List of Defense secretary's critics gets longer

[AbeFroman]

Below is an article from the USA Today on the high profile military leaders which have recently decried Rumsfield and other civilian pentagon officials.

 

What is the conservative stand on this? I'm a left-leaner and I honestly have no idea how the right will respond to these statements. To me, Rumsfield and Bush are inextricably linked... and these aren't lowly enlisted guys... these are bonafide, real deal generals attacking the administration's handling of the war. My gut is that you could probably get Colin Powell to agree with them also.

 

Any thoughts?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-generals_x.htm

List of Defense Secretary's critics getting longer

WASHINGTON — A sixth former general joined the criticism of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday, saying Rumsfeld should resign for mishandling the war in Iraq.

 

"We need a new secretary of Defense," retired major general Charles Swannack, former commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said on CNN. He said Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war.

 

ON DEADLINE: Will the list of generals grow?

 

Retired major general John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 agreed. He told USA TODAY on Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down because he ignored sound military advice about how to secure Iraq after Baghdad fell. Batiste first criticized Rumsfeld in a speech last week.

 

"Sadly, we started something we weren't prepared to finish," Batiste said Thursday, adding that many senior officers shared his feelings on Rumsfeld.

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that President Bush "believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period."

 

The 73-year-old Rumsfeld has weathered calls for his resignation from Democratic lawmakers such as Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. The new criticism, however, is rare because it comes from inside the ranks of the military.

 

Swannack and Batiste are the latest additions to the retired generals who have criticized Rumsfeld. They include:

 

• Marine lieutenant general Greg Newbold, the former Pentagon top operations officer, who called Iraq an "unnecessary war" in a Time magazine column this week.

 

• Major general Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training Iraqi troops in 2003 and 2004, wrote last month in The New York Times that Rumsfeld is "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically."

 

• Army major general John Riggs, who told The Washington Post that his former colleagues in the military believe Rumsfeld and his close aides "should be cleared out."

 

• Marine general Anthony Zinni, the former command of U.S. Central Command and a longtime critic, said Rumsfeld should retire.

 

Despite Bush's support, such criticism could be enough to help force out Rumsfeld, said Loren Thompson, a military expert at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia think tank.

 

"It is so uncommon for senior military officers in the United States to criticize civilian leaders that it has to make an impression on the White House and Congress," Thompson said.

 

However, Kurt Campbell at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said he doesn't "see any sign that the secretary is contemplating stepping down."

 

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff disputed the contention that Rumsfeld failed to listen to military leaders. Ruff noted that Rumsfeld had met with the chiefs of the armed services 110 times last year. Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, Gen. Tommy Franks' deputy during the invasion of Iraq, said Rumsfeld solicited advice from military leaders involved in the fighting. "He listened to those who had information that was important and had the facts to back them up," he said.

 

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the generals themselves deserve criticism for not making their concerns known during the run-up to the war.

 

O'Hanlon added that forcing Rumsfeld out would reflect badly on Bush.

 

"To ask for Rumsfeld to resign is to admit a big, broader mistake," O'Hanlon said. "It ain't going to happen."

 

Another Defense secretary who served during war, Melvin Laird, has known Rumsfeld for 40 years and said the criticism no doubt hurt.

 

Laird said that better relations with Congress and senior military officials would probably help Rumsfeld. But Laird, 83, a Republican who served as Defense secretary from 1969 to 1973 during the Vietnam War, didn't think that Rumsfeld would be forced out.

 

"I don't think this is going to influence him in any way," Laird said.

Edited April 14, 2006 by AbeFroman

[Gregory Pratt]

I'm a left-leaner, too. But I hate Colin Powell.

 

As to these charges, I think it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Donald Rumsfeld half-assed the War Effort because he thought we could do it "on the cheap," spend less money, and use the "minimal" number of troops. In so doing, he assumed that somehow AMERICAN MIGHT alone would subdue such a large nation and occupy it.

 

If there were justice in the world, Rumsfeld would be on his ass somewhere and not in the Pentagon anymore.

[G&T]

I'm not the most right leaning but I did vote for Bush so here's my two cents:

 

Rumsfeld did have talks with everyone he could about the war, then ignored those who gave negative feedback. That's not to say that they should not have gone to war, but it means that they are not prepared for what is going on right now despite those who told them it was a possibility (Powell).

I find it difficult to deny these accusations, but there are people here that know way more than I do and who represent the right better than me. Nevertheless, as a Republican this is my effort to give a little back to the other side.

 

 

Read "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. IMO, those are good books that give a fair background into the decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm a left-leaner, too. But I hate Colin Powell.

 

As to these charges, I think it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Donald Rumsfeld half-assed the War Effort because he thought we could do it "on the cheap," spend less money, and use the "minimal" number of troops. In so doing, he assumed that somehow AMERICAN MIGHT alone would subdue such a large nation and occupy it.

 

If there were justice in the world, Rumsfeld would be on his ass somewhere and not in the Pentagon anymore.

 

 

^^^

 

I'll bite on that one. I was involved in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq and fact of the matter is that once we got done stomping on the Iraqi Army and occupied the major cities there was a prevaling question being asked among units on the ground.

 

"What now?"

 

Nobody knew what they were supposed to really be doing for a couple of months so units on the ground started doing what they could to stabilize their area without any real guidance from the top.

 

What followed was a series of blunders, most serious of which was, IMO, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. That organization could have been used to aid us in stabilizing things until the new government was in place and could take charge of them but we cast that tool aside and decided to do it ourselves. What followed was a year and a half of fits and starts trying to make a new Army and police force while the ones that were on the job before were now jobless, dissaffected and ready for payback, hence the insurgency.

[BigSqwert]

Rumsfeld did have talks with everyone he could about the war, then ignored those who gave negative feedback.

That's because of the tone at the top. He was just towing the company line. President Cheney and his puppet G.W. were not open to negative feedback or criticism.

[AbeFroman]

^^^

 

I'll bite on that one.  I was involved in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq and fact of the matter is that once we got done stomping on the Iraqi Army and occupied the major cities there was a prevaling question being asked among units on the ground. 

 

"What now?"

 

Nobody knew what they were supposed to really be doing for a couple of months so units on the ground started doing what they could to stabilize their area without any real guidance from the top.

 

What followed was a series of blunders, most serious of which was, IMO, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army.  That organization could have been used to aid us in stabilizing things until the new government was in place and could take charge of them but we cast that tool aside and decided to do it ourselves.  What followed was a year and a half of fits and starts trying to make a new Army and police force while the ones that were on the job before were now jobless, dissaffected and ready for payback, hence the insurgency.

 

fascinating post... I really enjoy hearing the opinions and stories of those who served over in Iraq.

 

It also seems to fit, in some ways, with what the dissenting generals have been saying about the war.