The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the secretary of defense's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN.

Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army because it is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there, but declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.

Other retired generals said they think it is unlikely that the denunciations of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease.

"A lot of them are hugely frustrated," in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. He said he is sensing much anger among Americans over the administration's handling of the war, and believes the continuing criticism from military professionals will fuel that anger as the November elections approach. He declined to discuss his own views.

Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said that he believes his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch," but even so his sense is that "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out."

He emphatically agrees, Riggs said, explaining that he believes Rumsfeld and his advisers have "made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." - MSNBC.com
--------
Who hired Rumsfeld, anyway? Whose great idea was this whole mess? The article quotes Michael Vickers, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank; "It's just absurd to lay the blame on Don Rumsfeld alone." I agree; Rumsfeld isn't the only guy who apparently in this administration who has his head in a dark place.
----

I'm still waiting for the bush defenders to come and defend. The boy genius is doing to the US what he did to the oil companies he ran...into the ground. If I remember correctly, they went broke, too.

Who knew the flag officers where just a bunch of Bush-haters?

And, whereas it's nice to think there actually could be a rising of the curtain before the eyes of the nation, it's amazing and depressing that there aren't people of all political stripes literally marching in the streets to denounce this administration.

quote:

...Rumsfeld and the bunch around him...

Who, exactly, might 'the bunch' include?

This guy's only a Captain, sorry:

'I now know I wrongfully placed my faith and trust in a presidential administration hopelessly mired in incompetence, hubris and a lack of accountability. It planned a war based on false intelligence and unrealistic assumptions. It has strategically surrendered the condition of victory in Iraq to people who do not share our vision, values or interests. The Bush administration has proven successful at only one thing in Iraq — painting us into a corner with no feasible exit.' www.commondreams.org

We have so many Generals that you can't shake a stick at, and you find a couple that speak out, and you get excited about that?

quote:

But when he subsequently stated that he would not join today's military, he made clear to the majority of us that he is out of touch with the troops. Quite frankly, it was received as a slap in the face

From a soldier refering to Murtha.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty,

you find a couple that speak out, and you get excited about that?

Let's see. Zinni is a four-star, former head of centcom, former special envoy to the Middle East. Batiste, as the article says, turned down a third star and offer to be #2 in Iraq and retired rather than work with Rumsfeld anymore. These aren't back-room Pentagon paper-pushers. But then, there's nothing that will convince blind Bush-lovers to take a look behind the curtain. Saying "wheeeee" as we go down the tubes....

As long as we're quoting Bradley..

"...the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."

quote:

Let's see. Zinni is a four-star, former head of centcom, former special envoy to the Middle East. Batiste, as the article says, turned down a third star and offer to be #2 in Iraq and retired rather than work with Rumsfeld anymore

Well, lets see how many more four, three, two, one stars that are out there. Too many to count.

quote:

I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions.
Omar N. Bradley

And then there's Colin Powell:

'In remarks before a private group in Chicago Saturday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- a four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself -- appeared to side with Rice, and with the generals.

"We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad," he said. "We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and ...it got out of control." He did not demand Rumsfeld's resignation, however.'
www.ipsnews.net

Powell has always known whose posterior to kiss. He learned that when he tried to cover up the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. His career took off after that.

Who is allowed to speak out against Rummy and the horrible way this war is being carried out? If citizens with no military ties say anything, we're labled anti-American, non-troop supporting, terriorist supporting idiots. If military connected people speak out, they're labled as malcontented kooks and traitors.

Is it supporting the troops to remain quiet while they are misused trying to achieve some fools' vague vision of "victory"? Why is it such a freaking crime to have thought contrary to what boosh or any of his cronies pretend to think? He and his admin took the wrong direction and now they act all offended when it's pointed out to them. Backing that sort of behavior does not move us toward a solution!

"Who is allowed to speak out against Rummy and the horrible way this war is being carried out?"
---
I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions. - Omar N. Bradley
---
"I support my secretary of defense," Lt. General John Vines, who commands the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said when questioned after a speech in Washington on Thursday about the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down. "If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign. My advice should be private." - New York times
---
Since Scotty has previously said and/or very strongly implied (I put the "implied" part in because I am unwilling to go find one of the posts in which he says that.) that we who do not have a military background should keep our uninformed opinions to ourselves, and since Scotty has quoted Omar Bradley saying that retired generals should keep their opinions to theirselves, and since Lt. General John Vines, who, no doubt, Scotty would agree with since he apparently supports bush and Rumsfeld, implied that active duty personnel should keep their opinions private, I surmise that the only ones who should speak out are those that agree with Scotty. That does seem to fall in line with bush's ideas about democracy, doesn't it. "No criticism of the president", and in Iraq's fledgling democracy, "Vote for who you want, but only the guy bush wants to win is acceptable."

I don't think being a retired General gives anyone instant credibility, but I certainly don't think they should be encouraged to keep their mouths shut anymore than any other civilian. I think it isn't quite right that the media is soliciting opinion from the men and women over in service in Iraq... I just don't think it's their job to analyze our political reasons. They are to follow orders. I wouldn't want them doing that if I was 100% behind our cause in Iraq so I think it's a bad precedent to set. The idea though that speaking out against the war is not supporting the troops is some sort of Nationalistic malarchy and frankly I think it's dangerous. It surely comes from people who were ugly to troops on their return from Vietnam, and I think that was beyond horrific behavior... I think it's silly to think that we all need to wave our flags and sing GWB's praises... it's vacant and idiotic to be that way.

My impression, and I could be wrong, is that Bush supporters don't really care what the reason is for anything Bush does. They don't care what he does in office. They completely disregard others concerns as Bush hating and they hope for some good result of all this crap. If there is a bad result they will blame the Bush haters for not supporting the President enough to make him successful and if he is successful in some minor way they will have an "I told you so." because right now apparently we are living "the ends justifies the means."

I am increasingly concerned that unless we elect a decent, honest and moral person in 2008 that this country is really going to out spend and outlive it's welcome with the rest of our friends and neighbors. It isn't really the Iraq's and Iran's of the world that we need to be concerned about. It is the waning support of us Americans(not just our government) in Europe, Australia, Canada, etc... how can they be expected to respect us when we disregard so many international issues. With countries like CHina and India joining the world market very seriously, it will only be through a strong bond with all those "friends" that our economy will hold on. People will quickly learn that if they aren't interested what other people think that we're going to end up with enormous unemployment in this country.

Recently I have been reading the Herman Wouk novel, "War and Remembrance". In the book, excerpts from a (fictional) German general officer's war time memoirs are presented. As I read about Adolf Hitler's many military blunders that ultimately doomed the German Army to defeat, I keep thinking about the parallels between their situation and ours now.

Why didn't those military leaders who were in a position to know about the terrible mistakes that brought death and destruction to so many Germans speak out? Why did they not just arrest him on the grounds that he was bringing certain disaster on the German people?

I know that a serving officer who tries to over-power a civilian leader can (and probably will) be tried for treason. But surely once relieved of duty, don't they owe it to their former comrades-in-arms to speak out about what is happening?

As I stated before in another post, I'm generally a conservative concerning political issues. It is hard for me to write this post, yet I feel strongly about this issue and that we must do what we can to start cleaning up this mess. I agree with DG that we don't want to remove Bush from office by impeachment (and have to live with the current V-P), but I think that the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld must be replaced. He has done too much harm already.

During the Viet Nam war, I felt we needed to "stay the course" in order that all the lost lives would not be in vain. Now I've come to believe that it is stupid to continue a war for that reason. I believe that we cannot just pull our troops out, but we have got to have an exit strategy.

And we have got to figure out a way to pay for this war and come to terms with our enormous national debt.

Dwight

"But surely once relieved of duty, don't they owe it to their former comrades-in-arms to speak out about what is happening?"

Unfortunately, Dwight, to some, supporting the troops means mouthing the same phrases repeatedly, and has little to do with real concern.

"I think it isn't quite right that the media is soliciting opinion from the men and women over in service in Iraq... I just don't think it's their job to analyze our political reasons."

Most of the comments made by these generals are, at least on the surface, not political. They are mostly more practical and more in the area of their expertise. That is, they seem to be criticizing the way the war was carried out rather than the fact that it was carried out. It's correct, of course, that their being retired generals doesn't automatically give them credibility, but it certainly gives us reason to weigh what they have to say on the practical matters of war.

I wasn't referring to retired generals being interviewed. I was targeting the interviews with soldiers on leave or in service where journalists ask them about politics behind the war.

Retired Generals of course have a right to their opinions and to voice them. My comment that they don't merit instant credibility. They too can be biased or just plain wrong.

A recent New Yorker article gives a little detail on why the Generals are so anti-Rumsfeld:

'The most stubborn resistance to the idea of an insurgency came from Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, who was determined to bring about a “revolution in military affairs” at the Pentagon—the transformation of war fighting into a combination of information technology and precision firepower that would eliminate the need for large numbers of ground troops and prolonged involvement in distant countries. “It’s a vision of war that totally neglects the psychological and cultural dimensions of war,” the officer said. Rumsfeld’s denial of the existence of the insurgency turned on technicalities: insurgencies were fought against sovereign governments, he argued, and in 2003 Iraq did not yet have one.

In October of that year, a classified National Intelligence Estimate warned that the insurgency was becoming broad-based among Sunni Arabs who were unhappy with the American presence in Iraq, and that it would expand and intensify, with a serious risk of civil war. But Rumsfeld, President Bush, and other Administration officials continued to call the escalating violence in Iraq the work of a small number of Baathist “dead-enders” and foreign jihadis. For Rumsfeld, this aversion became a permanent condition. Over Thanksgiving weekend last year, he had a self-described “epiphany” in which he realized that the fighters in Iraq didn’t deserve the word “insurgents.” The following week, at a Pentagon press conference, when the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, said, rather sheepishly, “I have to use the word ‘insurgent,’ because I can’t think of a better word right now,” Rumsfeld cut in, “ ‘Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government’—how’s that?”

The refusal of Washington’s leaders to acknowledge the true character of the war in Iraq had serious consequences on the battlefield: in the first eighteen months, the United States government failed to organize a strategic response to the insurgency...'
www.newyorker.com

Although Rumsfeld and Co. have now accepted the idea of 'insurgency', and there is a chance of using the right tactics to counter it (basically - less reliance on killing people or blowing things up) things have moved on, of course. There is massive pressure to withdraw troops - and rely more on airstrikes - before the US midterm elections, and the problem has changed from insurgency to civil war. And guess who's refusing to recognise the possibility of civil war?

Another reason the Generals are edgy, also from the New Yorker:

'The attention given to the nuclear option [i.e. against Iran] has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld...'

It seems that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, having fouled up in Iraq, are determined to make their mark on history (or bring about Armageddon, or whatever their loopy vision is) by nuking Iran. No wonder some generals feel that it's time for adult supervision of the Whitehouse.

quote:

Unfortunately, Dwight, to some, supporting the troops means mouthing the same phrases repeatedly, and has little to do with real concern.

I don't know who you are referring to here, DG, but the well being of the troops is very much a concern of mine, and I dare say it is to all loyal Americans. Some of us would speak no evil at all against our troops. It appears that all Americans do not feel the same way.