Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

[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.

Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld (NY Times)

By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 22 — The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.

Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the 2004 graduation ceremony of the United States Military Academy.
Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign.

In recent weeks, military correspondents of The Times discussed those issues with dozens of younger officers and cadets in classrooms and with combat units in the field, as well as in informal conversations at the Pentagon and in e-mail exchanges and telephone calls.

To protect their careers, the officers were granted anonymity so they could speak frankly about the debates they have had and have heard. The stances that emerged are anything but uniform, although all seem colored by deep concern over the quality of civil-military relations, and the way ahead in Iraq.

The discussions often flare with anger, particularly among many midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of additional tours of duty.

"This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly," said one Army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation does better someday."

An Army major who is an intelligence specialist said: "The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.' They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might otherwise have stayed in uniform.

One Army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, and 75 percent believed that he should remain. But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and "show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be," the colonel said.

Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush — in contrast to the situation in the 1960's, when both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (Mr. McNamara, like Mr. Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military itself.)

But some are furiously criticizing both, along with the military leadership, like the Army major in the Special Forces. "I believe that a large number of officers hate Rumsfeld as much as I do, and would like to see him go," he said.

"The Army, however, went gently into that good night of Iraq without saying a word," he added, summarizing conversations with other officers. "For that reason, most of us know that we have to share the burden of responsibility for this tragedy. And at the end of the day, it wasn't Rumsfeld who sent us to war, it was the president. Officers know better than anyone else that the buck stops at the top. I think we are too deep into this for Rumsfeld's resignation to mean much.

"But this is all academic. Most officers would acknowledge that we cannot leave Iraq, regardless of their thoughts on the invasion. We destroyed the internal security of that state, so now we have to restore it. Otherwise, we will just return later, when it is even more terrible."

The debates are fueled by the desire to mete out blame for the situation in Iraq, a drawn-out war that has taken many military lives and has no clear end in sight. A midgrade officer who has served two tours in Iraq said a number of his cohorts were angered last month when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that "tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure," had been made in Iraq.

"We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in Iraq," the officer said, noting that the definition of tactical missions is specific movements against an enemy target. "The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels."

Many officers said a crisis of leadership extended to serious questions about top generals' commitment to sustain a seasoned officer corps that was being deployed on repeated tours to the long-term counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of the government did not appear to be on the same wartime footing.

"We are forced to develop innovative ways to convince, coerce and cajole officers to stay in to support a war effort of national-level importance that is being done without a defensewide, governmentwide or nationwide commitment of resources," said one Army colonel with experience in Iraq.

Another Army major who served in Iraq said a fresh round of debates about the future of the American military had also broken out. Simply put, the question is whether the focus should be, as Mr. Rumsfeld believes, on a lean high-tech force with an eye toward possible opponents like China, or on troop-heavy counterinsurgency missions more suited to hunting terrorists, with spies and boots on the ground.

In general, the Army and Marines support maintaining beefy ground forces, while the Navy and Air Force — the beneficiaries of much of the high-tech arsenal — favor the leaner approach. And some worry that those arguments have become too fierce.

"I think what has the potential for scarring relations is the two visions of warfare — one that envisions near-perfect situational awareness and technology dominance, and the other that sees future war as grubby, dirty and chaotic," the major said. "These visions require vastly different forces. The tension comes when we only have the money to build one of these forces. Who gets the cash?"

Some senior officers said part of their own discussions were about fears for the immediate future, centering on the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld has surrounded himself with senior officers who share his views and are personally invested in his policies.

"If civilian officials feel as if they could be faced with a revolt of sorts, they will select officers who are like-minded," said another Army officer who has served in Iraq. "They will, as a result, get the military advice they want based on whom they appoint."

Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who teaches Army cadets at West Point, said some of the debates revolved around the issues raised in "Dereliction of Duty," a book that analyzes why the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed unable or unwilling to challenge civilian decisions during the war in Vietnam. Published in 1997, the book was written by Col. H. R. McMaster, who recently returned from a year in Iraq as commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.

"It's a fundamentally healthy debate," Ms. Schake said. "Junior officers look around at the senior leadership and say, 'Are these people I admire, that I want to be like?' "

These younger officers "are debating the standard of leadership," she said. "Is it good enough to do only what civilian masters tell you to do? Or do you have a responsibility to shape that policy, and what actions should you undertake if you believe they are making mistakes?"

The conflicts some officers express reflect the culture of commander and subordinate that sometimes baffles the civilian world. No class craves strong leadership more than the military.

"I feel conflicted by this debate, and I think a lot of my colleagues are also conflicted," said an Army colonel completing a year at one of the military's advanced schools. He expressed discomfort at the recent public criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld and the Iraq war planning by retired generals, including Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, the former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs, who wrote, in Time magazine, "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight 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."

But the colonel said his classmates were also aware of how the Rumsfeld Pentagon quashed dissenting views that many argued were proved correct, and prescient, like those of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a former Army chief of staff. He was shunted aside after telling Congress, before the invasion, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure and stabilize Iraq.

Others contend that the military's own failings are equally at fault. A field-grade officer now serving in Iraq said he thought it was incorrect for the retired generals to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. His position, he said, is that "if there is a judgment to be cast, it rests as much upon the shoulders of our senior military leaders."

That officer, like several others interviewed, emphasized that while these issues often occupied officers' minds, the debate had not hobbled the military's ability to function in Iraq. "No impact here that I can see regarding this subject," he said.

[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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

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.

Well my best judgement turns out to be more accurate than even I expected -because I did trust the honest news sources. Fox News is most often lying.

To even associate Fox News with other reliable sources suggests why you never heard what the generals had been saying. Fox News stated purpose is not accurate news. The fact that is was listed alongside responsible news sources suggests why one might believe a lying president.

BBC, WSJ, NY Times, Radio Netherlands, The Economist, CNN, Bloomberg News, NPR, Chicago Tribune, Charlie Rose, 'real' Network News, AP, and so many more. Sometimes each may get a story wrong. So rarely that such mistakes are major news. 'Best judgement' says one routinely ignores anything from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh except to learn what extremists are hyping as propaanda.

Funny how I heard what generals were saying so many years ago - and I was using those sources that were disparaged by FloridaDragon. Why did those sources serve me so accurately? I put trust where trust was earned.

Those generals did exactly as generals must do. Now that they are saying publicly what was always known, Florida Dragon instead blames the generals? Only Rush Limbaugh would do that. Those generals have always been honest with us - as honest as they could be considering the limits of their jobs. Shame on anyone for blaming the generals when we out here did the lying to ourselves. We permitted without dissent the United States to 'Pearl Harbor' a nation that was a threat to no one - and without even a smoking gun. Why does FloridaDragon have a problem with this reality?

It's not the news services that are to blame. If you did not see those presidential lies, then you have only yourself to blame. Honest news services provided what you needed to suspect the president was lying. Where was your judgement when retired generals were telling you the truth years ago? Blame goes to those who believed an MBA educated president. There was more than sufficient evidence early on to suspect the president was lying - from responsible news organizations. Now retired and permitted to be candid, those generals are the benchmark one uses to determine if he is honest or he is routinely conned by scum politicians. George Jr and Rumsfeld lied. Did you believe those liars or were you patriotic?

[FloridaDragon]

I like how anyone who does not agree with the garbage spewing out of your mouth is uniformed or even unpatriotic. Had you on my ignore list for a long time tw and back you go. (so rant all you want, I won't be reading it ... to put it in words even you will understand, you are just as worth listening to as Fox News ... and I sincerely mean that).

[tw]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

Had you on my ignore list for a long time tw and back you go. (so rant all you want, I won't be reading it ... to put it in words even you will understand, you are just as worth listening to as Fox News ... and I sincerely mean that).

FloridaDragon has no information sources (that he will admit to) and yet somehow knows those generals must be wrong. Suspiciously, he uses classic Rush Limbaugh logic. One who cannot answer honestly - a Rush Limbaugh tradition - must then reply with insults.

FloridaDragon needs no news sources? He automatically knows those generals must be lying? Or FloridaDragon has information from sources best not admitted.

Meanwhile, the generals are only saying what has long been known - even declared a year ago by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC):

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.

No wonder torture and rendition are normal and acceptable in this United States government.

I'm so hurt. FloridaDragon put me on his ignore list along with Project for New American Century - since we both must be as wrong as six generals. How then did he reply to my posts? Hummmmh. Did somebody lie?

[xoxoxoBruce]

When we were in Afghanistan, before Iraq started, there were plenty of news sources talking about the friction between the administration and the Pentagon, about lean & mean vs mucho manpower.
Hell even I knew about it, so it must have been all over.

[BigV]

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.

Point of order: coveys may be composed of pheasants (on the ground), ptarmigans, grouse (you probably meant this one), partridges, and of course, quail. Hawks gathered together to advise the president form an aerie, cast or kettle. And we all know what color the kettle is.

Carry on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I stand corrected, V.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When we were in Afghanistan, before Iraq started, there were plenty of news sources talking about the friction between the administration and the Pentagon,

And so any American who want patriotic credibility are watchng Frontline on PBS - The Dark Side on Tues 20 Jun 2006.

Who were bin Laden allies? Cheney and Rumsfeld who would not even commit US forces to Tora Bora. Why was Al Qaeda even found in Tora Bora? CIA, in frustration with Rumsfeld foot dragging, went into Tora Bora and found Al Qaeda.

Reams of other outright Cheney lies including "bin Laden and Saddam were allies" ... but then anyone would know that was false. This Frontline report demonstrates why those lies were repeatedly promoted. Why George Tenent and CIA (who were doing a 100% great job) instead are mislabeled as intelligence failures. Why even Tenent had to lie about 'slam dunk' when marginalized by Cheney, et al.

If you have the brain of a patriotic American, you know that it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al who were lying. Same people who were upset because CIA refused to report an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA would not report WMDs and would not report myths that politicians wanted. So CIA gets blamed. So Tenent gets fired.

Lies are exposed using first person interviews by those who saw what those lies, at the highest levels of government, did to even create a mythical threat and the Mission Accomplished war. Good people destroyed by a president whose reputation (like Nixon) is more important than America.

Repeatedly I would ask when are we going after bin Laden? The obvious answer was never, in part, because anti-Americans even in the Cellar supported a scumbag president. Of course, America still has made no serious effort to get bin Laden - and you should have no problem acknowledging that fact. That alone should be reason to call for impeachment. So why do Americans not do same? Because a Monica Lewinsky blow job is worthy of impeachment - but a president that protects bin Laden by being incompetent is not impeachable? In your face - are you a patriotic American, or do you forgive a current president who has a blow job mentality?

Frontline - The Dark Side. Yes they even show how an aluminum tube lie was created starting with Condi Rice. They show evidence of aluminum tubes from that secret government document - the NIE - was locked away and considered a pathetic joke by those who know.

Yes myths about aluminum tubes, Niger yellowcake, et al was so obvious that we even debated here for months. Yes some in the Cellar are more inspired by Oprah Winfrey logic to believe that scumbag president. Others who think like an engineer could therefore see through those lies.

Meanwhile every general who served in Iraq and has since retired has all but told you what a scumbag liar this president really is.

BTW, why were those myths of mobile biological labs created? In part because torture was used for a *confession*. Shocked? Only America’s greatest enemies torture - which tells you so much about the George Jr administration – all senior staff members and their president - Cheney. Oh. Americans don't really torture? And those 700 prisoners in Guantanamo - maybe only ten are guilty of anything. Being a scumbag is not an impeachable offense?

[Happy Monkey]

Frontline was depressing. It will be a difficult job to repair the damage this administration has done to the government.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They've also created a portion of the population so disgusted they may quit voting entirely.