Generals Calling on Rummy to Resign

[welsh]

There has been a lot of talk about this, whether the general should have called on Rummy to resign. Where they acting appropriately or should they have retired gracefully and without the political fanfare.

More US generals turn on Rumsfeld

Staff and agencies
Friday April 14, 2006

Guardian Unlimited

Two more retired US generals called overnight on Donald Rumsfeld to resign as US defence secretary, adding to a deepening rift within the Pentagon.
Six generals - two of whom commanded troops in Iraq - have now called on Mr Rumsfeld to stand down over his leadership of the war.

Retired Major General Charles Swannack, who led the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld, 73, had "micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces".

He told CNN: "I really believe that we need a new secretary of defence because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him."

Retired Major General John Riggs told National Public Radio that Mr Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's civilian leadership. "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign," he said.

Earlier this week retired Major General John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq from 2004 until last year, said Mr Rumsfeld's authoritarian leadership style had made life more difficult for professional soldiers.

"We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And the leadership needs to understand teamwork," he told CNN on Wednesday.

His comments were especially startling because he served as an aide to Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defence secretary and an architect of the Iraq war.

The other retired officers are Major General Paul Eaton, who trained Iraqi troops up to 2004, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold and retired Marine general Anthony Zinni, a former head of US Central Command and in charge of all American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000.

Of the six, only Gen Zinni is a longstanding critic of the war. Lt Gen Newbold, a director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in Time magazine this week that "we are living with [...] the consequences of successive policy failures". The fallout between parts of the US military and Mr Rumsfeld began in early 2003 in the run-up to the Iraq war, when General Eric Shinseki, who at the time was the army chief of staff, was sidelined after he told a congressional hearing that several hundred thousand US troops would be needed bring peace to Iraq - rather than the smaller force Mr Rumsfeld planned to send. Mr Rumsfeld has offered to resign at least twice but George Bush has always turned him down. The White House was last night firm in its support for the defence secretary. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters "the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period".

 

[Bradylama]

My supervisor enjoys listening to Rush Limbaugh, and while he more often than not comes up with some ridiculous bullshit, Rush brought up the point that the Generals' behavior caused exactly the opposite response they desired, if not making things worse for their agenda.

As soon as their views became publicized, Bush threw out some smoke pellets and replaced Rummy with a sheet and pillow dummy as he was snuck out the back door.

This could encourage those still in the military to speak out, but the immediately noticeable effect is that it's stirred up the administration's God Complex.

 

[welsh]

The problem is that Bush's god complex is becoming tiresome to most people.

Shortly after the Vietnam War a junior-level officer made a big splash by arguing that the senior level officers had basically towed the line when they knew the war was fucked up, and then the generals got hit for being quiet.

To be honest the DOD is very tight-lipped and there is painfully little transparency. So I'm actually glad the generals are speaking out, although I think the timing has more to do with Iran than Iraq.

To be fair Rumsfeld was always going to have a hard time. He came in with an agenda to make the military smaller, more technological and light, while still hard hitting. The military is kind of conservative about these things for good reason and I would doubt the generals would be happy with a civilian coming in and telling them what to do.

That said, I still don't get the military on this. They've been assfucked by W's administration for years now. To tow the line because W is commander-in-chief (who couldn't even do his tour with the National Guard) and #2 was a dedicated draft dodger during the last big war, makes me wonder what they are thinking.

 

[Montez]

Voted yes. I know at base they are soldiers and supposed to follow their superiors (civilian in this case) orders just like any other soldier, but really, if the leaders of our military and the people who should know more about war than anyone else don't make their views known or speak out then something is very very wrong.

 

[welsh]

Honestly Montez, what's bothering me is that there are a lot of folks who say that because these guys are military they give up their rights as citizens to speak their mind.

That's bullshit.

If anything, these guys serve the people of the United States, not the president. And if they choose to be soldiers, sailors or airmen as a career, that certainly doesn't mean they are second class citizens.

 

[Roshambo]

The problem is that Bush's god complex is becoming tiresome to most people.

Shortly after the Vietnam War a junior-level officer made a big splash by arguing that the senior level officers had basically towed the line when they knew the war was fucked up, and then the generals got hit for being quiet.

Probably because if they said anything while in uniform...problems.

BIG problems. Immediately being thrown into the brig for gross insubordination is just the tip of the iceberg of this issue, but will be the first thing anyone faces for speaking out in such a manner. In the military, it would be like calling for your CO to resign or hand the command to someone else.

During time of war, it could be construed as mutiny or traitorous activity.

To be honest the DOD is very tight-lipped and there is painfully little transparency. So I'm actually glad the generals are speaking out, although I think the timing has more to do with Iran than Iraq.

To be fair Rumsfeld was always going to have a hard time. He came in with an agenda to make the military smaller, more technological and light, while still hard hitting. The military is kind of conservative about these things for good reason and I would doubt the generals would be happy with a civilian coming in and telling them what to do.

That said, I still don't get the military on this. They've been assfucked by W's administration for years now. To tow the line because W is commander-in-chief (who couldn't even do his tour with the National Guard) and #2 was a dedicated draft dodger during the last big war, makes me wonder what they are thinking.

The biggest problem now would be if the military wasn't following W's orders specifically, or challenged them, because he is essentially their top boss. When the military no longer follows those orders, then we are in middle of what could turn into a civil war. The military is trained to operate that they follow the President's orders, and it would be a major fiasco if an active commission general spoke out about the problems in public.

We've already seen what happens when W's cronies handle the civilian and other leaks, what do you think would happen if an active duty soldier decided to challenge command?

So, instead, those who are civilian and who still do have the right of free speech (you don't have such a right in the military at all) can do the talking for the service members. As if it means much to the VP (or anyone else around the Offal Office), who ignores them while at the same time I think he made a commercial for helping the families of soldiers in the form of irony and insult.

 

[welsh]

The idea of the military trying to tell the civilian leadership what it should or shouldn't do is a bit scary in a South American kind of way. Better to keep the line between military and civilian clear.

But the argument that goes- "if you don't like what you are ordered to do, than you should resign" is kind of bullshit too. Presidents come and go, but generals are often in the military for a career. To resign because you don't like the civilian flavor of the moment seems a bit harsh.

The alternative is to walk arm-in-arm with an administration that is fucking up big time and won't listen to criticism. The line of command may go up to the Commander-in-Chief and his orders still need to be followed, but at the same time, these guys serve the country, not the party in office. There has to be some opening for these guys to say, "Hey this war plan is fucked up and is going to get a lot of people killed for all the wrong reasons."

 

[Pajari]

The civilians have to have the power of life or death over the miltary or, like welsh said, we've moved to South American democracy. That doesn't mean that soldiers can't speak their mind when they think things are being undermined by ineffective leadership.

Voted yes, they have the right. I think Rummy is on the right track shooting for a smaller, more agile and responsive military, but he missed the mark in Iraq.

 

[Roshambo]

The idea of the military trying to tell the civilian leadership what it should or shouldn't do is a bit scary in a South American kind of way. Better to keep the line between military and civilian clear.

Yes, but you're ignoring the Most Important Fact:

Civilians are an integral part of the US military's Chain of Command. Telling the President or someone else in the line to fuck off while in uniform doesn't carry the same penalty as if you chose to do it to your CO - IT'S FAR WORSE.

But the argument that goes- "if you don't like what you are ordered to do, than you should resign" is kind of bullshit too. Presidents come and go, but generals are often in the military for a career. To resign because you don't like the civilian flavor of the moment seems a bit harsh.

Uh...that is the only option really left available for them. There is also the point that if a general speaks out about something, he can be removed from his post and the position can be filled by someone else looking for a promotion and has "enough sense to keep quiet" that those higher-up like.

Now do you see why I have told people to wisely measure the reasons why they enlist, because if they don't like it when they get in, they don't have an opt-out option due to the US military's design of fraudulent contracts - you're stuck in that position or you're fucked from speaking up, and for benefits that Congress will later say the military didn't have the legal right to contractualize, but that neither means that the US govt has to provide for those benefits nor does it make the contract invalid.

Welcome to the fucked illusion of the US military.

The alternative is to walk arm-in-arm with an administration that is fucking up big time and won't listen to criticism. The line of command may go up to the Commander-in-Chief and his orders still need to be followed, but at the same time, these guys serve the country, not the party in office. There has to be some opening for these guys to say, "Hey this war plan is fucked up and is going to get a lot of people killed for all the wrong reasons."

No, there ISN'T. Freedom of Speech in the US military is a MYTH, and the President is treated as if he were to go up to a soldier and tell him to kiss his ass, the soldier is expected to ask which cheek or the pucker. That is the level of respect and importance given to the CIC.

If the military person went to civilians and said essentially what you said, it means brig time and a BCD, possibly time in Ft. Leavenworth, as you're not just misrepresenting the military at that point. If taken to those higher in rank, it will be "duly noted" and their service record will be marked for dissent in the ranks, essentially meaning they might as well have resigned or decided to not re-up their enlistment. Now, where else can they go? Canada? Now they're in deep shit for international reasons.

Welcome to the whipping boy of the US military, dishonorably fucked over by fatass rich civvies in office since Nam and proudly continuing today for the benefit of big business. Which is a further irony when you realize that US currency is really backed by the National Debt.