Rumsfeld and the Generals

[seayakin]

Probably many of you have seen this article in today's New York Times "Top Retired General Rebuts Critics of Rumsfeld" by Christine Hauser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16cndmilitary.html?hp&ex=1145246400&en=46571ab513b7bb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities. The article of course is mostly about retired generals but they do cite some unspecified individuals of the military in active service who have concerns.

Now, I have no love of Rumsfeld but I do believe the military should be under civilian control and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold Rumsfeld and the Bush administration responsible for the strategic (sometimes tactical) decisions. It is the responsibility of the military to keep the civilian authority factually informed about its capabilities and the threats presented.

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

[Mephisto]

Probably many of you have seen this article in today's New York Times "Top Retired General Rebuts Critics of Rumsfeld" by Christine Hauser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16cndmilitary.html?hp&ex=1145246400&en=46571ab513b7bb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities. The article of course is mostly about retired generals but they do cite some unspecified individuals of the military in active service who have concerns.

Now, I have no love of Rumsfeld but I do believe the military should be under civilian control and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold Rumsfeld and the Bush administration responsible for the strategic (sometimes tactical) decisions. It is the responsibility of the military to keep the civilian authority factually informed about its capabilities and the threats presented.

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

When the casualty count in a war based on lies is rising while commanders see the brave men and women in our military risking their lives daily and there is no plan other than, "stay the course," I think military commanders have a DUTY to break rank to openly question civilian authority. They are, after all, fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, aren't they?

I assure you that several officers (maybe even quite of few of high rank) disagree with the way this war has been run, but again they fear reprisals from this administration and (logically) are not willing to sacrifice years of civil service. This administration has said they will base their decision to pull out of Iraq by what the generals on the ground say. It would be very interesting to hear what the "generals on the ground" actually have to say about our chances of "winning" this war.

[SteveGrenard]

Pentagon Issues Memo to Retired Generals to Come on out and defend the SecDef:


Pentagon steps up efforts to defend Rumsfeld
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: April 16 2006

The Pentagon has intensified efforts to shore up the position of Donald Rumsfeld, issuing a memo to retired military leaders encouraging them to speak out on behalf of the defence secretary.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cdc85084-cd86-11da-afcd-0000779e2340.html




I'd like to see that memo ... probably will by tomorrow.






Here's how General Wesley Clark answers your question:

"Asked whether it was appropriate to comment on the defence secretary’s performance while the United States is at war, Clark replied: “It’s more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on.” “Now these officers are saying at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen. That’s why secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He’s made bad policy choices. It’s time for new leadership.”

The military is under civilian control. They go and do what they are told to do by the President, his SecDef and the Congress. This is not about that.





Monday, April 17, 2006

Ex-NATO chief joins calls for Rumsfeld's resignation

WASHINGTON: A former NATO commander on Saturday joined six other retired generals in calling for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.

"I believe secretary Rumsfeld hasn't done an adequate job. He should go," General Wesley Clark told Fox News Channel in an interview. Clark said Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed the United States into Iraq, and said the invasion "had no connection" with the war on terror.

"They pressed for this, they pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished," said the retired general and Fox News analyst. "It was a tragic mistake, a strategic blunder."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C17%5Cstory_17-4-2006_pg4_11

[seayakin]

Pentagon Issues Memo to Retired Generals to Come on out and defend the SecDef:




I'd like to see that memo ... probably will by tomorrow.






Here's how General Wesley Clark answers your question:

"Asked whether it was appropriate to comment on the defence secretary’s performance while the United States is at war, Clark replied: “It’s more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on.” “Now these officers are saying at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen. That’s why secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He’s made bad policy choices. It’s time for new leadership.”

The military is under civilian control. They go and do what they are told to do by the President, his SecDef and the Congress. This is not about that.







I guess the real time to worry is if the military takes actions of war without orders from the civilian authority.

[CapelDodger]

I guess the real time to worry is if the military takes actions of war without orders from the civilian authority.Oh yes. Then the dog's taking you for a walk. Fortunately this current furore seems to be at the other end of the spectrum.

[Ziggurat]

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities.

Whenever they're not in service (meaning after they've retired or if they've resigned in protest), and not when they're still obligated to take orders from their civilian commanders. If a problem is so serious it needs to be complained about immediately and in public, then it's serious enough to resign for. If it's not serious enough to resign for, it's not serious enough to break out of the chain of command with a complaint.

[Rob Lister]

Having read the post, but without having read the replies to the post, it is my opinion that once a civilian you should follow your heart and say what you think is true. That does not necessarily mean that these retired military are do that: they may have motives they are not expressing (I can think of several). Still, I have given their opinion a great deal of consideration and found it lacking on several counts for several reasons. I'm not sure of my conclusion so it isn't firm yet.

I do not dislike Rummy. I like him quite a bit. I'm also retired military but not of such high rank of these. I respect their opinion but to respect their judgement takes a skeptical view.

[davefoc]

Reasons to fire Rumsfeld:
1. Numerous failures during initial occupation that seem to be the result of bad planning and failures to heed advice of people who turned out to have been right. Failures that include failures to secure explosives, failures to secure museiums, and failure to correctly estimate the number of troops required for the task.
2. Rumsfeld seems to have been involved with the prisoner abuse scandals. The degree to which he was is debatable, but the fact is it happened on his watch, was hugely harmfult to American interests and American credibility and Rumsfeld needed to take the fall for this alone.
3. Rumsfeld was definitely involved with Guantanamo prisonor abuse programs. Rumsfeld basically favors torture and is willing to put procedures in place to implement it. In the case of Guantanamo it might be argued that there were benefits to it and for some people those benefits may have justified the ethical and practical problems. In the case of prisoner torture in Iraq, the costs almost certainly outweighted the benefits to American and human interests.
4. The US is running the largest deficits in history. Deficits that are contributing to a huge balance of trade deficit, deficits that are weakening American power throughout the world and deficits that threaten the stability of the US economy. The current US military budget is now approximately equal to the rest of the world military expenditures combined. In the face of this Rumsfeld has not found one major military program that can be cancelled. Rumsfeld needs to be fired just for that.

But Rumsfeld won't be fired. And Rumsfeld won't be fired because the current POTUS thinks that his ego is more important than the good of the country and that firing Rumsfeld in the face of calls for him to do so would be an affront to that ego. Interestingly, Rumsfeld's failures seem to have lead to his job security in this administration. After each of his publicized failures there has been a round of public calls for his replacement. But the POTUS can't take the hit to his ego to actually fire somebody when there are public calls for his dismissal. So I guess the lesson here is that if you are an arrogant screwup in the Bush administration make sure your screwups are well known so that there will be public calls for your dismissal which Bush will then ignore.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

When the casualty count in a war based on lies is rising while commanders see the brave men and women in our military risking their lives daily and there is no plan other than, "stay the course," I think military commanders have a DUTY to break rank to openly question civilian authority. They are, after all, fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, aren't they?What you think a commander's duty is, is irrelevent. They risk court martial if they speak up, their duty is to tow the line. They are reminded of this. Frequently.

[Rob Lister]

What you think a commander's duty is, is irrelevent. They risk court martial if they speak up, their duty is to tow the line. They are reminded of this. Frequently.

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die -- unknown

[ImaginalDisc]

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die -- unknown


2

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[Rob Lister]

Reasons to fire Rumsfeld:
1. Numerous failures during initial occupation that seem to be the result of bad planning and failures to heed advice of people who turned out to have been right. Failures that include failures to secure explosives, failures to secure museiums, and failure to correctly estimate the number of troops required for the task.
2. Rumsfeld seems to have been involved with the prisoner abuse scandals. The degree to which he was is debatable, but the fact is it happened on his watch, was hugely harmfult to American interests and American credibility and Rumsfeld needed to take the fall for this alone.
3. Rumsfeld was definitely involved with Guantanamo prisonor abuse programs. Rumsfeld basically favors torture and is willing to put procedures in place to implement it. In the case of Guantanamo it might be argued that there were benefits to it and for some people those benefits may have justified the ethical and practical problems. In the case of prisoner torture in Iraq, the costs almost certainly outweighted the benefits to American and human interests.
4. The US is running the largest deficits in history. Deficits that are contributing to a huge balance of trade deficit, deficits that are weakening American power throughout the world and deficits that threaten the stability of the US economy. The current US military budget is now approximately equal to the rest of the world military expenditures combined. In the face of this Rumsfeld has not found one major military program that can be cancelled. Rumsfeld needs to be fired just for that.



1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.
2. What seems is not necessarily what is
3. You can debate that, but I've seen no evidence
4. Rummy does not set the military budget, congress does

[Rob Lister]

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Thank you ID, very nice.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Would speaking out earlier have changed a thing? I do not think so we were going to war no matter what. The outcome of war was predetermined so was the fact that Bush & Friends were going to write the new battle plan. If they spoke up it wouldnt have changed a thing and maybe ended up worse depending on their replacements "Brownie hows the war going?".

[Zep]

Practically speaking, there hasn't been an actual "war" in Iraq at all. The troops rolled in to very little to no real opposition, reaching Baghdad in a couple of weeks. Yes, there was the odd angry shot, and yes, some soldiers were injured and died. But a war...? Hardly.

The REAL war has come after the occupation, and it is a guerilla war of attrition. Many more US soldiers have died since VI-Day than before. The "enemy" is still there, is still armed, is still fighting, and is still VERY dangerous. And this war is NOT being won. And there are no plans extant from this administration on how to make an end to it. Already it has drawn out longer than the Korean War, and even that went to a truce!

Maybe this "lack of progress" can be sheeted home to the commanders on the ground, but I doubt it in this case. The plan, and the command, come from the top...and that's where the credit, and the blame and responsibility lie.

[Luke T.]

If an active duty member disagrees with his chain of command, he does have a duty to speak out. To his superiors, not the New York Times.

[geni]

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.

Please. Charles Martel's victory at battle of Tours. Napoleon victory at the battle of Austerlitz. Odo of Aquitaine's victory at the Battle of Toulouse.

These were serveal orders of mangitude greater.

[Mark]

If an active duty member disagrees with his chain of command, he does have a duty to speak out. To his superiors, not the New York Times.

What if he/she knows the orders they have been given are illegal? Serious question: what is the appropriate course then?

[hgc]

What if he/she knows the orders they have been given are illegal? Serious question: what is the appropriate course then?You are to dutifully complain up the chain of command and, in doing so, place your head on the chopping block.

[Mark]

You are to dutifully complain up the chain of command and, in doing so, place your head on the chopping block.

I suspect you are right...but I hope there is something else!

[Luke T.]

What if he/she knows the orders they have been given are illegal? Serious question: what is the appropriate course then?

That would be an "unlawful order". If it involves life and death, you do not have to obey an unlawful order. And you are required to report your superior to his superior.

There's a fine line between disobeying an unlawful order and mutiny, so you better know what the hell you are doing.

[Crossbow]

Probably many of you have seen this article in today's New York Times "Top Retired General Rebuts Critics of Rumsfeld" by Christine Hauser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16cndmilitary.html?hp&ex=1145246400&en=46571ab513b7bb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities. The article of course is mostly about retired generals but they do cite some unspecified individuals of the military in active service who have concerns.

Now, I have no love of Rumsfeld but I do believe the military should be under civilian control and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold Rumsfeld and the Bush administration responsible for the strategic (sometimes tactical) decisions. It is the responsibility of the military to keep the civilian authority factually informed about its capabilities and the threats presented.

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

Absolutely! Military leaders should speak out if they know of serious problems that are not being addressed by the civilian authorities.

Of course, they have to be very careful in doing so, because if they make such complaints without first going through official channels, then they will likely be fired because they did not do their job properly.

And of course, if even they do comply with all of the rules, regulation, and procedures for voicing such problems, then they will likely be fired for some other reason because no one likes a whistle blower.

Pretty tough nut, either way. However, military leaders are expected to follow orders, make decisions, be responsible to the people under their command, and think once in a while. Nazi Germany should be always remind one of the dangers that can occur when military leaders follow all orders without question.

By the way, if several retired flag officers feel so badly about the Iraq War that they are responding in this manner, then that probably indicates that at least a sizeable minority of current flag officers feel the same way.

[Luke T.]

You are to dutifully complain up the chain of command and, in doing so, place your head on the chopping block.

It's a risk, yes. But it isn't automatically a career ender. If it was an unlawful order, then the career which ends will be the unlawful order giver.

[ImaginalDisc]

That would be an "unlawful order". If it involves life and death, you do not have to obey an unlawful order. And you are required to report your superior to his superior.

There's a fine line between disobeying an unlawful order and mutiny, so you better know what the hell you are doing.

What if, and of course this is purely hypothetical, the illegal order comes from the highest authority?

[Luke T.]

What if, and of course this is purely hypothetical, the illegal order comes from the highest authority?

God? :D

On the serious side, even the highest authority is subject to the law. There is a provision about "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution.

[ImaginalDisc]

God? :D

On the serious side, even the highest authority is subject to the law. There is a provision about "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution.

Yes, but how are these supposed to come to light if a poor, dutiful staff officer is put in the position of being given illegal orders from on high? The Commander-in-Chief has no superior to report to. That is our hypotheical general to do, according to the U.C.M.J.?

[headscratcher4]

Please. Charles Martel's victory at battle of Tours. Napoleon victory at the battle of Austerlitz. Odo of Aquitaine's victory at the Battle of Toulouse.

These were serveal orders of mangitude greater.

Yeah, this is sort of on the order of Germany's blitzkrieg of Poland (NOT in brutality and complete disregard for life, but in the use of technology and speed).

I would think that a "great" victory would be one where the odds were so against the victor...Agincourt, for example, where the French overwhelmingly outnumbered Henry V.

A great victory, it would seem to me, would be one where the war is essentially over as a result of the defeat of the enemy, and rebuilding can begin...considering we're still in Iraq, still fighting, still losing soldiers and that most of the rebuilding money seems to be either squandered or yet to be spent, that the streets of Bahgdad and other major cities are very dangerous, that bombs are going off killing dozens of civilians every single day, it would not seem that the mission, as it were, has been accomplished.

[Mark]

That would be an "unlawful order". If it involves life and death, you do not have to obey an unlawful order. And you are required to report your superior to his superior.

There's a fine line between disobeying an unlawful order and mutiny, so you better know what the hell you are doing.

But if the unlawful order (thanks for the clarification) goes all the way to the top, what are the specific options?

I should think it would be going to the media, no?

[davefoc]

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.

Was this comment meant to be taken seriously? What are some other great military victories that rank up there with it? Was Rummy's presence a key factor in making this "one of the greatest military victory in history?" If he was a key factor in that do you give him any credit for the debacle that the occupation has turned in to?

2. What seems is not necessarily what isAbsolutely true. I think Rumsfeld was involved either through direct action or failures to act. I can't prove that. But I can prove that he was the guy in charge at the time and if Bush had wanted to make a strong statement that the abuse scandals didn't represent the policies of his administration he would have fired Rumsfeld. Instead, he allowed the scandals to seem like accepted policy and the incidents seem to have served as lightning rod to draw anti-American insurgents to the cause because the rate of American casualties climbed after the abuses became public.


3. You can debate that, but I've seen no evidence
Here's an article in Salon that details Rumsfeld's involvement:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/

4. Rummy does not set the military budget, congress does
In normal circumstances I think the secretary of defense would deserve criticism for not making the tough decisions that his position requires with regard to making reasonable recommendations regarding which defense programs to keep and which to cut. In this case the congress and the POTUS are working in a symbiotic relationship to reward their industrial benefactors without regard to the costs of this corruption to the nation. So I guess the defense of Rummy here is that he is just one tiny player in the overall Republican strategy to rape the country for the benefit of their corporate buddies.

[Doubt]

But if the unlawful order (thanks for the clarification) goes all the way to the top, what are the specific options?

I should think it would be going to the media, no?

No. That is not a legal option. In fact, Publicly airing a disagreement with the Commander in Chief would violate the UCMJ. Serving officers don’t get to speak their mind in public. That is one of those rights you give up as an officer.

You can resign and speak up, as long as you don’t spill anything classified.

I am not sure what the best legal course of action is. Going to Senators and Congressmen on the defense committees may be an option, but I am not sure about that.

Side note: One reason you may not hear more retired generals speaking out is that many have jobs as analysts or work for defense contractors. They could lose their jobs by speaking out.

[Meadmaker]

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

I think they should, if retired. The public has a right to be informed, and who better to inform them?

I recall during the Serbian war seeing some retired generals criticizing the way it was being fought. Some of them had been military talking heads during the Gulf War, and were then hired as media analysts to comment on military matters.

You don't recall them too much because we won that war, quickly, with 0 dead, 0 wounded, and three captured.

[CapelDodger]

A great victory, it would seem to me, would be one where the war is essentially over as a result of the defeat of the enemy, and rebuilding can begin...considering we're still in Iraq, still fighting, still losing soldiers and that most of the rebuilding money seems to be either squandered or yet to be spent, that the streets of Bahgdad and other major cities are very dangerous, that bombs are going off killing dozens of civilians every single day, it would not seem that the mission, as it were, has been accomplished.
Agincourt was similar in some way. The pace of life was more leisurely in those days, but no victory could stop the steady attrition which eventually drove the English Kings out.

For a momentous victory, look to Blenheim. That whole campaign was magnificent, in conception, in planning, in execution and in the blood-bath.

[CapelDodger]

I think they should, if retired. The public has a right to be informed, and who better to inform them?
They also have a duty towards their service, which doesn't just go away on retirement. If the service has concerns which the civilian authority is not addressing, who better to convey them?

I recall during the Serbian war seeing some retired generals criticizing the way it was being fought. Some of them had been military talking heads during the Gulf War, and were then hired as media analysts to comment on military matters.

You don't recall them too much because we won that war, quickly, with 0 dead, 0 wounded, and three captured.
The problem there, as I heard it, was that they could have had it over in ten minutes if they were allowed to take some casualties. Which, to the military mind, goes with the terrain and is offset by the experience gained in action. (That's not irony, I have no problem with that at all.)

[CapelDodger]

Yes, but how are these supposed to come to light if a poor, dutiful staff officer is put in the position of being given illegal orders from on high? The Commander-in-Chief has no superior to report to. That is our hypotheical general to do, according to the U.C.M.J.?
According to precedent established at Nuremberg an illegal order from the Supreme Authority is still illegal, and should not be obeyed. That outranks the UCMJ. IMO.

[geni]

For a momentous victory, look to Blenheim. That whole campaign was magnificent, in conception, in planning, in execution and in the blood-bath.

However the victory was in large part due to unforced errors made by the oposition.

[ImaginalDisc]

According to precedent established at Nuremberg an illegal order from the Supreme Authority is still illegal, and should not be obeyed. That outranks the UCMJ. IMO.

I tend to agree, but what is our hypotheical general supposed to do, retire in protest?

[WildCat]

They also have a duty towards their service, which doesn't just go away on retirement. If the service has concerns which the civilian authority is not addressing, who better to convey them?
This is VERY dicey ground. When the military has final say, or even influence over, the civilian government you are in dangerous territory. How far away is the day then when the civilian gov't has to have the support of the military? Recent events in Pakistan come to mind...

Politicizing the military is a very dangerous thing for any democracy, IMHO.

[Luke T.]

But if the unlawful order (thanks for the clarification) goes all the way to the top, what are the specific options?

I should think it would be going to the media, no?

No. You go to your Congressman. Something I saw many times in the military. Most of the time it was some young sailor bitching about something really stupid. But you would be surprised how quickly Congressmen respond to complaints from their military constituents and the brouhaha which ensues.

[Luke T.]

Also, a direct order from the President coming down to a lowly staff officer is highly unlikely.

"The President says to torture these prisoners." That's not how it works. The staff officer would hear, instead, "I want you to torture these prisoners" from his superior. It would be up to that superior to have not passed that instruction down if it came from higher up. So the lowly officer reports his superior. Then that superior will have to justify his orders, and so on up the chain of command.

And in any case, any change in policy is going to come in the form of a written instruction. An "instruction" is an official document. So then you have hard evidence.

edited to add more clarification

[CapelDodger]

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.
As a response to davefoc's
1. Numerous failures during initial occupation ...
that's pretty evasive. Occupation follows conquest. The conquest was not as awesome as you seem to think. Very professional.

[Luke T.]

One of the hard and fast rules I lived by in the military was to avoid, as much as possible, saying something along the lines of "The Captain said you guys have to do this." Even if the order originated with the Captain. It would undermine my own authority. You do it, sailor, because I told you to do it.

That's how it works. So if I passed on an unlawful order from the Captain, I was as accountable as he was. That's part of the job.

[CapelDodger]

This is VERY dicey ground. When the military has final say, or even influence over, the civilian government you are in dangerous territory. How far away is the day then when the civilian gov't has to have the support of the military? Recent events in Pakistan come to mind...

Politicizing the military is a very dangerous thing for any democracy, IMHO.
Meadmaker mentioned the public right to know, I mentioned the means of conveying concerns to the public. The danger the military poses is down to its physical ability to impose. But this is not about tanks being parked on the White House lawns.

This is taking place in a time of war. At such times in a democracy the public, the military, and the executive all have to contribute to finding the right policies. That requires lines of communication.

[Luke T.]

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Speaking of incompetent commanders...

A nice sweater, though.

:)

[Skeptic]

Well, I'm old enough to remember that usually, whenever somebody with stars on his shoulders dared to say something about public policy or criticize the secretary of defense,, the left would go ballistic: "Civilian control! Civlian control! The pentagon wants a military dictatorship!".

I've heard none of these (usually very vocals) opponents of military intervention in the civilian authority's policies in the last few days. Have you?

[Crossbow]

Well, I'm old enough to remember that usually, whenever somebody with stars on his shoulders dared to say something about public policy or criticize the secretary of defense,, the left would go ballistic: "Civilian control! Civlian control! The pentagon wants a military dictatorship!".

I've heard none of these (usually very vocals) opponents of military intervention in the civilian authority's policies in the last few days. Have you?

People went ballistic because a flag officer said something?

Sorry, but I do not think that is right. Or at least, I do not know of any such cases.

Would you have a citation of some sort about that?

[davefoc]

Reasonably balanced (balanced IMHO) editorial from USA Today on Rumsfeld:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060420/cm_usatoday/deciderbushresponsibleforrumsfeldandthewar;_ylt=At VQP2Yn0N51Nw4gtzRcaCSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BH NlYwM3NDI-

[CapelDodger]

Well, I'm old enough to remember that usually, whenever somebody with stars on his shoulders dared to say something about public policy or criticize the secretary of defense ...
Retired generals wear no stars. I'm unaware of serving generals who are publicly crticising Rumsfeld's policy.

[Mark]

Retired generals wear no stars. I'm unaware of serving generals who are publicly crticising Rumsfeld's policy.

Hmmm...

But The Wall Street Journal says that now his grip is slipping as some uniformed officers increasingly chart their own course.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/p09s02-cods.html

One current general said that while the recent criticisms may have brought the uniformed military's strained relationship with Rumsfeld into the open, debate over whether they should be more forceful about voicing disagreements had raged for months.

"The Newbolds and Eatons and the public discussion is spilling over from the internal discussion," said the currently serving general. "This has been a rising issue within the military."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-general13apr13,1,1745627.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[Luke T.]

"One current general". No name. :)

[jj]

Retired generals wear no stars. I'm unaware of serving generals who are publicly crticising Rumsfeld's policy.

Didn't you mean "surviving" instead of "serving"?

[CapelDodger]

"The Newbolds and Eatons and the public discussion is spilling over from the internal discussion," said the currently serving general. "This has been a rising issue within the military."
They're discussing a military rising? With the backing of the liberal media and an opportunistic, panderist even, Democratic opooisiton in disarray - they could pull it off! That would seal Rumsfeld's place in history, on the same shelf as Captain Bligh.

[President Bush]

But the POTUS can't take the hit to his ego to actually fire somebody when there are public calls for his dismissal.

I'm a dummy for Rummy.

[Crossbow]

Retired Flag Officers publicly critize policy all the time, and it is no big deal.

General Clark ran for president last time and he constantly critized Bush polices.

Further, the Center for Defense Information has been very vocal and very critical of various polices over many years

Mission Statement

The Center for Defense Information is dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.

...

http://www.cdi.org/

President, World Security Institute: Bruce G. Blair
He received his B.S. in communications from the University of Illinois in 1970. He then entered the U.S. Air Force for four years, serving as a Minuteman ICBM launch control officer and support officer for the Strategic Air Command’s Airborne Command Post (1970-1974).

Distinguished Military Fellow: Gen. Charles Wilhelm
Gen. Wilhelm, who retired in September 2000, has had a long and illustrious military career, including serving as head of U.S. Southern Command from 1997 to 2000. Prior to that, he served as commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic; Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic; Commander, U.S. Marine Forces, South; Commanding General, 11 Marine Force; Commanding General, Marine Striking Force Atlantic, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Distinguished Military Fellow: Gen. Anthony Zinni
Gen. Zinni, who retired in July 2000 after nearly 40 years of service, was head of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., from 1997 to 2000, a position that included responsibility for 25 countries ranging from the Horn of Africa and Egypt to the Arabian Peninsula to Southwest and Central Asia. From 1994 to 1996, he commanded the I Marine Expeditionary Force; during 1995, he commanded the Combined Task Force for Operation United Shield protecting the withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia. Gen. Zinni served in several other capacities in Somalia: from 1992-1993 as operations director for the Unified Task Force Somalia for Operation Restore Hope; and in 1993, as assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy to Somalia during Operation Continue Hope.

[a_unique_person]

"One current general". No name. :)

More than one.

[Mark]

They're discussing a military rising? With the backing of the liberal media and an opportunistic, panderist even, Democratic opooisiton in disarray - they could pull it off! That would seal Rumsfeld's place in history, on the same shelf as Captain Bligh.

Rumsfeld has sealed his own place in history, and did it entirely without the help of the mythical "liberal media." He did the old fashoned way: by being incompetent.

[Jocko]

More than one.

Sure, when you don't demand a name, you can pretend it's any number you please.

[Mark]

Sure, when you don't demand a name, you can pretend it's any number you please.

And when you are blindly loyal, you can pretend nothing is wrong, ever.

It's interesting. The conservatives on this board are making the argument that serving officers must not, ever, criticize Rumsfeld. Then they make the argument that serving officers must be happy with Rumsfeld because they are not complaining. It's a perfect circle.

[Jocko]

And when you are blindly loyal, you can pretend nothing is wrong, ever.


When I criticize your politics, Mark, does it affect the way you live your life? Do you think your criticisms of mine affect my life?

[a_unique_person]

Sure, when you don't demand a name, you can pretend it's any number you please.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rumsfeld-must-go-say-generals/2006/04/14/1144521503462.html

Generals, as in plural. I'm surprised you didn't take my word for it.

[zenith-nadir]

I kinda look at it like any large corporation. How many people complain about their boss at work? So what's unusual about a handful of Generals - out of thousands - who disagree with their old boss?

IMO the media spun a mountain from a molehill.

[Jocko]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rumsfeld-must-go-say-generals/2006/04/14/1144521503462.html

Generals, as in plural. I'm surprised you didn't take my word for it.

Sure, AUP, except Luke was talking about active generals, not retired ones. I'm surprised you didn't know the difference. ;)

[Mark]

When I criticize your politics, Mark, does it affect the way you live your life? Do you think your criticisms of mine affect my life?

No. Why would I care?

[Crossbow]

And when you are blindly loyal, you can pretend nothing is wrong, ever.

It's interesting. The conservatives on this board are making the argument that serving officers must not, ever, criticize Rumsfeld. Then they make the argument that serving officers must be happy with Rumsfeld because they are not complaining. It's a perfect circle.

True enough Mark!

I am always amazed at how Bush and Rumsfeld often say with a straight face that they never hear complaints from the military.

Of course, they are dealing with Lieutenants who want to become Captains,
Captains who want to become Majors,
Majors who want to become Colonels, and
Colonels who want to become Generals, and
Generals who want to become Chief of Staff, and
All of these people need Rumsfeld and Bush to sign off on such promotions.

Ugh! It is no wonder that there is such an echo chamber.

[Jocko]

No. Why would I care?

Exactly.

[Crossbow]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rumsfeld-must-go-say-generals/2006/04/14/1144521503462.html

Generals, as in plural. I'm surprised you didn't take my word for it.

Er, that article refers to retired Generals, not Generals still on Active Duty.

As far as I know, only one Active Duty General, Shinseki, publicly complained about the war (before it even started) and he was fired as soon as they could get him out of the door.

[a_unique_person]

Sure, AUP, except Luke was talking about active generals, not retired ones. I'm surprised you didn't know the difference. ;)

Powell was an ex, and he made it pretty clear that once his oath of loyalty was expired, ( he was a good army man), he was outta there. Luke's post that I replied to made no mention of serving or otherwise.

Meanwhile, the current war is costing more in current terms than the Vietnam war.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-war-puts-us-coffers-under-siege/2006/04/20/1145344218091.html

[Jocko]

Powell was an ex, and he made it pretty clear that once his oath of loyalty was expired, ( he was a good army man), he was outta there. Luke's post that I replied to made no mention of serving or otherwise.

WTF are you talking about? It's right up there, AUP:

"One current general". No name.

Of those five words, the one you want to pay attention to is #2. Hope that helps.

Meanwhile, the current war is costing more in current terms than the Vietnam war.

This just in: war is expensive. After the commercial break, we'll discuss how leading scientists have found that water is wet and AUP loves to switch topics the second he's caught out. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

For cryin out loud, it's friday night and i've had a few drinks. And Vietnam is still cheaper than Iraq. it's just an interesting fact I found out while looking up the generals reference. It's an unfortunate fact of life, serving military are not supposed to ever speak out against the chain of command. It's part of the military code of ethics. Either way, these are people who would have toed the line when they were serving, just like Powell did.

[Jocko]

For cryin out loud, it's friday night and i've had a few drinks. And Vietnam is still cheaper than Iraq. it's just an interesting fact I found out while looking up the generals reference. It's an unfortunate fact of life, serving military are not supposed to ever speak out against the chain of command. It's part of the military code of ethics. Either way, these are people who would have toed the line when they were serving, just like Powell did.

If you want to complain about how unfair life is, go to church and talk to the management. If you want to discuss who's on record saying what on this particular topic, then by all means do so. But don't conflate the two, it's pathetic to watch.

[Mark]

WTF are you talking about? It's right up there, AUP:



Of those five words, the one you want to pay attention to is #2. Hope that helps.



This just in: war is expensive. After the commercial break, we'll discuss how leading scientists have found that water is wet and AUP loves to switch topics the second he's caught out. :rolleyes:

Why did you post this? Do you think it affects how anyone lives their life? ;)

[Rob Lister]

And when you are blindly loyal, you can pretend nothing is wrong, ever.


ditto, vice versa.

And when you are blindly disloyal, you can pretend nothing is right, ever.

[Mark]

ditto, vice versa.

And when you are blindly disloyal, you can pretend nothing is right, ever.

Disloyal? In what way? Oh, that's right..support Bush in all things or be a bad American. Sorry; I forgot.

(btw, for the bazillionth time...I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.)

[Jocko]

Why did you post this? Do you think it affects how anyone lives their life? ;)

My point, Mark, is that I (like you) are simply a nameless voice of dissent. The kind of thing that most people don't let dictate their actions, beliefs or priorities. The kind of thing that doesn't generally bring down a cabinet member.

[a_unique_person]

If you want to complain about how unfair life is, go to church and talk to the management. If you want to discuss who's on record saying what on this particular topic, then by all means do so. But don't conflate the two, it's pathetic to watch.

I'm not complaining. It's a simple observation. Serving generals cannot complain, it's how the military works. The fact that 'ex' generals comment at all is significant, given how inherently loyal they are even after they leave the military, (we are talking about generals now). Take it as you please.

[Jocko]

I'm not complaining. It's a simple observation. Serving generals cannot complain, it's how the military works. The fact that 'ex' generals comment at all is significant, given how inherently loyal they are even after they leave the military, (we are talking about generals now). Take it as you please.

Yeah, well, thanks for the observation. Be sure to check back when you're through shattering all those negative Australian stereotypes.

[jj]

Nixon's the One!

[Mark]

My point, Mark, is that I (like you) are simply a nameless voice of dissent. The kind of thing that most people don't let dictate their actions, beliefs or priorities. The kind of thing that doesn't generally bring down a cabinet member.

The evidence of the Nixon Administration to the contrary...

[CapelDodger]

As far as I know, only one Active Duty General, Shinseki, publicly complained about the war (before it even started) and he was fired as soon as they could get him out of the door.
It's worth noting that he was giving his opinion on requirements to Congress, which has as much right to know it as the White House does. It is, after all, Congress that makes the decisions on war and they need honest advice to do that.

It wasn't crticism of the way the Iraq War has been fought. It was more an attempt to avoid the current shambles.

[davefoc]

Charles Krauthammer on the Rumsfeld criticism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042001379.html

davefoc wrote:
4. The US is running the largest deficits in history. Deficits that are contributing to a huge balance of trade deficit, deficits that are weakening American power throughout the world and deficits that threaten the stability of the US economy. The current US military budget is now approximately equal to the rest of the world military expenditures combined. In the face of this Rumsfeld has not found one major military program that can be cancelled. Rumsfeld needs to be fired just for that.


Krauthammer wrote:
His canceling several heavy weapons systems, such as the monstrous Crusader artillery program, was the necessary overriding of a hidebound bureaucracy by an innovating civilian on a mission.

The Crusader was cancelled back in 2002. It appears at least some of davefoc's criticism of Rumsfeld on this issue was not justified.