PDA

View Full Version : Retired US Generals call for Rumsfelds resignation cite "Incompetence"


Dave Lane
04-11-2006, 11:56 PM
Retired brass has called for the defense secretary's resignation

(CNN) -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff defended Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from new criticism by former Pentagon brass Tuesday, telling reporters that "nobody works harder than he does."

"He does his homework. He works weekends. He works nights," Gen. Peter Pace said. "People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

Pace opened Tuesday's regular Pentagon briefing with a defense of the planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where U.S. troops have been battling a persistent insurgency since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.

In the past month, three former generals have accused Rumsfeld of bungling the occupation of Iraq by refusing to commit enough troops to secure the country after taking Baghdad.

In a Time magazine essay published this week, retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold said the war plan was "fundamentally flawed," and many senior officers "acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard." (Read Newbold's criticism)

"When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction," wrote Newbold, who was the operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff before retiring.

Another retired Marine general, former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, has called for Rumsfeld to resign over his management of the war. And in a New York Times op-ed piece in March, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld "incompetent."

Asked if the criticism was affecting his ability to do his job, Rumsfeld said, "No."

Newbold left the service in October 2002 -- in part, he said, because of his objections to the upcoming invasion.

"Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough," he wrote in Time. "I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals."

Rumsfeld said Newbold "never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of." Pace also said he was unaware of any objections Newbold raised.

Pace said plans for the invasion were significantly overhauled between the time Newbold retired and the day American troops crossed the Iraqi frontier in March 2003.

He said members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed on to the war plan presented by Gen. Tommy Franks, then-commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, before it was presented to Rumsfeld and President Bush, and top officers had "every opportunity to speak our minds."

"And if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there. It is elicited from us, and we're expected to," Pace said.

About 150,000 U.S. troops went into Iraq to topple Hussein, and about 130,000 remain there to provide security for Iraq's nascent government. But Zinni said estimates of the force needed for any invasion and occupation of Iraq during his 1997-2000 tenure as Central Command chief called for between 380,000 and 500,000 troops.

"The idea that you could control that country in the aftermath with those few troops was flawed," he told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday.

Meanwhile, Newbold criticized the Pentagon's civilian leadership for launching the invasion, which he said 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." And he criticized fellow officers for not standing up to those leaders, saying their silence meant "that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war."

Wow just wow!

Dave

Ugly Duck
04-12-2006, 01:24 AM
In the past month, three former generals have accused Rumsfeld of bungling the occupation of Iraq

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold said the war plan was "fundamentally flawed"

Marine general, former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, has called for Rumsfeld to resign over his management of the war.

Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld "incompetent."

Think maybe the generals don't watch Faux News? They musta missed the reports of our resounding success in post-war Iraqmire.

memyselfI
04-12-2006, 06:13 AM
Think maybe the generals don't watch Faux News? They musta missed the reports of our resounding success in post-war Iraqmire.

Or maybe they missed the memo that states your first actions are always right, not subject to review or revision, and if you don't question at the start you should STFU when the plan, that is destined to fail, does....

Chiefs Express
04-12-2006, 06:32 AM
At some point you have to ask the question, what could have been done that would satifsy the liberals?

Too many people on the ground, not enough people on the ground. Shouldn't have bombed the way we did, didn't bomb enough. Too many resereves, not enough reserves.

I think that in the eyes of liberals, for the most part, and hacks, meme and a few of her faithful followers, that it's just open game to blame the guy that beat the current democratic hot guy (Gore, Kerry, and continuing with Hillary).

patteeu
04-12-2006, 10:47 AM
How many Generals are there in the Army and the Marines? Dozens? Hundreds? And when you start adding in all the retired Generals, the number gets even larger. Surely there are more than 3 Generals who have a dissenting opinion about almost every decision made.

At least General Zinni stood up and made his opinion clear early on. The other two are nothing more than monday morning quarterbacks.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 11:13 AM
At some point you have to ask the question, what could have been done that would satifsy the liberals?

Too many people on the ground, not enough people on the ground. Shouldn't have bombed the way we did, didn't bomb enough. Too many resereves, not enough reserves.

I think that in the eyes of liberals, for the most part, and hacks, meme and a few of her faithful followers, that it's just open game to blame the guy that beat the current democratic hot guy (Gore, Kerry, and continuing with Hillary).


I think the easy answer is don't go in in the first place.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 11:15 AM
At least General Zinni stood up and made his opinion clear early on. The other two are nothing more than monday morning quarterbacks.


I agree with this but those are some pretty strong words.

Dave

Radar Chief
04-12-2006, 11:20 AM
I think the easy answer is don't go in in the first place.

Dave

Sit地 on our collective thumbs got us attacked.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 11:50 AM
Sit地 on our collective thumbs got us attacked.


By Iraq?

Dave

Radar Chief
04-12-2006, 11:52 AM
By Iraq?

Dave

Or Afghanistan?

Mr. Laz
04-12-2006, 12:16 PM
these former Generals must HATE THE TROOPS

patteeu
04-12-2006, 12:22 PM
these former Generals must HATE THE TROOPS

Maybe they just want to make money on books or get jobs as military analysts on CNN or something. I'd guess it's self-promotion before I'd guess they hate the troops.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 04:38 PM
Well then they hate America because they are helping the terrorists...

Dave

Yeah!

banyon
04-12-2006, 04:47 PM
Damn. I still have to read Chiefs Express in the quotations.

If only there were an "ignore quotes" feature too. :fire:

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 04:50 PM
Or Afghanistan?


Afganistan attacked us? Cool I wonder where they got the boats?

Dave

Cochise
04-12-2006, 04:50 PM
"When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction,"


So they didn't say anything at the time, and now they are complaining that they knew it all along? :spock:

Eye Patch
04-12-2006, 04:53 PM
Afganistan attacked us? Cool I wonder where they got the boats?

Dave

Didn't need them they used American visas.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 04:56 PM
So they didn't say anything at the time, and now they are complaining that they knew it all along? :spock:


I don't think speaking out against the President and SoD plan for war is a good career move. Like suicide actually. Hence most will bite their lip and hope for the best.

Dave

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 05:23 PM
At some point you have to ask the question, what could have been done that would satifsy the liberals?

Too many people on the ground, not enough people on the ground. Shouldn't have bombed the way we did, didn't bomb enough. Too many resereves, not enough reserves.

I think that in the eyes of liberals, for the most part, and hacks, meme and a few of her faithful followers, that it's just open game to blame the guy that beat the current democratic hot guy (Gore, Kerry, and continuing with Hillary).


Maybe the problem is that you are generalizing liberals too much. If you are finding they are on all sides of an issue, maybe you need to narrow your definitions some so you can actually tell them apart from one another.

patteeu
04-12-2006, 05:24 PM
Afganistan attacked us? Cool I wonder where they got the boats?

Dave

I could be wrong, but I think that was his point. Very few complain about our invasion of Afghanistan even though they didn't attack us (or have any capability to attack us) but it's in vogue to criticize the invasion of Iraq for those very same reasons.

unlurking
04-12-2006, 07:43 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that was his point. Very few complain about our invasion of Afghanistan even though they didn't attack us (or have any capability to attack us) but it's in vogue to criticize the invasion of Iraq for those very same reasons.
I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and still am. I have yet to see credible reports how Iraq funded/supported the 911 attacks though. I understand the "pre-emptive strike" thinking behind Iraq, but that is a very slippery slope as to what constitutes an "acceptable" threat to warrant the invasion of another nation.

I think comparing justifications for Iraq and Afghanistan invasions is like comparing apples to oranges.

I hate to talk about foreign approval of our actions (as I believe 100% that America should think of #1 first), but I really think this was one we should have left to the UN, and then spent our efforts cleaning up that disgrace of a political body. I think a large portion of our problems with the UN is the way we are perceived by the rest of the world. I honestly believe that were we to fix that image problem, the rest of the world would have been behind some form of intervention in Iraq.

That may be my rare optimism and belief in others being misplaced, but, that's how I feel.

Adept Havelock
04-12-2006, 07:56 PM
I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and still am. I have yet to see credible reports how Iraq funded/supported the 911 attacks though. I understand the "pre-emptive strike" thinking behind Iraq, but that is a very slippery slope as to what constitutes an "acceptable" threat to warrant the invasion of another nation.

I think comparing justifications for Iraq and Afghanistan invasions is like comparing apples to oranges.

I hate to talk about foreign approval of our actions (as I believe 100% that America should think of #1 first), but I really think this was one we should have left to the UN, and then spent our efforts cleaning up that disgrace of a political body. I think a large portion of our problems with the UN is the way we are perceived by the rest of the world. I honestly believe that were we to fix that image problem, the rest of the world would have been behind some form of intervention in Iraq.

That may be my rare optimism and belief in others being misplaced, but, that's how I feel.

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 08:14 PM
I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and still am. I have yet to see credible reports how Iraq funded/supported the 911 attacks though. I understand the "pre-emptive strike" thinking behind Iraq, but that is a very slippery slope as to what constitutes an "acceptable" threat to warrant the invasion of another nation.

I think comparing justifications for Iraq and Afghanistan invasions is like comparing apples to oranges.

I hate to talk about foreign approval of our actions (as I believe 100% that America should think of #1 first), but I really think this was one we should have left to the UN, and then spent our efforts cleaning up that disgrace of a political body. I think a large portion of our problems with the UN is the way we are perceived by the rest of the world. I honestly believe that were we to fix that image problem, the rest of the world would have been behind some form of intervention in Iraq.

That may be my rare optimism and belief in others being misplaced, but, that's how I feel.


Nice answer rep!

Dave

Chiefs Express
04-12-2006, 09:56 PM
Damn. I still have to read Chiefs Express in the quotations.

If only there were an "ignore quotes" feature too. :fire:

Somebody quote this so banyon can see how much of a noob he really is.

If you don't like reading what I write just bypass the posts that you see my name on, it's easy. I have zero people on ignore, but I do have the capability to resist commenting with some of the more unsavory characters. You see me as unsavory and with no common good so just don't respond. Or be the coward and keep hiding behind your ignore button.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 10:43 PM
Somebody quote this so banyon can see how much of a noob he really is.

If you don't like reading what I write just bypass the posts that you see my name on, it's easy. I have zero people on ignore, but I do have the capability to resist commenting with some of the more unsavory characters. You see me as unsavory and with no common good so just don't respond. Or be the coward and keep hiding behind your ignore button.


As requested...

Dave

unlurking
04-12-2006, 10:53 PM
Capability to resist posting?

Wow, I'm impressed. I wonder if Banyon asked his IT department to block this site?

patteeu
04-12-2006, 10:54 PM
Capability to resist posting?

Wow, I'm impressed. I wonder if Banyon asked his IT department to block this site?

ROFL

Chiefs Express
04-12-2006, 11:13 PM
Capability to resist posting?

Wow, I'm impressed. I wonder if Banyon asked his IT department to block this site?

You might not agree with what I did, but the job I have is too good to take a chance on playing while I should be working. You might be able to post at work without any repurcussion. I'd prefer to make sure my family has what they need and to hell with the gamesmanship on a bulletin board.

I don't feel bad about getting the firewall updated, if you feel bad for me doing so, that's your choice.

How about you, do you post from work? Are you stealing time from your employer?

Radar Chief
04-13-2006, 08:00 AM
Afganistan attacked us? Cool I wonder where they got the boats?

Dave

You mean they didn稚? :spock: But, we invaded there too. :shrug:
I知 see地 a pattern here. :hmmm:
Maybe the pattern is, go地 after the terrorists that did attack us by take地 away the little hidey-holes where they receive support and a place to plan further destruction. :shrug:

banyon
04-13-2006, 09:30 AM
blah, blah...same ol' same ol'...

It's not a matter of cowardice.

It's a matter of having a more pleasurable web viewing experience.

I'm on 2 week vacation. But if I really enjoy it, maybe I'll put in for an extended stay.

Radar Chief
04-13-2006, 11:35 AM
It's not a matter of cowardice.

It's a matter of having a more pleasurable web viewing experience.

I'm on 2 week vacation. But if I really enjoy it, maybe I'll put in for an extended stay.

Good for you, but surely you have better things to do on a beautiful day like this than squabble with us Cretans.
Go out, get drunk, act like a fool and get laid. In whichever order you prefer. :toast:

Radar Chief
04-13-2006, 11:41 AM
I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and still am. I have yet to see credible reports how Iraq funded/supported the 911 attacks though. I understand the "pre-emptive strike" thinking behind Iraq, but that is a very slippery slope as to what constitutes an "acceptable" threat to warrant the invasion of another nation.

I think comparing justifications for Iraq and Afghanistan invasions is like comparing apples to oranges.

鄭pples and oranges? That痴 too bad, since I致e seen this from the beginning as a continuation of the exact same thing started in Afghanistan. Even with the exact same main target, al Quada.

I hate to talk about foreign approval of our actions (as I believe 100% that America should think of #1 first), but I really think this was one we should have left to the UN, and then spent our efforts cleaning up that disgrace of a political body. I think a large portion of our problems with the UN is the way we are perceived by the rest of the world. I honestly believe that were we to fix that image problem, the rest of the world would have been behind some form of intervention in Iraq.

That may be my rare optimism and belief in others being misplaced, but, that's how I feel.

You池e welcome to that opinion and it might致e worked, then again it might not致e.

banyon
04-13-2006, 01:20 PM
Good for you, but surely you have better things to do on a beautiful day like this than squabble with us Cretans.
Go out, get drunk, act like a fool and get laid. In whichever order you prefer. :toast:

Sorry Radar. It ain't a literal vacation. You're right, I'd have better things to do. :)

I'm just on vacation from Chiefs Express.

Radar Chief
04-13-2006, 01:23 PM
Sorry Radar. It ain't a literal vacation. You're right, I'd have better things to do. :)

I'm just on vacation from Chiefs Express.

Ah, when you named a time frame I assume you meant a literal vacation. My bad.

Ugly Duck
04-14-2006, 12:48 AM
Zinni, Eaton, Newbold, Batiste, and now Swannack.......

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/story.swannack.file.cnn.jpg

Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says

Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign. (Watch as more retired generals join chorus against Rumsfeld -- 1:29)

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold also have called for Rumsfeld to step down.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

the Talking Can
04-14-2006, 05:09 AM
Zinni, Eaton, Newbold, Batiste, and now Swannack.......

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/story.swannack.file.cnn.jpg

Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says

Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign. (Watch as more retired generals join chorus against Rumsfeld -- 1:29)

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold also have called for Rumsfeld to step down.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html


Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."

Chiefs Express
04-14-2006, 08:32 AM
It's not a matter of cowardice.

It's a matter of having a more pleasurable web viewing experience.

I'm on 2 week vacation. But if I really enjoy it, maybe I'll put in for an extended stay.

WE can only hope!

Ugly Duck
04-14-2006, 03:06 PM
Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.Its too bad that the generals can't be critical of Rummy while they're still on duty. Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki did that & got booted quick. At least the generals on the ground in Iraqmire have the conscience to speak out against the Stooges when they get home.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Close_Protection/aap.jpg

PunkinDrublic
04-14-2006, 03:43 PM
At some point you have to ask the question, what could have been done that would satifsy the liberals?

Too many people on the ground, not enough people on the ground. Shouldn't have bombed the way we did, didn't bomb enough. Too many resereves, not enough reserves.

I think that in the eyes of liberals, for the most part, and hacks, meme and a few of her faithful followers, that it's just open game to blame the guy that beat the current democratic hot guy (Gore, Kerry, and continuing with Hillary).

Yeah we all know what a hotbed of liberalism the military is. :rolleyes:

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 03:51 PM
At some point you have to ask the question, what could have been done that would satifsy the liberals?A good job.
:hmmm:

unlurking
04-14-2006, 03:53 PM
鄭pples and oranges? That痴 too bad, since I致e seen this from the beginning as a continuation of the exact same thing started in Afghanistan. Even with the exact same main target, al Quada.

At the time we invaded Iraq, there was more information supporting the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the 911 attacks than Iraq. Even if you were to undeniably state that ALL the documentation pointing to Iraq having plans to attack the US using terrorist methods is accurate, the Saudis have STILL contributed DIRECTLY to the 911 attacks. Iraq has not. If you are on a black/white tear to destroy terrorism, Saudi should have come before Iraq.

You池e welcome to that opinion and it might致e worked, then again it might not致e.

True, we cannot clean up our own political body, so cleaning up the UN would likely be tougher. Unfortunately, I believe cleaning up both to be of more import than invading Iraq.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 03:57 PM
Yeah we all know what a hotbed of liberalism the military is. :rolleyes:

It's not, but I would be interested in knowing where the Generals in question got their commissions. It is pertinent in that ROTC officers come out of Universities which ARE hotbeds of liberalism. Ringknockers on the other hand come out of the 'Point' and are traditionally very conservative. Also, what were the actual ranks of the Generals in question? I ask because junior flag officers (BG, MG) are more apt to question strategic planning as they are not involved in it. They are more involved with operational level planning.

the Talking Can
04-14-2006, 04:57 PM
A good job.
:hmmm:
ROFL

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:16 PM
Its too bad that the generals can't be critical of Rummy while they're still on duty. Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki did that & got booted quick. At least the generals on the ground in Iraqmire have the conscience to speak out against the Stooges when they get home.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Close_Protection/aap.jpg

There were plenty of times when Rumsfeld has publicly claimed to be giving the operational commanders everything they request when these Generals could have gone public saying that they weren't getting what they needed. It didn't happen. Were these Generals derelict in their duty to their troops?

Maybe these Army Generals had their oxen gored when Rumsfeld's plans to reorganize the army were disclosed. Maybe they didn't like the way Rumsfeld cancelled two major Army procurement programs in his efforts to reform the Army with an eye toward the next war instead of the last one.

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:22 PM
At the time we invaded Iraq, there was more information supporting the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the 911 attacks than Iraq. Even if you were to undeniably state that ALL the documentation pointing to Iraq having plans to attack the US using terrorist methods is accurate, the Saudis have STILL contributed DIRECTLY to the 911 attacks. Iraq has not. If you are on a black/white tear to destroy terrorism, Saudi should have come before Iraq.



True, we cannot clean up our own political body, so cleaning up the UN would likely be tougher. Unfortunately, I believe cleaning up both to be of more import than invading Iraq.

It doesn't have anything to do with being directly involved in 911. The war is broader than retribution for a single attack. To limit the GWoT to those directly responsible for 911 would be like treating the symptoms of cancer. It might make us feel better, but it isn't going to solve the problem.

unlurking
04-14-2006, 05:32 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with being directly involved in 911. The war is broader than retribution for a single attack. To limit the GWoT to those directly responsible for 911 would be like treating the symptoms of cancer. It might make us feel better, but it isn't going to solve the problem.
Then if you're saying Iraq is part of the "GWoT", then this is where we differ.

The GWoT is nothing more than craptasticular rhetoric. Have we won the "War on Drugs"? The "War on Poverty"? The "War on Stupidity"?

The GWoT is just failed political pandering to weak-hearted souls who are afraid the bogey man is out to get them. The public is being sold snake oil, and it is not smart enough to realize.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 05:36 PM
The GWoT is just failed political pandering to weak-hearted souls who are afraid the bogey man is out to get them. The public is being sold snake oil, and it is not smart enough to realize.

So 9/11 was caused by a massive flying snake oil bomb and not airliners crashed into the towers by wack job terrorists?

jettio
04-14-2006, 05:43 PM
How many Generals are there in the Army and the Marines? Dozens? Hundreds? And when you start adding in all the retired Generals, the number gets even larger. Surely there are more than 3 Generals who have a dissenting opinion about almost every decision made.

At least General Zinni stood up and made his opinion clear early on. The other two are nothing more than monday morning quarterbacks.

Monday morning quarterbacking is more honorable that being an apologist that can't realize that incompetents Rumsfeld, B*sh and Cheney should be replaced by someone with a more proven track record like Richie Kotite or Frank "Crash" Ganzs.

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:44 PM
Then if you're saying Iraq is part of the "GWoT", then this is where we differ.

The GWoT is nothing more than craptasticular rhetoric. Have we won the "War on Drugs"? The "War on Poverty"? The "War on Stupidity"?

The GWoT is just failed political pandering to weak-hearted souls who are afraid the bogey man is out to get them. The public is being sold snake oil, and it is not smart enough to realize.

Either that or those who don't believe in it are just too simple to understand why we are at war. Why do we have to hurl insults?

unlurking
04-14-2006, 06:20 PM
Either that or those who don't believe in it are just too simple to understand why we are at war. Why do we have to hurl insults?
Oops, my apologies, no offense intended. I just don't understand how people can keep rallying behind political spins such as a war against concepts. We go to war against nation-states, not ideologies. An ideology is not bound to national borders, while wars are, unless you think we can take on the entire world.

go bowe
04-14-2006, 06:27 PM
Either that or those who don't believe in it are just too simple to understand why we are at war. Why do we have to hurl insults? insults are cheaper than stones...

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 06:46 PM
I find it quite interesting that most of these Generals were either involved in the planning of, or led troops during, the "Major Combat Operations" phase of the Iraq war.

It's not like they were running some post in Alaska.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 06:56 PM
I find it quite interesting that most of these Generals were either involved in the planning of, or led troops during, the "Major Combat Operations" phase of the Iraq war.

It's not like they were running some post in Alaska.

There's a vast difference between running the operations of a Corps or Division and the running of a Theatre of Operations. Hence my earlier (and as yet unanswered) question.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 07:15 PM
There's a vast difference between running the operations of a Corps or Division and the running of a Theatre of Operations. Hence my earlier (and as yet unanswered) question.

Indeed, there is. However, as for identifying incompetence, one is as qualified as the other, IMO.
To make you happy, how about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni">General Anthony Zinni</a>, the former commander of CENTCOM:

General Zinni joined the Marine Corps in 1961 and was commissioned an infantry second lieutenant in 1965 upon graduation from Villanova University. He has held numerous command and staff assignments that include platoon, company, battalion, regimental, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine expeditionary force command. His staff assignments included service in operations, training, special operations, counter-terrorism and manpower billets. He has also been a tactics and operations instructor at several Marine Corps schools and was selected as a fellow on the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group. General Zinni's joint assignments include command of a joint task force and a unified command. He has also had several joint and combined staff billets at task force and unified command levels.

As for your ROTC allegation, provide even some small proof, any independent study showing a preponderance, or even a strong streak of liberalism in the "non-ringknocker" US Officer Corps, and I might find something to respond to. Here's a thought. Perhaps disagreement with the administration and it's policies does not automatically equal "liberal". Exhibit 1 and 2: Newt Gingrich and George Will.

I can't find a reference to his rank, but it looks like 4 stars in this photo. Not high ranking enough for you? Or are you going to move the goalposts?

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 07:43 PM
Indeed, there is. However, as for identifying incompetence, one is as qualified as the other, IMO.
To make you happy, how about General Anthony Zinni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni), the former commander of CENTCOM:

General Zinni joined the Marine Corps in 1961 and was commissioned an infantry second lieutenant in 1965 upon graduation from Villanova University. He has held numerous command and staff assignments that include platoon, company, battalion, regimental, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine expeditionary force command. His staff assignments included service in operations, training, special operations, counter-terrorism and manpower billets. He has also been a tactics and operations instructor at several Marine Corps schools and was selected as a fellow on the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group. General Zinni's joint assignments include command of a joint task force and a unified command. He has also had several joint and combined staff billets at task force and unified command levels.

As for your ROTC allegation, provide even some small proof, any independent study showing a preponderance, or even a strong streak of liberalism in the "non-ringknocker" US Officer Corps, and I might find something to respond to. Here's a thought. Perhaps disagreement with the administration and it's policies does not automatically equal "liberal". Exhibit 1 and 2: Newt Gingrich and George Will.

I can't find a reference to his rank, but it looks like 4 stars in this photo. Not high ranking enough for you? Or are you going to move the goalposts?

Easy there hoss, I just asked a question (and was too lazy to do research). Zinni seems to have some credibility insofar as his opinion goes. As far as ROTC officers vs Ringknockers....I can only speak from personal experience. I have had dealings with both while in the Infantry and I can tell you that MOST ROTC officers are a bit left leaning while MOST Ringknockers are a bit right leaning. Also, Newt Gingrich was misquoted (just thought I'd throw that out there, I heard his statements and he in no wise alleged incompetence in the conduct of the war, only in the choosing of the interim governor in Iraq).

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 07:45 PM
The other dissenting generals include:

Lieutenant General <a href="http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/biographies/8C0F7A68BFF2272185256808006EA9AA?opendocument">Gregory S. Newbold</a>, who served as the Director for Operations, The Joint Staff.

Lt. General John Riggs, who had six overseas tours Vietnam, Belgium, and two each in Korea and Germany, and has commanded at every level platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division culminating in his immediate past assignment as commanding general of the 1st U.S. Army. Staff tours included military assistant to the deputy chairman of the NATO Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium, and as assistant deputy chief of staff for operations and plans on the Army staff.

Major General Paul D. Eaton, whom Rumsfeld's Defense Department dubbed <a href="http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html">Father of the Iraqi Army</a>. Not that that in itself is a great thing to put on a resume.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division.

Do these gentlemen have sufficent "strategic" experience to have their opinion worth listening to? As for Newt and Will, I only brought them up as examples that disagreement with administration policy (and both have had plenty of examples) does not automatically=liberals, as you alleged.

In my experience, officers are almost as diverse as the rest of the country. I've met some left-leaning ringknockers, and some right-leaning ROTC's. Not having served, It might affect my viewpoint, I'll admit. JMO.

My apologies for the previous "goalposts" comment.

unlurking
04-14-2006, 09:33 PM
So 9/11 was caused by a massive flying snake oil bomb and not airliners crashed into the towers by wack job terrorists?

And if you think you can rid the world of terrorism, you are smoking some awfully potent shiite. Are you "seriously" trying to say that 911 gives us the right to invade ANY nation that hosts terrorists?!

ROFL

WilliamTheIrish
04-14-2006, 09:44 PM
It's not, but I would be interested in knowing where the Generals in question got their commissions. It is pertinent in that ROTC officers come out of Universities which ARE hotbeds of liberalism. Ringknockers on the other hand come out of the 'Point' and are traditionally very conservative. Also, what were the actual ranks of the Generals in question? I ask because junior flag officers (BG, MG) are more apt to question strategic planning as they are not involved in it. They are more involved with operational level planning.

Please shut up.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 10:10 PM
Please shut up.

Care to elaborate on your rather eloquent post or are you just being a dick?

Ugly Duck
04-14-2006, 11:53 PM
Yeah we all know what a hotbed of liberalism the military is. :rolleyes:Hey... even our beloved military men will get swiftboated by the neocon slime-machine if they dare to speak the truth. This regime knows no bounds and has no honor.

Ugly Duck
04-14-2006, 11:59 PM
There were plenty of times when Rumsfeld has publicly claimed to be giving the operational commanders everything they request....Yeah, but Rummy also publicly claimed:

"This conflict could last 6 days or 6 weeks - I doubt 6 months."

"There is no widespread looting - the media just keeps showing the same vase being stolen over and over again."

"We know where the weapons of mass destruction are."

"There is no guerrilla war - its just a few criminals and Saddam loyalists."

The odds are better that if Rummy says it, then the opposite is probably true.

Lurch
04-15-2006, 12:01 AM
Bush should have accepted Donald's resignation the first time he offered it. He makes Westmoreland look like a genius.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 12:22 AM
Bush should have accepted Donald's resignation the first time he offered it. He makes Westmoreland look like a genius.

Sad but true. At least Westmoreland had a fairly decent career with some decent decisions before he was placed in Vietnam. Rummy...well..... :rolleyes:

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 01:12 AM
Rummy in fact is a rummy...

Dave

patteeu
04-15-2006, 10:22 AM
insults are cheaper than stones...

Boy that's that truth. My wife and I are pricing some decorative stones for a landscaping project and those things are expensive.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 10:26 AM
In my experience, officers are almost as diverse as the rest of the country.

Given that, wouldn't you expect a few to dislike Rumsfeld and/or to disagree with the war or the way it's being fought?

jettio
04-15-2006, 10:38 AM
Given that, wouldn't you expect a few to dislike Rumsfeld and/or to disagree with the war or the way it's being fought?

Either Rumsfeld will stay on and keep f*ckin' up until he will be forced out, or he will be forced out fairly soon.

There really is no possibility of him doing a good job and restoring his reputation, and the question for you is, what kind of nonsense are you going to say when he falls on his sword or is canned.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 11:20 AM
Either Rumsfeld will stay on and keep f*ckin' up until he will be forced out, or he will be forced out fairly soon.

There really is no possibility of him doing a good job and restoring his reputation, and the question for you is, what kind of nonsense are you going to say when he falls on his sword or is canned.

If Rumsfeld were making as many mistakes at the retired generals have indicated there would have been quite a few more active duty generals/admirals going through their chain of command to talk to the JCS regarding their feelings.

Someone said that Rumsfeld didn't have a clue as to what leadership was all about. I think any General that would say that has a problem with leadership himself. If an order is given, and Rumsfeld is SECDEF, if that order is lawful it is to be carried out. How Generals/Admirals interpet an order is sometimes an issue, but still there is a method for handling orders that are considered unlawful and that method is again via the Chain of Command. For the most part the people that feel that SECDEF is screwing up are those that have no idea of what the job encompasses. The few Generals that have spoken out are just that, a few. There are a large number of general officers in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, for so few to raise an issue makes me believe that they are practicing partisan politics and I don't think there is a place for that in the military (and they know better because they waited until they retired to speak out). I see some of those "highly decorated" general officers lacking in Honor, Duty and Country.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 01:17 PM
Given that, wouldn't you expect a few to dislike Rumsfeld and/or to disagree with the war or the way it's being fought?


Yes. I also figure that individuals with career achivements like Generals Zinni, Newbold, and Riggs likely know what they are talking about when it comes to identifying incompetent leadership in their superiors. I certainly take them as more of an authority on the subject than my own academic knowledge and political opinions.

Of course, I'm not trying to act as an apologist for that incompetence. ;)

If several Mayo Clinic doctors with a John Hopkins education told me I needed to be concerned about a specific part of my life routine as pertains to my health, I'd sure as hell seriously look into it. Same thing here, IMO.

If it was just some yokel who commanded a post in Alaska, I might not take it seriously. When it's coming from men like these, I tend to pay more attention. Somehow, I doubt men with thier history would throw away a proud career for mere partisan politics. Accurate or not, I believe their concern is quite sincere, nor would I insult them and their decades of service by assuming otherwise because of my own political beliefs.

CE- Only one member of the six spoke of any dissent with policy while on Active Duty. He was properly censured and demoted for that action. AFAICT, the others did not publicly disagree until they left the military. Should our veterans forfeit their right to speak on matters that are political or military? IMO, that seems the logical result of the case you are making. :hmmm:

patteeu
04-15-2006, 02:31 PM
Yes. I also figure that individuals with career achivements like Generals Zinni, Newbold, and Riggs likely know what they are talking about when it comes to identifying incompetent leadership in their superiors. I certainly take them as more of an authority on the subject than my own academic knowledge and political opinions.

They certainly have more expertise than I do as well. But there are hundreds of Generals, many of whom have just as distinguished resumes, who are not joining in this chorus.

Of course, I'm not trying to act as an apologist for that incompetence. ;)

If several Mayo Clinic doctors with a John Hopkins education told me I needed to be concerned about a specific part of my life routine as pertains to my health, I'd sure as hell seriously look into it. Same thing here, IMO.

There isn't anything wrong with looking into it, although with our lack of expertise in the area and our lack of inside knowledge of what's actually going on behind the scenes that will be difficult/impossible. At the same time that a handful of Mayo Clinic doctors are raising concerns about your body, there are a whole bunch of them who have looked at your records and been unconcerned. :)

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 02:43 PM
They certainly have more expertise than I do as well. But there are hundreds of Generals, many of whom have just as distinguished resumes, who are not joining in this chorus.



There isn't anything wrong with looking into it, although with our lack of expertise in the area and our lack of inside knowledge of what's actually going on behind the scenes that will be difficult/impossible. At the same time that a handful of Mayo Clinic doctors are raising concerns about your body, there are a whole bunch of them who have looked at your records and been unconcerned. :)

That's one interpretation. I'm sure some are unconcerned. It could also be, and quite likely is, that many of the others involved are still on active duty and thus feel (correctly) it is not their place to criticize. The other retirees involved with the planning and execution of the Iraq war, with a couple of exceptions, certainly aren't lining up to endorse Rumsfeld, either. :D

Personally, I know a number of officers who share my opinion of Rumsfeld. More than believe him to be an effective SecDef, that's for certain. "The ultimate REMF" is a term I've heard on several occasions. I realize it's JM(and their)O.

I certainly wouldn't let any of that dissuade me from continuing to be an apologist for incompetence if I believed as you do. ;)

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 03:19 PM
Sour grapes from spoiled generals who want the old million-man, carpet-bombing, mortar using army of the past.

If I were to take over IBM and cut most of the boards "pet projects" then restructure the entire company.. I imagine I would have some dissenters. This crap happens when major changes come.

What about retired Gen Myers, who is supporting Rumsfeld?


"What I'm hearing now I never heard as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Myers said.
He said a shake-up led by Rumsfeld to make the Pentagon a more flexible organization could be one of the reasons for the disenchantment among the former senior officers.

Where is Tommy Franks' criticism?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 03:58 PM
Where is Tommy Franks' criticism?


<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3542372.stm">Here</a>, for starters. The commentary on the interview, and the video itself.

His book American Soldier, for another.

I believe you are confusing Gen. Franks endorsement of Bush for endorsement of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, which he has strongly criticized on numerous occasions. Hence, his resignation due to the "impatience" of Donald Rumsfeld. (His words, not mine.)

Is Gen. Franks now just another "Spoiled General" like Gen. Zinni USMC Ret., former commander of CENTCOM?

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 04:12 PM
Revolt of the generals has started.

Of course they waited until they could retire to speak out....it's no wonder that other's haven't spoken out yet given this administrations tendency to punish dissenters as disloyal or worse unAmerican. Don't forget what Bush said...if you're not with us your against us. What a nice false choice!

banyon
04-15-2006, 04:22 PM
Sour grapes from spoiled generals who want the old million-man, carpet-bombing, mortar using army of the past.


yeah...those vietnam-era generals sure had it easy. :rolleyes:

patteeu
04-15-2006, 05:01 PM
That's one interpretation. I'm sure some are unconcerned. It could also be, and quite likely is, that many of the others involved are still on active duty and thus feel (correctly) it is not their place to criticize. The other retirees involved with the planning and execution of the Iraq war, with a couple of exceptions, certainly aren't lining up to endorse Rumsfeld, either. :D

Personally, I know a number of officers who share my opinion of Rumsfeld. More than believe him to be an effective SecDef, that's for certain. "The ultimate REMF" is a term I've heard on several occasions. I realize it's JM(and their)O.

I certainly wouldn't let any of that dissuade me from continuing to be an apologist for incompetence if I believed as you do. ;)

I'm not an apologist, because I recognize that I'm not qualified to make an independent judgement as to Rumsfeld's competency.

What I actually do is criticize the weak cases made by those who are equally unqualified who seem to have convinced themselves that Rumsfeld is absolutely incompetent. E.g, the idea that negative reviews from a small number of retired Generals means much at all.

With all the domestic political pressure to throw him overboard, as long as George W. Bush has confidence in Rumsfeld, I think that counts at least as much as a few Generals whose motives are unclear.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 05:04 PM
Ah yes. If all else fails, we can always rely on patteeu to obfuscate and play the "question their motives" card.

That's fine. Personally, I'm not willing accuse these gentlemen who dedicated their life to the defense of their country of dishonorable acts of mere partisan politics simply because they might hold an opinion I find politically unpalatable. I certainly don't question the motives of the couple of Iraq War era retirees that have defended Rumsfeld, like Meyers.

I know you are a practitioner of the black arts, but I must say, in the words of the late Senator Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

For your other point, you act as if Bush doesn't have political motives in backing Rummy and the neocon agenda he foolishly embraced.

Please don't insult our collective intelligence, patteeu. While some here have made some truly stupid (IMO) accusations, you've done nothing for months but defend and act as apologist for this administration, even when it required the silliest of semantic games and torturous twisting of logic. At least I make no pretense of my dislike of this administration. :rolleyes:


aキpolキoキgist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
Source: The American Heritageョ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

If the shoe fits....

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 05:07 PM
yeah...those vietnam-era generals sure had it easy. :rolleyes:

ROFL

patteeu
04-15-2006, 05:14 PM
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3542372.stm">Here</a>, for starters. The commentary on the interview, and the video itself.

His book American Soldier, for another.

I believe you are confusing Gen. Franks endorsement of Bush for endorsement of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, which he has strongly criticized on numerous occasions. Hence, his resignation due to the "impatience" of Donald Rumsfeld. (His words, not mine.)

Is Gen. Franks now just another "Spoiled General" like Gen. Zinni USMC Ret., former commander of CENTCOM?

Was there more in the video than in the BBC transcript at that website? Because the transcript didn't really have much in the way of criticism of Rumsfeld. The one thing it had was Franks bristling at Rumsfeld's micromanagement at which point he pushed back and Rumsfeld backed off.

But the General soon bridled under Donald Rumsfeld's micromanagement. According to one account, Franks told his political master: ...This ain't going to work. You can fire me. I'm either the commander or I'm not and you've got to trust me or you don't. And if you don't, I need to go somewhere else.... Rumsfeld backed off.

That seems to be a typical or at least common relationship between senior management and their top operational leaders.

And I don't know what Franks said in his book, but in that transcript the BBC guys says this:

After Iraq, Franks refused the top army job, preferring to leave the service with a reputation as a man of action, rather than a Pentagon management-type.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 05:17 PM
Was there more in the video than in the BBC transcript at that website? Because the transcript didn't really have much in the way of criticism of Rumsfeld. The one thing it had was Franks bristling at Rumsfeld's micromanagement at which point he pushed back and Rumsfeld backed off.



That seems to be a typical or at least common relationship between senior management and their top operational leaders.

And I don't know what Franks said in his book, but in that transcript the BBC guys says this:

My quote came from "American Soldier". As I said before, his words, not mine. Spin away. And yes, there was quite a bit of criticism about the civilian leadership in the Pentagon on the video, and the transcript.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 05:41 PM
Ah yes. If all else fails, we can always rely on patteeu to play the "question their motives" card.

That's fine. Personally, I'm not willing accuse these gentlemen who dedicated their life to the defense of their country of dishonorable acts of mere partisan politics because they hold an opinion I find politically unpalatable.

Uh... that's because they don't hold an opinion that you find politically unpalatable. Talk about insulting someone's intelligence. :rolleyes:

I think motives are important to take into consideration no matter whose actions we are evaluating. You can take my reference to political pressure on Bush to remove Rumsfeld as an indication that should such a removal take place, I will be questioning Bush's motives. It is foolish not to question people's motives.

But leaving that aside, we are a long way from "all else fail." The facts that such a tiny minority of Generals have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, that an even smaller minority actually spoke up when the game was on, and that Bush has repeatedly confirmed support for the man are fairly important data points.

As if Bush doesn't have political motives in backing Rummy and the neocon agenda he foolishly embraced.

In my view, the political pressure is on Bush to replace Rumsfeld not to retain him. Maybe you're seeing something I'm not. What's your theory?

Please don't insult our collective intelligence, patteeu. While some here have made some truly stupid (IMO) accusations, you've done nothing for months but defend and act as apologist for this administration, even when it required the silliest of semantic games and torturous twisting of logic.


[I]aキpolキoキgist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
Source: The American Heritageョ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

If the shoe fits....

To the extent that I'm defending the man from unpersuasive arguments, I suppose I'm an apologist. In that same sense, I guess I'm often an apologist for Christianity even though I'm not a believer. Whatever.

At least I make no pretense of my dislike of this administration. :rolleyes:

No, your dislike and the resulting willingness to uncritically believe this small group of generals is readily apparent.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 05:44 PM
My quote came from "American Soldier". As I said before, his words, not mine. Spin away. And yes, there was quite a bit of criticism about the civilian leadership in the Pentagon on the video, and the transcript.

We are talking about Rumsfeld not Feith here, Mr. SpinAway. There was very little criticism of Rumsfeld in the transcript and what little there was (posted in my last post on the subject) is reasonable friction between high level, big ego people of power.

My spin comes directly from the BBC transcript you linked us to. Sorry.

jettio
04-15-2006, 05:51 PM
If "Don't ask, don't tell" applied to civilian DOD then Rummy the Dummy would have to be dismissed because patteeu can't stop slobbering on them rummy balls.

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 05:57 PM
Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3542372.stm), for starters. The commentary on the interview, and the video itself.

His book American Soldier, for another.

I believe you are confusing Gen. Franks endorsement of Bush for endorsement of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, which he has strongly criticized on numerous occasions. Hence, his resignation due to the "impatience" of Donald Rumsfeld. (His words, not mine.)

Is Gen. Franks now just another "Spoiled General" like Gen. Zinni USMC Ret., former commander of CENTCOM?

There is a major difference between those highly paraphrased comments/critiques and calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. BTW, that BBC report was soem serious TRASH journalism... why did they need to have Franks' words read in an accent/manner even more ignorant sounding than Franks himself?

BTW.. have you actually read the book? The criticism of Rumsfeld comes from there initial encounters... not the overall relationship.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 05:58 PM
If "Don't ask, don't tell" applied to civilian DOD then Rummy the Dummy would have to be dismissed because patteeu can't stop slobbering on them rummy balls.

Are you once again trying to defend your lifestyle? You are truly a troubled person.

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 06:01 PM
Adept,

You may want to check your facts before you spout off. You are bordering on losing credibility. For the record, here are some quotes regarding the book American Soldier...


He traces his relationship with the demanding Donald Rumsfeld, whose impatience drove Franks to offer his resignation傭ut whose endorsement soon evolved into a strong collaboration.


Franks did become exasperated at times with the "genetically impatient" Donald Rumsfeld, but ultimately decided that he and the defense secretary made an effective team.

A particular target of his ire is Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whom he denounces as the "dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet" and "a theorist whose ideas were often impractical," without offering any examples. He adds, however, that "Rumsfeld never allowed Feith to interfere in my business." This -- along with the fact that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz barely rates a mention in this book -- should help dispel the popular myth that a cabal of neoconservatives led by Wolfowitz and Feith has been running the war on terrorism. Actually Franks was the one in operational control until July 2003, and he offers not a single instance where Rumsfeld, Feith or any other politico forced him to do anything he didn't want to do.

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 06:15 PM
I have no problem with these generals having their own opinions... but I definitely question WHY they have them... If these men had any true credibility, they wouldn't make this into a political farce that stands to cause true damage to the morale of forces on the ground in Iraq.

They may be honorable men trying to do what they think is right... or they could be blowhards who didn't get their way and are now crying about it.

I tend to be a skeptic about the honor of most people...

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 06:28 PM
Adept,

You may want to check your facts before you spout off. You are bordering on losing credibility. For the record, here are some quotes regarding the book American Soldier...

I'm comfortable with my level of credibility here and in daily life, thanks for your touching concern.

Yes, I've read it, and was generally impressed. He also directly stated that one of the reasons he resigned was his dealings with the "impatient" Rumsfeld, and those Rumsfeld put under him.

People accusing these generals about mere "partisan poltics" is absurd, to me.

How would you supporters respond If I alleged that Meyers was simply supporting Rumsfeld because he didn't want to give the opposition any ground, he was just playing politics? :hmmm:

The attacks made by you and patteeu are nothing more than then the same thing reversed.

patteeu-I notice you ignored my point that I DON'T question Meyers support as you do those that dissent. What a surprise.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 06:35 PM
I have no problem with these generals having their own opinions... but I definitely question WHY they have them... If these men had any true credibility, they wouldn't make this into a political farce that stands to cause true damage to the morale of forces on the ground in Iraq.

They may be honorable men trying to do what they think is right... or they could be blowhards who didn't get their way and are now crying about it.

I tend to be a skeptic about the honor of most people...

These men have impressive credentials.They know what it takes to win.
At least they waited until retirement to talk. They had too.
I think it serves the public good. I am so sick of hearing this hurts the soldiers morale when fighting a war on bad intel, for political agendas, on lies without enough troops is the real morale killer. Blame the right man: Cheney and his puppet Bush. I read from the outset that some generals thought the planning was inadequate. The generals are not the right target imo.
These guys already have stated and KNOW we are already losing in Iraq.
This is really a criticism of Bush though because he appointed Rummy.

In 1951, Gen. MacArthur defied Harry Truman by saying the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war. MacArthur spoke the truth about the no-win Korean war and it killed Truman's presidency. He was still fired.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 06:47 PM
patteeu-I notice you ignored my point that I DON'T question Meyers support as you do those that dissent. What a surprise.


I assume that by "support" you mean "motives" here.

Would it surprise you to find out that I misunderstood your point since you never commented on Myers explicitly in this thread and since you didn't mention him at all in your remark? In fact, I did respond to your comment, it's just that I misunderstood what you were saying. I try to read between the lines as best I can, but I'm not a mind reader.

I don't know how you can have any faith in your analysis of political commentary if you don't question motives. I question the motives of all public figures when they make public comments.

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 06:54 PM
I'm comfortable with my level of credibility here and in daily life, thanks for your touching concern.

Yes, I've read it, and was generally impressed. He also directly stated that one of the reasons he resigned was his dealings with the "impatient" Rumsfeld, and those Rumsfeld put under him.


Ah, so Franks' "criticism" is now relegated to calling Rumsfeld "impatient" yet saying that he learned to deal with it.. and otherwise giving him very high praise.

You can continue to spin... or you could sack up and admit you were wrong about Franks joining the current crop of dissenters.

As for the ex-generals, I am not accusing them of partisan politics at all. I am accusing them of holding grudges and quite possibly more. Frankly, I think it is amzing there hasn't been more of this earlier on. A massive restructuring of the entire military has GOT to piss off a number of people.

Boyceofsummer
04-15-2006, 06:57 PM
Rumsfeld critics off base: ex-military chief Sat Apr 15, 3:40 PM ET



Calls from a growing number of retired US generals for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign over his handling of the Iraq war are inappropriate, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said on Saturday.

Six former generals, joined on Saturday by former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark, have spoken out against Rumsfeld, accusing him of arrogance, ignoring his field commanders and micromanagement. The calls come amid growing fears of a civil war in Iraq and slumping approval ratings for President George W. Bush.

"I don't think it's our place in the military either in uniform or when you retire to make those judgments. That's not the military's role. They certainly can. It's their right to do that, I just think it's inappropriate," Myers told Fox News.

Clark, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, disagreed with Myers.

"It's more than appropriate, it's their responsibility," he told Fox news. "I believe Rumsfeld hasn't done an adequate job. He should go."

Bush took time out from his Easter holiday on Friday to express support for Rumsfeld and to counter the growing chorus calling for him to step down.

"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation," Bush said in a statement.

Rumsfeld dismissed the resignation calls in an interview with Al Arabiya television aired on Friday. "Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States it would be like a merry-go-round," he said.

Clark said Rumsfeld's failure to heed the advice of senior officers was a major complaint and that the disaffection extends beyond the generals who have spoken out.

"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."

Myers, who retired last year, said he never heard the complaints being expressed against Rumsfeld during the four years he spent as America's highest-ranking military officer.

"What I'm hearing now I never heard as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Myers said.

He said a shake-up led by Rumsfeld to make the Pentagon a more flexible organization could be one of the reasons for the disenchantment among the former senior officers.

One early US newspaper editorial dismissed the White House effort to save Rumsfeld's job.

"The ritual White House public relations offensive is wearing thin, especially when the people calling for Rumsfeld's resignation this time wore so many stars on their uniforms," the St. Petersburg Times said in an editorial on Saturday.

"The damage in Iraq is already done, but his (Rumsfeld's) continued tenure is now threatening to harm and politicize the military," it said.




Copyright ゥ 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright 2006 ゥ Yahoo! Inc. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Send Feedback | Help

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 07:00 PM
Excuse me for interrupting you two guys....but I thought Franks,when he first heard about us going into Iraq went into an angry outburst about it and did not believe in fighting on two fronts. I remember reading about it at the time.

I heard he got a sweetheart deal which shut him up too.

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 07:02 PM
In 1951, Gen. MacArthur defied Harry Truman by saying the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war. MacArthur spoke the truth about the no-win Korean war and it killed Truman's presidency. He was still fired.

MacArthur was a complete whackjob. So, you think it is ok for a general to DEFY the President publicly and try to rally support for all out war with China?


Anyway, why does everyone ASSUME a failure in Iraq. Franks' plans called for 4-5 years of rebuilding/retraining, etc. We are only in year 3. I agree that we could do a better job of expediting this process... but why is everyone throwing up their hands so soon?

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 07:09 PM
Anyway, why does everyone ASSUME a failure in Iraq. Franks' plans called for 4-5 years of rebuilding/retraining, etc.
I don't think it's just an assumption as of right now. I'd say it's civil war at this point. I think the admin is in denial.


We are only in year 3. I agree that we could do a better job of expediting this process... but why is everyone throwing up their hands so soon?

I think this has to do with the fact that Cheny ( was on Tim Russert sayin' it) and Tenet said it would be a "cake walk" and Rummy said something similar ( I think like 6 months).They definitely underestimated it.

In fact Bush Senior's Nat'l Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft as well as James Baker warned against invasion for this reason alone: it would likely be very bloody, it would have to be occupied and we'd be bogged down for a very long time.

You don't promote such things as a "cake walk" and a "slam dunk" and then act like people are being impatient. These things helped garner the people's support. People don't like that.

AustinChief
04-15-2006, 07:21 PM
[QUOTE=BucEyedPea]I don't think it's just an assumption as of right now. I'd say it's civil war at this point. I think the admin is in denial.
[QUOTE]

It is a pretty damn slow-moving civil war then... I guess someone forgot to tell the Kurds as well.

We need to push harder to get the Iraqi government formed and then start the transition out. The sticking point now s one Shia pr!ck (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) who won't step down for the good of his own country. There is a very solid chance that much of the violence is an effort to force his removal and a more moderate candidate to be nominated for PM.

If the government forms and 6 months later the violence is worse... I will have to reassess the situation. My guess is that you will see a valid Iraqi government in 2 to 3 months... and major change 6-12 months after that.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 07:22 PM
I don't think it's just an assumption as of right now. I'd say it's civil war at this point. I think the admin is in denial.




I think this has to do with the fact that Cheny ( was on Tim Russert sayin' it) and Tenet said it would be a "cake walk" and Rummy said something similar ( I think like 6 months).They definitely underestimated it.

In fact Bush Senior's Nat'l Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft as well as James Baker warned against invasion for this reason alone: it would likely be very bloody, it would have to be occupied and we'd be bogged down for a very long time.

You don't promote such things as a "cake walk" and a "slam dunk" and then act like people are being impatient. These things helped garner the people's support. People don't like that.

Brent Scowcroft is from the school of foreign policy thought that places a premium on stability. The philosophy of this administration is that change in the middle east is necessary. They were never on the same page even if Scowcroft once worked for Bush's dad.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 07:49 PM
Ah, so Franks' "criticism" is now relegated to calling Rumsfeld "impatient" yet saying that he learned to deal with it.. and otherwise giving him very high praise.

You can continue to spin... or you could sack up and admit you were wrong about Franks joining the current crop of dissenters.

As for the ex-generals, I am not accusing them of partisan politics at all. I am accusing them of holding grudges and quite possibly more. Frankly, I think it is amzing there hasn't been more of this earlier on. A massive restructuring of the entire military has GOT to piss off a number of people.


I'm pretty certain (but may be msitaken) all I ever said was that Franks was critical of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That is not factually untrue. I admit to implying otherwise. I may not be quite as good at playing semantic games as patteeu, but thankfully, I've not been versed in the dark arts. :shrug:

Mea' Culpa. I was playing semantic games, and spinning a bit.

You did not directly accuse them of partisan politics. That comment should have been directed solely at patteeu, who did. My sincere apologies for including you in that point.

You see "sour grapes" because it supports your point of view. I see legitimate criticism because it supports my point of view. Perhaps we should agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

MacArthur was a complete whackjob. So, you think it is ok for a general to DEFY the President publicly and try to rally support for all out war with China?

Anyway, why does everyone ASSUME a failure in Iraq. Franks' plans called for 4-5 years of rebuilding/retraining, etc. We are only in year 3. I agree that we could do a better job of expediting this process... but why is everyone throwing up their hands so soon?

MacArthur was a good general, and an operational master that became a wackjob. Not only did he try to make an end run around Truman, he worked with Gen. Lemay to rattle a nuclear saber at China. He deserved worse than he got, IMO.

Why assume a failure in Iraq? Perhaps it won't, but right now it certainly appears to be heading that direction. A large chunk of many people's attitudes likely has to do with seeing 2000+ US lives thrown away in a war we didn't have to fight, that some of us see as a diversion from the real fight against Islamists. Iraq didn't qualify until after we kicked the hornet's nest. Some may disagree, but I admittedly view foreign policy almost strictly from a realpolitik point of view.

I've said it before. I have no problem providing all the funding, weapons, technical support, training, intelligence, and advisors that Iraq can use. However, it's time for them to spend their own blood. We've done our part for three years. Let them man up, or fall apart. It's time to put that part on their shoulders, IMO.

BTW- What makes the current Iraqi goverment invalid, as you alleged a couple of posts above? Was it or was it not democratically elected? I seem to recall many purple fingers... :hmmm: Ineffective, yes. Invalid, well...elections can boomarang on US interests, as evidenced in Latin America, Iran, Egypt, and the election of Hamas.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 07:59 PM
Patteeu-
JMO, but I'm just as critical of the dissenting Generals as you seem to be of the Bush administrations Iraq policy. Exactly how critical are you concerning Meyers support for Rumsfeld? ;)

Furthermore:

Posted at 05:17 PM

Personally, I'm not willing accuse these gentlemen who dedicated their life to the defense of their country of dishonorable acts of mere partisan politics simply because they might hold an opinion I find politically unpalatable. I certainly don't question the motives of the couple of Iraq War era retirees that have defended Rumsfeld, like Meyers.

Posted at 06:47 PM

Would it surprise you to find out that I misunderstood your point since you never commented on Myers explicitly in this thread and since you didn't mention him at all in your remark? In fact, I did respond to your comment, it's just that I misunderstood what you were saying. I try to read between the lines as best I can, but I'm not a mind reader.


:hmmm:

I'm not asking you to be a mind reader. Just a reader.

I generally question motives depending on the individual. The General Officers I've met have, with one exception, been of sufficently high character that I am more willing to take them at their word, and not question their sincerity, than I would be for an average person or politico.

Incidentally, your example of being an apologist for Christianity and this administration's foreign policy is an extreme case of "apples and oranges". You are not a believer, therefore you are merely playing Devil's advocate on matters of religion. Concerning the current foreign policy in Iraq, you have declared yourself an unabashed supporter on numerous occasions. One makes you Advocatus Diaboli, the other, an apologist.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 08:02 PM
I think this has to do with the fact that Cheney ( was on Tim Russert sayin' it) and Tenet said it would be a "cake walk" and Rummy said something similar ( I think like 6 months).They definitely underestimated it.

In fact Bush Senior's Nat'l Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft as well as James Baker warned against invasion for this reason alone: it would likely be very bloody, it would have to be occupied and we'd be bogged down for a very long time.

You don't promote such things as a "cake walk" and a "slam dunk" and then act like people are being impatient. These things helped garner the people's support. People don't like that.

True, that. It's one of the reasons so many former supporters feel they were sold a pig in a poke.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 08:10 PM
True, that. It's one of the reasons so many former supporters feel they were sold a pig in a poke.

Based on the events of Desert Storm there was no indication that the results for this war would be any different. We blew in, blew up and blew out. The ground war lasted 100 hours. If you were basing your viewpoint on this war on the previous one it might seem logical to think that it would be as easy. There were two major differences between '91 and this war. Powell and Schwartzkoph. Think about it, were we really sold a pig in a poke?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 08:16 PM
Based on the events of Desert Storm there was no indication that the results for this war would be any different. We blew in, blew up and blew out. The ground war lasted 100 hours. If you were basing your viewpoint on this war on the previous one it might seem logical to think that it would be as easy. There were two major differences between '91 and this war. Powell and Schwartzkoph. Think about it, were we really sold a pig in a poke?

I believe so, because no one in the administration really spoke to the possibility of a long and bloody occupation following the war.

If they had spent even a fraction of the time on that point, as they did on making it appear a "cakewalk", I seriously doubt the political support for the diversion to Iraq would have been there.

You aren't kidding about the difference with Powell and Schwarzkopf. The Iraq intervention didn't even come close to passing muster by the Powell doctrine (which I strongly support).

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 08:23 PM
I believe so, because no one in the administration really spoke to the possibility of a long and bloody occupation following the war.

If they had spent even a fraction of the time on that point, as they did on making it appear a "cakewalk", I seriously doubt the political support for the diversion to Iraq would have been there.

You aren't kidding about the difference with Powell and Schwarzkopf. The Iraq intervention didn't even come close to passing muster by the Powell doctrine (which I strongly support).

Everyone made the assumption that Iraq did not have any additional capabilities than they did in '91. According to Han Blix that was the situation in Iraq.

I honestly think that we were in a situation with our military that is as much the reason for the inability for the war to be a "cakewalk". We were drawn down after Desert Storm and there has been no time for the military to be rebuilt or enhanced.

I actually think Stormin' Norman was the bigger reason that the war in '91 was so effecient, Norman was a stragetist, most of the planning was inspired by his concepts, which were directed by Powell (I presume the Powell Doctrine).

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 08:34 PM
Everyone made the assumption that Iraq did not have any additional capabilities than they did in '91. According to Han Blix that was the situation in Iraq.

I honestly think that we were in a situation with our military that is as much the reason for the inability for the war to be a "cakewalk". We were drawn down after Desert Storm and there has been no time for the military to be rebuilt or enhanced.

I actually think Stormin' Norman was the bigger reason that the war in '91 was so effecient, Norman was a stragetist, most of the planning was inspired by his concepts, which were directed by Powell (I presume the Powell Doctrine).

I think you are quite correct when it comes to "Stormin' Norman". Other factors that made a difference IMO were the coalition which Bush 41 built, which included substantial Arab forces (had a hell of a positive political effect, heck even the French sent an armored division and a paratroop division). That and the fact we built up the largest mobile armored force assembled since the battle of Kursk (overwhelming force, a component of the Powell doctrine).

The main difference is that the '91 war didn't involve occupation or nation-building in a hostile state. This fact was not spoken to nearly enough by either the Repubs or the Dems in the lead up to this war, IMO.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 11:11 PM
Is it just me or has anyone noticed that each war breeds the next?

WWI-->Versaille Treaty--> WWII
WWII-->Makes Europe safe for communism-->Cold War
PGW1-->Iraq invasion-->possibly destablization of ME--> who knows?

Here's the catch on PGW1: PGWI was also the camel that broke binLaden due to troops being on sacred Muslim land. There were NEVER any terrorist attacks in America until that war.

This was misreported in the press too...'er well it was in a back page of USA Today but SH asked our ambassador in Iraq April Gillaspie how US would feel if he invade Kuwait. He was told we did not care about his "border dispute" with Kuwait. That's what it was...Kuwait was once a part of Iraq and they were also slant drilling into his pipelines and were doing something unfavorable concerning his Iran war debts!

All over a typical border dispute that is common between nations. Kuwait was't exactly innocent. We should let SH and Kuwait fight it out or let SH take it.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 11:22 PM
[QUOTE=BucEyedPea]I don't think it's just an assumption as of right now. I'd say it's civil war at this point. I think the admin is in denial.
[QUOTE]

It is a pretty damn slow-moving civil war then... I guess someone forgot to tell the Kurds as well.

The Kurds don't count in that scenario...they've been fighting for independence since before this. Their original lands spread from eastern Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The Turks won't give it to them either. Also they are an ally in this because of this reason.

We need to push harder to get the Iraqi government formed and then start the transition out.

See I disagree with this whole approach including the idea that a foreign country ( US) should be engaged in any nation building. Bush promised he would not do this. Never read a Bushmen's lips.

In the case of Iraq, it originally was a fake country cobbled together by England and France. They threw three disparate groups of people who do not like each other together. This is why Iraq has a history of thug leaders....force is needed to keep it together. ( I think we were better off with SH there security-wise) The western allies drew lines through tribes and divided them up. (Kurdistan).What makes a nation? Not just land but a common identity.

So one nation is not right for them. It'd be better off split into three and decentralized with revenue sharing for oil. The Sunni location means they will be cut off from the wealth that oil brings and is part of their fear. It's legit imo.

The other problem is that we are building several permenant bases there and have not intention of ever leaving. Bush is a liar. He's using 9/11 to conquer the ME in his democracy crusade.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 11:28 PM
Is it just me or has anyone noticed that each war breeds the next?

WWI-->Versaille Treaty--> WWII
WWII-->Makes Europe safe for communism-->Cold War
PGW1-->Iraq invasion-->possibly destablization of ME--> who knows?


Yes, it's called the cycle of history. Goes back to well before Thucydides, actually. IMO, if we survive long enough, the 20th century will eventually be viewed as historians now view the "100 years war".


All over a typical border dispute that is common between nations. Kuwait was't exactly innocent. We should let SH and Kuwait fight it out or let SH take it

I would strongly disagree. Besides the fact that such conflicts are very destabilizing on a regional, and eventually global level, think about this. You are essentially condoning armed robbery on a nation-state level.
I think that war was handled quite well. The majority of the civilized nations of the world got together and said we won't let a larger nation rob a smaller one. We will do this to dissuade such behavior in the future.

Now if only we could get those nations to take the next step and intervene for stability in regions where they don't have a massive economic interest. Especially as concerted efforts make it more likely that it could be done without military force, which I personally believe should be reserved for vital national interests.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 11:46 PM
Yes, it's called the cycle of history. Goes back to well before Thucydides, actually. IMO, if we survive long enough, the 20th century will eventually be viewed as historians now view the "100 years war".

I actually was thinkin' 'bout this like "The Hundred Years" war.

I would strongly disagree. Besides the fact that such conflicts are very destabilizing on a regional, and eventually global level, think about this.

I hardly think that one would have destabilized anything.
Global? I don't buy all this Globaloney we're getting.

Here's my point: All Bush Sr. Admin had to do was dissuade SH. It was obvisously possible. He was our freekin' ally.

The first casualty of war is the truth.
We always get, on both sides, a certain amount of propaganda.
Sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor etc.

You are essentially condoning armed robbery on a nation-state level.
I think that war was handled quite well.
You are condoning it. You seem to think it 's okay for Kuwait to slant drill into his pipes though. So I have condoned nothing. Be consistent.

Please answer: Why did he seek US opinion on it first?

Tells me we coulda saved lives and prevented the very thing you say is wrong. No need for this to have happened.

The majority of the civilized nations of the world got together and said we won't let a larger nation rob a smaller one. We will do this to dissuade such behavior in the future.

And what of Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq's pipelines? The majority of "civilize" nations did NOTHING about that.

. ... vital national interests.
Could you define this ill defined and vague term?

May I ask you how you'd feel if other nations, say ones who side with the UN came into America to police say our removal of Noreiga or some such? Do you believe in that? Are you willing for this to go both ways?

Obviously you think the US should be the world's police. You seem to be a NeoConservative ( hard Wilsonian) I think most of these things are none of our business and would work out better on their own in most...just not all cases. I definitely think Israel is harming our security and we'd bet better off out of the ME altogether. They don't eat their oil. They need us to buy from them. So no military is needed there for that.

The thing is this is not feasible and is certainly idealistic.

patteeu
04-16-2006, 09:45 AM
I'm pretty certain (but may be msitaken) all I ever said was that Franks was critical of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That is not factually untrue. I admit to implying otherwise. I may not be quite as good at playing semantic games as patteeu, but thankfully, I've not been versed in the dark arts. :shrug:

Mea' Culpa. I was playing semantic games, and spinning a bit.

You did not directly accuse them of partisan politics. That comment should have been directed solely at patteeu, who did. My sincere apologies for including you in that point.

That's nonsense. I guess what you call semantics, I call accuracy. I never accused the critical Generals of partisan politics. I simply said that their motives were unclear. And they are.

You see "sour grapes" because it supports your point of view. I see legitimate criticism because it supports my point of view. Perhaps we should agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

MacArthur was a good general, and an operational master that became a wackjob. Not only did he try to make an end run around Truman, he worked with Gen. Lemay to rattle a nuclear saber at China. He deserved worse than he got, IMO.

Why assume a failure in Iraq? Perhaps it won't, but right now it certainly appears to be heading that direction. A large chunk of many people's attitudes likely has to do with seeing 2000+ US lives thrown away in a war we didn't have to fight, that some of us see as a diversion from the real fight against Islamists. Iraq didn't qualify until after we kicked the hornet's nest. Some may disagree, but I admittedly view foreign policy almost strictly from a realpolitik point of view.

JFYI, "realpolitik" doesn't define a point of view that necessarily excludes invading Iraq. It is very possible that many of those who supported the invasion are doing so from a realpolitik perspective. I assume you know this, but your post makes it unclear.

patteeu
04-16-2006, 09:56 AM
Patteeu-
JMO, but I'm just as critical of the dissenting Generals as you seem to be of the Bush administrations Iraq policy. Exactly how critical are you concerning Meyers support for Rumsfeld? ;)

Exactly the same as I am of the dissenting Generals in terms of motivations. His motivations are unclear to me. OTOH, he isn't a part of a tiny minority who are calling for Rumsfeld to go and he worked far more closely with Rumsfeld than any of the dissenters so in those respects he has a leg up on them.

Furthermore:

Posted at 05:17 PM


Posted at 06:47 PM


:hmmm:

I'm not asking you to be a mind reader. Just a reader.

Yes, I did miss that. My bad. OTOH, when I did what I thought was due diligence by searching the thread for "Myers" I didn't find anything posted by you. I guess we've both made mistakes here.

I generally question motives depending on the individual. The General Officers I've met have, with one exception, been of sufficently high character that I am more willing to take them at their word, and not question their sincerity, than I would be for an average person or politico.

Incidentally, your example of being an apologist for Christianity and this administration's foreign policy is an extreme case of "apples and oranges". You are not a believer, therefore you are merely playing Devil's advocate on matters of religion. Concerning the current foreign policy in Iraq, you have declared yourself an unabashed supporter on numerous occasions. One makes you Advocatus Diaboli, the other, an apologist.

By the definition of "apologist" you provided, I'm an apologist in both cases. I am not a dedicated believer in the proposition that Don Rumsfeld should remain as Secretary of Defense. I'm willing to defer to the President's judgement on this matter, but it's possible that there might be someone out there who would be a better man for the job. To the extent that I agree with the overall foreign policy of the Bush administration and to the extent that I don't see Rumsfeld working against that foreign policy, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean that I'm absolutely convinced that it's best if he stays. So I defend Rumsfeld against weak arguments in the same way I defend Christians against weak arguments not because I have a committed belief in either although I'll grant that I don't give Christianity the same benefit of the doubt that I give Rumsfeld.

patteeu
04-16-2006, 10:00 AM
I believe so, because no one in the administration really spoke to the possibility of a long and bloody occupation following the war.

If they had spent even a fraction of the time on that point, as they did on making it appear a "cakewalk", I seriously doubt the political support for the diversion to Iraq would have been there.

You aren't kidding about the difference with Powell and Schwarzkopf. The Iraq intervention didn't even come close to passing muster by the Powell doctrine (which I strongly support).

You seem to be assuming that a difficult insurgency was an obvious, foreseeable result of our invasion. There were no doubt people who would have predicted it, but it's not clear at all that it was obvious or that those people were in the majority. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but the people who make the hard decisions don't usually have it in their toolbox.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2006, 11:02 AM
You seem to be assuming that a difficult insurgency was an obvious, foreseeable result of our invasion. There were no doubt people who would have predicted it, but it's not clear at all that it was obvious or that those people were in the majority. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but the people who make the hard decisions don't usually have it in their toolbox.

Of course, inexperienced people like Baker and Scowcroft (who foresaw and warned of this very possiblity in no uncertain terms) aren't worth the administration's time, apparently.

Intelligence estimates usually come in three flavors, best case, worst case, and middle case. This administration only pushed, and IMO, payed attention to, the "best case". That's the problem with Rose-Colored glasses. They tend to skew what you see.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 11:09 AM
You seem to be assuming that a difficult insurgency was an obvious, foreseeable result of our invasion. There were no doubt people who would have predicted it, but it's not clear at all that it was obvious or that those people were in the majority. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but the people who make the hard decisions don't usually have it in their toolbox.

Of course it's easy to predict...any country,even if they do not like their current leaders, will rally around it if attacked. That's human nature. The failure to recognize this stems from hubris. It happened with us after 9/11 and that support was exploited by typical politicians. It's no wonder support dropped from like 70% down to 30% once the cat got out of the bag.

Also, the comparisons on going into Iraq to WWII Germany and Japan were flawed. These countries already democratic institutions before to greater or lesser degree ( Hilter was elected) and only needed them put back in.

Whereas, Iraq is a barren desert that has no real authentic democratic roots let alone the same 2000 year history of western civilization's movements that eventually paved the way for this form of government. We don't have 2000 years to rebuild Iraq, a desert. LOL!

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 11:11 AM
Of course, inexperienced people like Baker and Scowcroft (who warned of this very possiblity in no uncertain terms) aren't worth the administration's time, apparently.


I think it would be the height of arrogance and incompetence to ASSUME that the Iraqis would welcome us for anything other than a brief period.

Dave

banyon
04-16-2006, 11:23 AM
I think it would be the height of arrogance and incompetence to ASSUME that the Iraqis would welcome us for anything other than a brief period.

Dave

Reminds me of the joke I heard the other day on Letterman.

Did you hear what happened yesterday down at the Washington Nationals game? Dick Cheney was down there and he threw out the first pitch and he was booed. He was booed, and Cheney said he was very surprised he thought he'd be greeted as a liberator with flowers and candy.

AustinChief
04-16-2006, 11:35 AM
BTW- What makes the current Iraqi goverment invalid, as you alleged a couple of posts above? Was it or was it not democratically elected? I seem to recall many purple fingers... :hmmm: Ineffective, yes. Invalid, well...elections can boomarang on US interests, as evidenced in Latin America, Iran, Egypt, and the election of Hamas.

Not invalid, just unformed. They are a parliamentary govt... so it takes alot more than just elections to get the government in place. If they get off their asses, we could see a stable (hopefully) government in place before summer.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 11:48 AM
Not invalid, just unformed. They are a parliamentary govt... so it takes alot more than just elections to get the government in place. If they get off their asses, we could see a stable (hopefully) government in place before summer.


Of which year?

Dave

patteeu
04-16-2006, 12:45 PM
Of course, inexperienced people like Baker and Scowcroft (who foresaw and warned of this very possiblity in no uncertain terms) aren't worth the administration's time, apparently.

I'm confident that there were plenty of experienced people who were critical of the approach used in Afghanistan too... until it worked. There were lots of warnings before Afghanistan and Iraq (both this time and in 1991) about the large number of casualties we could expect in an invasion. None of those warnings panned out.

It's a heck of a lot easier to identify the critics who were right, after the fact than it is to do it in advance.

Intelligence estimates usually come in three flavors, best case, worst case, and middle case. This administration only pushed, and IMO, payed attention to, the "best case". That's the problem with Rose-Colored glasses. They tend to skew what you see.

I do agree with you there.