Retired Generals Besiege Rumsfeld
Retired Major General John Batiste said Friday of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “We went to war with a flawed plan that didn’t account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime . . .” and added, “We also served under a secretary of defense who didn’t understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant and who didn’t build a strong team.” He is the latest in a string of retired generals to call on Rumsfeld to step down.
There has been some snarking that Gen. Batiste did not speak out while in uniform. These comments come from civilian chickenhawks. Moreover, in the kind of shop Rumsfeld has been running, the US field commander, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, was almost fired for simply remarking on the guerrilla tactics of the Saddam Fedayeen, saying, "This is not the war we gamed for." His innocent and entirely accurate remark sent Rummy ballistic and Tommy Franks almost fired him. Franks was furious that Wallace and others wanted to deal carefully with the dangerous guerrillas, and told them he didn't care about keeping US casualties low. He actually put his hand over his mouth and yawned to show his uninterest in casualties. Rumsfeld was the one who pushed on Wallace a tiny military force that could not deal with, and never was able to deal with the guerrillas. US civil administrator Paul Bremer also admitted that we never had enough troops on the ground, and he told Rumsfeld so. He got no response. Rumsfeld keeps saying that no one told him things like that. But people did. He just wasn't listening. He should go.
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/15/2006 12:14:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
I keep wondering if the generals made an effort to speak to Congressional members about their concerns, earlier. It seems to me they must have tried, at the very least, to let someone on that side know of the problems. Have you ever heard anything suggesting this?
Juan, it's not just civilian chickenhawks criticising the military for not speaking out, and even if it were, the comment is uncalled for. One of the retired generals involved in the current spate of Criticism, Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, says, in his Time Magzine essay:
"With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader’s responsibility is to give voice to those who can’t–or don’t have the opportunity to–speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."
He also says he regrets not speaking out more loudly when he was in uniform and sooner once he was out.
People familiar with the military recognize the organizational pressures and cultural expectations under which military officers operate. But officers, and especially flag officers, have an ironclad obligation to their subordinates and to civilians to speak out in the face of stupidity from their civilian superiors. Doesn't mean they should refuse orders unless the orders are unlawful, but they're in a trade where lives and sometimes the fates of nations are at stake; if they have to resign and go public to protect those, that's what they should do.
More Newbold:
"After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq–an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots’ rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat-–al-Qaeda."
Isn't it reasonable to expect, or at least hope that military officers who think they're faced with zealots prosecuting an unnecessary war with an unworkable plan will let the rest of us in on the secret before the fact rather than after?
That aside, a number of people, including me, think that this apparently coordinated offensive against Rumsfeld is aimed more at short-circuiting an attack on Iran than it is at punishing the mistakes of Iraq. I sure hope it works.
Wonderful illustration!
But Rummy is needed to attack Iran!
More seriously, it is Bush who should be sacked as that is where the buck stops.
The reason for sacking should be clear, too:
* It is not for tactical or strategic blunders.
* The war is illegal and Bush is a war criminal both because of the invasion and because of ongoing war crimes such as the massacre of Fallujah.
It is very distressing to constantly read Americans calling for sackings because they feel they are losing a war but they have no remorse for hundreds of thousands of murders committed in their names.
Shame, America, shame!
"There has been some snarking that Gen. Batiste did not speak out while in uniform. These comments come from civilian chickenhawks."
One of these Chickenhawks is a freelance journalist who spent months in Baghdad and covered the Mahdi insurrection in Nadjaf : http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2006/04/why_didnt_you_say_so.php. That kind of emotional qualificatives brings nothing to the debate.
I think that Christopher Albriton has a point. To whom should these generals be loyal ? to America ? or to Rumsfeld, their carreer and their payroll ? To the credit of Greg Newbold, he resigned his position as director of operations for the Join Chiefs four months before the war; that's already something.
Rumsfeld has plenty of flaws. He is a thick-headed bully. But when big brass, all retired, start to moan about a soft target, without offering any clear constructive alternative strategies, you start to feel sorry for the guy. He is basically a techno-hawk who took his orders and applied what the Neocons recommended. He goofed because all the ideas, strategies, intelligence, and projections were wrong. He cannot admit this in public because his three superiors W, Cheney, and Rove) are not able to either. No one, not even the generals, has any idea how to fix the busted pot.
Nothing would be more unjust than for history books to say that W and Cheney were fine souls who misplaced their trust in a blowhard who botched an otherwise fine plan to make the world safe.
Did Wolfowitz's "redeployment" at the World Bank result in any change of heart, strategy or tactics in Iraq? Is Goss a better CIA director than Tenet? Shuffling people does not necessarily improve anyting.
Replacement of Rumsfeld would change nothing. It would merely make him a scapegoat, possibly convincing voters to stick with GOP candidates in November. The DoD successor would stick with more or less the same "stay the course" rhetoric. There would be no change in the political impasse or the inability to create a reliable Iraqi army or police force.
The generals are most angry not because of ignored advice but because Iraq is not becoming more peaceful and because the occupaton is likely to last forever and lead to nothing.
Retired General Odom has been more bold than any others in his critiques. However, were anyone like him had to take the helm at the Pentagon, he would immediately have to re-adopt all the language of victory and sanctity of the US military. Otherwise there would be a mutiny. It is easier to imagine a Pope appointing a woman bishop than to imagine a US leader to admit tacit defeat and order withdrawal. The US Right would declare jihad.
It is too late to repeat 2003 with more troops. The question is what to do in 2006. Ask the retired generals to confer on this, draft a concise recommendation, and submit it discretely. If Rumsfeld nodded and agreed to carry it out, he might be precisely the best person to try. If he refused, let the generals nominate five candidates from which the Senate could pick one unlucky winner.
Of course, this is not going to happen. The generals really and honestly do not have any plan they can agree on. Half will be like MacArthur and want to invade Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The other half will want to "redeploy" ASAP, but be terrified of the consequences. The two halves cancel each other out and you are left with exactly what we already have.
Anthony H. Cordesman might be a superbly qualified person to head DoD, but the daunting challenge would be how to withdraw from Iraq without creating disgrace and chaos. The Right would assign the fellow personal blame, and there would be no change in mind sets.
Actually, if Rummy does resign, it would be a crime to replace him with anyone of such integrity. Better to give the difficult honor to feckless types who really do deserve a comeupance. Think: Bill Frist, Pat Roberts, or (why not?) Fox's Bill O'Reilly!
Since none of these people would accept the job, better to leave it in hand of Rummy. He has all the right credentials and merits the full comeuppance--all the way to 2009.
There are regulations in place that define public statement criticizing the civilian leadership as a court marshall offense. So basically, we can complain they didn't speak out, but realize that it would have meant the end of their careers, perhaps even jail time. That's why people in the military whose conscience starts screaming too loud resign so that they aren't under the thumb of the gag rules in place while they are in uniform.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "Out of thousands and thousands of retired generals and admirals..." that a few criticize him is not to worry about.
Are there really "thousands and thousands" of retired generals and admirals? Perhaps we could form a division of thousands and thousands of retired generals and admirals and perhaps hundrdeds of thousands of retired colonels. I believe
Rumsfled has solved the manpower problems.
One more thing: Hey Rumsfeld, how many fingers am I holding up, you arrogant, innumerate snob?
Post a Comment
<< Home