Military newspaper editorials...

[Rex Kickass]

Rumor is that the following will be published jointly in the following newspapers on Monday- The Army Times, The Navy Times, The Air Force Times, The Marine Corps Times. These papers have a parent company of Gannett Newspapers, which owns USA Today. Taken from dailykos, so take with grain of salt.

 

Time for Rumsfeld to go

 

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

 

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

 

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

 

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

 

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

 

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

 

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

 

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

 

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

 

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

 

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

 

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

 

This is a mistake.

 

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

 

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

 

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

 

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

 

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

 

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Strong sentiments. I don't anticipate the White House will respond.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Why do military newspapers hate America so much?

[kapkomet]

So this comes out the day before an election. How nice.

 

The whole bunch of idiots must go... WOOT! WOOHOO! YEA!!! KICKASS!!@#$!

[Rex Kickass]

I can't imagine that the timing is any more political than Saddam Hussein's trial verdict coming out the Sunday before an election.

[kapkomet]

I can't imagine that the timing is any more political than Saddam Hussein's trial verdict coming out the Sunday before an election.

Which is crap too.

[KipWellsFan]

Even the military media is liberal!

[EvilMonkey]

Even the military media is liberal!

More like USA Today is against the military, since all 4 of these are published by theGannettGroup and thewriters all work for USAToday. They are publications about the military, not by the military.

[kapkomet]

More like USA Today is against the military, since all 4 of these are published by theGannettGroup and thewriters all work for USAToday. They are publications about the military, not by the military.

SHHHHHHH! Shut up with the facts...it ruins a good story.

[FlaSoxxJim]

SHHHHHHH! Shut up with the facts...it ruins a good story.

 

The "facts" are that the Gannett Military Times papers are targeted precisely to a core readership of active-duty military. If they did not feel that this editorial would resonate with a growing number of active duty miliary who remain quietly disgruntled over the deterioriating situation in Iraq and their blind civilian leadership then they would NEVER run it. It would be suicide for their circulation numbers.

 

The fact that they are running the editorial speaks to the story that really matters – that more and more officers who have kept their counsel private, in loyal subordination to civilian authority, nonetheless believe Rumsfield's war policy has been doomed to fail from the start.

Edited November 5, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Rex Kickass]

SHHHHHHH! Shut up with the facts...it ruins a good story.

 

It was the second sentence of this thread, Kap.

[kapkomet]

ok, ok, you win.

 

The United States military hates George W. Bush's policies. Europeans hate George W. Bush's policies. Islamists hate George W. Bush's policies. Republicans hate George W. Bush's policies. Christians hate George W. Bush's policies. Atheists hate George W. Bush's policies. And it goes without saying Democrats hate George W. Bush's policies.

 

So, the entire world hates the man's policies. Get on with impeachment already of both Cheney and W. so Nancy can order drapes in the White House.

 

And there's no green in this post. I'm serious.

[EvilMonkey]

ok, ok, you win.

 

The United States military hates George W. Bush's policies. Europeans hate George W. Bush's policies. Islamists hate George W. Bush's policies. Republicans hate George W. Bush's policies. Christians hate George W. Bush's policies. Atheists hate George W. Bush's policies. And it goes without saying Democrats hate George W. Bush's policies.

 

So, the entire world hates the man's policies. Get on with impeachment already of both Cheney and W. so Nancy can order drapes in the White House.

 

And there's no green in this post. I'm serious.

Hold on the impeachement, because after the elections, youwill have enough crybaby lawsuits to keep you busy for quite a while. When Lemontloses by about 5000 votes, cries of a stolen election will only be moments away, followed by a avalanch of lawyers. Same for when Ford loses.