we'll have to move it into Conspiracy Theories.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It occurs to me that "retired generals" would imply old men, steeped in military tradition, trained in the army way and maybe resistant to change. Maybe they don't grasp or trust the new fangled gadgetry of the "army of one".

But then I thought, being generals with years of experience they would appreciate the value of not expending anymore soldiers than necessary. Accept technology that would let them keep as many as possible out of harms way.

The administration has bought the military contractors sales pitch, lock, stock and barrel. They're sold on the gee whiz, high tech, systems and their promised results, whereas the old generals have to be convinced these improvements are really improvements and not bullshit.

They way things have been going over there, the reticence to give up lots of depth in the front line may be justified. It's hard to judge the effectivness of the new systems when the people using them, or at least their bosses, don't have a plan.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It occurs to me that "retired generals" would imply old men, steeped in military tradition, trained in the army way and maybe resistant to change. Maybe they don't grasp or trust the new fangled gadgetry of the "army of one".

Wrong generals. Go back to 2002. Rumsfeld wanted out generals such as Shelton - (Joint Chief who followed Shalikashvili who succeeded Powell). Curious. Shelton was one of the 1990s generals who had conducted extensive research to identify bin Laden's organization and money sources before and when the George Jr administration insisted there was no threat. IOW he obviously identified real threats before they were threats. The neocons (Project for New American Century) adamantly insisted only Saddam Hussein was a threat - in direct contradiction to what generals such as Shelton were saying.

Many generals who turned down offers to work for Rumsfeld by retirement or other actions include Generals Tommy Franks, John Keane, B. Bell, James Campbell, Larry Ellis, Philip Kensinger, John Abazaid, and Eric Shinseki. All generals of major Asian and European commands and other top positions. Normally the job would be a major promotion. But it meant dealing directly and repeatedly with Rumsfeld. Remember what Rumsfeld said back then when he could not find generals who agreed with his way: "my way or the highway." Curious. Now he says all those generals could speak up at any time and he would listen.

We now have a new crop of generals, all recently bloodied in combat and all recently retired, who also saw Rumsfeld and the administration for what they really are. Especially significant is Batiste who was regarded as a sure bet for Joint Chief. He turned down a third star - considered the biggest promotion in a lifetime - because his principles were stronger than his ambitions. Because for one reason that he has made quite clear - Rumsfeld.

Janise Karpinski makes an interesting speculation - and she admits it is only speculation. This first strike nuclear attack on Iran has unnerved the entire US military. Did my post on the matter exceed any previous post in making the point! It better! Notice punctuation I almost never use! I have never made a post in the Cellar as critical importance as that post about George Jr's nuclear first strike proposition! Mark my word! More adamant than any post opposed to a useless invasion of Iraq and any post demanding the rescue of Kuwait - none should be remember as much as my recent post on a 1st strike nuclear attack of Iran!

What Janise Karpinski suggests has much merit. This may not be about Rumsfeld. We won't be fooled again was a promise by virtually all generals to not let the mistakes of Vietnam happen again. And yet that is exactly what is happening now. Except the people making these decisions to subvert the world view nuclear war as a viable and freely used option. If we have nuclear weapons, then we should be free to use them at any time. Notice the appropriate use of !!!!

One final point. Much of my opposition to the original Iraq war was based sources I will say no more about. Do you think I was so accurate about Iraq all these years for no reason. The military is not happy about what Rumsfeld et al is doing to this nation. Why do you not hear this? Because generals do not talk. That should tell you that we now have serious and severe problems with our current civilian leadership. It has gotten that bad which is why Janise Karpinski may be more accurate than any of us should want to believe. Something bad is happening in the US military. This due to civilian leadership who saw nothing wrong in proposals to unilaterally attack Russia, India, or Germany to keep the US in a #1 position. Real bad. And neocon fingerprints are all over it. Such minds would give no second thought to using nuclear weapons.

If this post does not give you pause, then read it again. George Jr has considered a 1st strike nuclear attack - Pearl Harbor style - which he personally characterized as speculation. He does not even deny it. Speculation by an administration with such a long history of lying that any responsible military man should be worried! Would that not cause generals to start talking! Damn straight it would! These are people who never talk! Be worried or be an ostrich! What these generals have said may really be about something far more danagerous - which makes sense considering the morals of George Jr and his administration.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Elspode

If I comment any further on this thread, we'll have to move it into Conspiracy Theories.

Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction. Life imitating art and all those time worn phrases couldn't be more true regarding this Administration.


Nostradamus and Bible's predictions make it creepy. Modern day authors make it maddening,shocking.

[richlevy]

What is scary is how dismissive everyone is of tactical, not strategic, nuclear weapons, as if a nuclear bunker buster is just a small step up from a MOAB.

It almost seems as if they cannot comprehend exactly what kind of provocation this would mean and how many people this would move off the fence to actively fight us.

The whole problem I have with Manicheism is the unshakable belief among some practitioners that it is impossible for white hats to get dirty, that good is always good no matter what despicable acts are done.

I could almost picture the next day commentary on new channels around the world. Of course, the next day banter on Fox Network would consist of "Well, it had to be done." and "About time!"

[Undertoad]

Pre-Iraqi war tw's position was that aluminium tubes purchased by Iraq were for missiles and not for nuclear enrichment. It turned out he was right and for the last three years he's used it as proof he's right about everything else.

For a while, every time he used it as "proof", I would go into the archives and locate a thing he was wrong about. But that became tiresome.

[carouselle]

I see, thanks. I thought it was probably a very dumb question, but figured staying ignorant was even dumber.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Pre-Iraqi war tw's position was that aluminium tubes purchased by Iraq were for missiles and not for nuclear enrichment. It turned out he was right and for the last three years he's used it as proof he's right about everything else.

George Jr claimed those aluminum tubes were for centrifuges - Weapons of Mass Destruction - nuclear bomb production. This along with another claim that the uranium was from Niger.

One can learn the entire story in the New York Times 3 October 2004 - a front page article and two full pages inside.

Those who said those aluminum tubes were not for WMDs also said those aluminum tubes were the perfect size for making Medusa rockets - an Italian product. George Jr administration said there was no value in anondizing those tubes because the Italians did not do it. They forgot to mention that anondized tubes were totally wrong for cetrifuges.

So where were those aluminum tubes found? In a factory to make Medusa rockets. Since Iraq had to store those tubes outside, they also found large number of non-anondized tubes that had to be scrapped.

Like the mobile biological weapons lab, these aluminum tubes for WMDs were another in numerous lies by George Jr. This is not an honest president.

Meanwhile, what is published about Centrifuges (I beleive it is a recent issue of Scientific American) is important to understand where Iran is in their uranium enrichment program. As more facts come available, Iran is farther behind than I originally suspected and much farther behind what the administration was predicting.

[Happy Monkey]

Well, we've been at war, but without all those nasty rules that have to be enforced if we make it official.

[Undertoad]

When there are $7688 TVs at Walmart we are probably not at war.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When there are $7688 TVs at Walmart we are probably not at war.

Then who's lying, walmart or Michael Yon?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The WSJ via CNN,says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The WSJ via CNN, says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.

And so we go right to what those four generals say:

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

When did Saddam bring down flight 93? When did Saddam attack the WTC and Pentagon?

The war in Iraq is not being won. 85% of problems are directly traceable to top management - clearly Rumsfeld and George Jr. AND the reasons given to fight a war in Iraq are justified by 11 September? Why are four generals lying to defend Rumsfeld? Are they simply following the president’s orders? Or are they that misguided?

How deep is this pool of outright liars? Anyone who can read knows Saddam was totally unrelated to Flight 93. Maybe these four generals think you - the person reading this - is that dumb? Or maybe these four generals also believe category three levees would not be breeched by a category five hurricane? Maybe Rumsfeld had to reach that deep into a barrel of retired generals to find support? Iraq is about Flight 93? They acutally wrote that in defense of Rumsfeld?

Meanwhile the reason for Flight 93 was in Afghanistan. Remember bin Laden who Rumsfeld and George Jr will not go after? Remember how 10th Mountain was denied access to Tora Bora and then later sent up without preparation - causing numerous unnecessary casulties? More micromanagement by Rumsfeld or Bush. So yes, let's listen to the tapes of Flight 93 - and remember that George Jr did not go after bin Laden. Four generals somehow call that competence? And when did those four generals say we will go after bin Laden?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The WSJ via CNN,says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

Was there some specific intelligence material I missed or is this another '9/11' response, an intellectual 'talk to the hand' that is not meant to provide information, merely 'wave a bloody shirt' and imply that the questioner is unpatriotic or out of touch.

As for the 'why we fight in Iraq', I would LOVE to hear a consistent and defensible explanation of that other than 'failed intelligence'.