| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Batiste's call for Rummy's resignation puzzles aides |
| 2006-04-14 |
| Of the smattering of retired generals who have called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, none has surprised the Pentagon's inner circle more than retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste. Gen. Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division, responsible in Iraq for the hot spots of Tikrit and Samarra, north of Baghdad. On a chilly December night in 2004, he introduced Mr. Rumsfeld to his soldiers thus: "This is a man with the courage and the conviction to win the war on terrorism." A Rumsfeld aide said that when the two talked privately, the general voiced no complaints on how Washington, or Mr. Rumsfeld, was waging war. But Gen. Batiste has now called on Mr. Rumsfeld to resign, one of five retired generals who have done so in recent weeks. "I believe we need a fresh start in the Pentagon," Gen. Batiste said Wednesday on CNN. "We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation." Of the Iraqi people, he told CNN, "Iraqis, frankly, in my experience, do not understand democracy. Nor do they understand their responsibility for a free society." But in Iraq last year, Gen. Batiste said: "The Iraqi 4th Division represents what is and what is meant to be in Iraq. The soldiers of the division not only reflect the rich ethnic/religious diversity of Iraq, but they also imbue with the energy, courage and determination which the vast majority of the Iraqi people have for freedom and representative government." Yesterday, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs also made the resignation plea, this time on National Public Radio. The acting Army secretary at the time demoted Gen. Riggs and forced him to retire in 2004 because he let a civilian contractor do congressional liaison work that rules said should have been done by a government employee. The forced retirement infuriated some retired officers, who saw the infraction as minor. Five retired generals hardly constitute a groundswell among what the Pentagon estimates are 9,000 active and retired generals and admirals. But Pentagon officials fear there will be more such calls against Mr. Rumsfeld. The list now reads: Gen. Batiste; Gen. Riggs; retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, who opposed the Iraq invasion from the start; Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton. "I was particularly taken aback by Batiste," said Larry Di Rita, a senior Rumsfeld adviser. "It seemed very contrary to the interaction I saw in Iraq." Gen. Batiste, who now runs a steel company, did not return a phone message for comment. As to criticism that Mr. Rumsfeld does not meet with senior officials, Mr. Di Rita said the secretary has met more than 60 times this year with Joint Chiefs of Staff members and four-star combatant commanders. In the winter, he conducted a three-day conference with those officers and other Pentagon leaders. The group sat in a conference room, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for three days, hashing out strategies. Mr. Rumsfeld is known as a direct, some would say brash, manager who will dress down subordinates. He also encourages aides and officers to push back and challenge him, former advisers say. Interviews reveal deep-seated resentment toward him within the retired Army officer corps for the way he has managed the war and the Army. An Army officer who asked not to be named said he wished Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, would "distance himself from Rumsfeld" to show displeasure with the Iraq war planning. But Gen. Pace on Wednesday delivered a spirited defense alongside his boss. Retired officers say Mr. Rumsfeld failed to plan for the ongoing insurgency in Iraq that has killed hundreds of soldiers and kept too few troops there after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a former commander of the Army War College, said the Army, Marines and special operations need 100,000 more troops. "If you're going to fight a long war," Gen. Scales said, "if this war is generational, and if our grandchildren are going to be fighting this war, and if this war continues to be principally ground warfare, then it just seems overwhelmingly obvious that over the long term we are going to need a bigger ground force." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #31 Elmiling U - I'll make a deal with you. I won't discuss Celebrity Gossip (since I don't know anything about it) and you stick with what you know. Clearly you know absolutely NOTHING about the military and it shows. Go back to one of those chat sites where you can be the hero just by making really witty jokes along the lines that Bush looks like a Chimp and doesn't know how to read. That seems to be the height of humor and wit on the left these days. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-14 23:35 |
| #30 It's what we need. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-14 20:37 |
| #29 Secretary of War? We have not had one of those since WW-II. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-04-14 20:31 |
| #28 OK Fritz, what are the valid points that Batiste is trying to make? What would you do you suddenly became the US Secretary of War? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-14 20:20 |
| #27 I would imagine that the use of a smaller force overall would limit the number of general officers needed IN COMBAT. All Army officers know that combat is an essential ingredient in getting promoted. It seems the generals wanted a Vietnam-style deployment, with 500,000 troops and a corrseponding number of general officers. A lot of this may be nothing more than sour grapes. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-04-14 20:20 |
| #26 since active soldiers are not allowed to criticize the C-in-C or SecDef - I call Bullshit on your statements - wishful thinking. There are, no doubt, many many Democratic party voters in the ranks - I doubt they support the same party views as you |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-14 20:18 |
| #25 Ok. Batiste is confusing. There are only 2 critical sentences by Batiste in the whole article. 1. He calls for more teamwork, not leadership. That's just a recipe for paralysis. 2. So does he want to kill them all or fence the muslims off so they can kill each other. Or does he want to withdraw and wait for the next mega-attack? If he has a plan, he should let the public know about it. People will follow a plan. They tune out general criticism. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-14 20:12 |
| #24 To the recent anon poster with various names and the IP address of 85.195.123.22: we don't put up with trolling or taunting around here. So I take it Republican commenters can make whatever comments they like without opposition, because, as I'm sure you've noticed, all my "taunts" have been directed at statements made previously by others here, and I'm the one singled out as the troll. If you have a point to make, make it. Can I make my point through satire? Honest question. But if you insist, here's my point: I've seen pretty much every regular at RB at one time or another exalt our service men and women. I've seen comments such as "they get it". Well it seems that's been a pretty thin veneer because the many comments that we see today clearly indicate that Democrat soldiers don't count. And there's a lot of them. Most of them critical of Rumsfeld and Bush. I know, it's hard to believe and it's even harder to accept...for Republicans. |
| Posted by: Granwyth Hulatberi 2006-04-14 20:10 |
| #23 how to take care of the primitives. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-14 20:02 |
| #22 Why if Americans were just more like the Germans. Germans REALLY KNEW how to take of the primitives. 2008? That's the year muslims begin massive head removal in your shitty little country. Try not to scream like a little girl. It ruins the audio on the video. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-14 20:02 |
| #21 Well you have my apologies SW...y'all can catch me at the tip jar ;] |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-04-14 19:45 |
| #20 Yep..that qualifies. Hint: your parents weren't evil. They were prophetic. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-04-14 19:41 |
| #19 Allright now, let's be nice. To the recent anon poster with various names and the IP address of 85.195.123.22: we don't put up with trolling or taunting around here. If you have a point to make, make it. Differing opinions are fine, even strongly dissenting opinions. But trolls end up banned. Steve White (AoS), moderator, Rantburg |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-04-14 19:41 |
| #18 How's this for beef-witted: 2008 can't come fast enough. It'll be a joy to see you whine. |
| Posted by: Granwyth Hulatberi 2006-04-14 19:30 |
| #17 Anonymous postings from beef-witted idiots do not impress around here....run along. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-04-14 19:06 |
| #16 Change isn't easy and revolutionaries aren't necessarily correct. Oh yeah, Rumsfeld a revolutionary. A regular Che Guevara. That's why Iraq and Afghanistan are such examples of success. Iraqi insurgents deserve more credit than Rummy for all the changes in the US armed forces. |
| Posted by: Angoting Gromble3562 2006-04-14 18:26 |
| #15 Oh and, there's no converse. Democrats are turned into even bigger weenies. It's like a political red shift of sorts, except the shift is in the blue direction. |
| Posted by: Elmating Omose9921 2006-04-14 18:19 |
| #14 As graduates, they were perfect gentlemen. They're not such gentlemen any more. Yes, combat experience changes a man. Also makes you second guess the dupes in Washington, especially when they fuck up like Rumsfeld. Another way to look at it, is that combat turns Republicans into Democrats. :-) |
| Posted by: Thravirong Omolunter2927 2006-04-14 18:15 |
| #13 I'm still waiting to hear from the other 8,995. They all must be Republicans I gather. The red states provide the overwhelming majority of US military personnel, Interesting. The majority of officers are probably Democrats. I'd like to see the breakdown actually, but they don't keep stats like this, afaik. |
| Posted by: Elmiling Uloque1954 2006-04-14 18:11 |
| #12 Only Republican servicemen matter, it seems. Sad. The red states provide the overwhelming majority of US military personnel, while the ivy leaguers and west coast universities diss them. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-14 17:25 |
| #11 According to the news we've seen lately, only the opinions of the five negative liberals matter. I'm still waiting to hear from the other 8,995. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-14 17:12 |
| #10 Only Republican servicemen matter, it seems. Sad. |
| Posted by: Glash Whuse7842 2006-04-14 16:47 |
| #9 lotp, did the transfer of primacy from the division to the brigade have any impact on the number of high level slots available? Not to my knowledge. However, it DID change the focus of a lot of battle decisionmaking, downwards an echelon. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-04-14 14:19 |
| #8 here's the meat of the story right here. Five retired generals hardly constitute a groundswell among what the Pentagon estimates are 9,000 active and retired generals and admirals. Yawn - non-story. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-14 14:06 |
#7 "OK, he's officially announced he's a liberal. Also a bigot. But I repeat myself. :-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-04-14 12:51 |
| #6 The leader takes the arrows, particularly when instituting change into a tired, Cold War era military. There will be many more who didn't have the balls to challenge Rummy while in service who will strike out against him in the media. Rummy's got big shoulders; Prez Bush knows the important role Rummy plays in history, so fuck the (not soon enough) retired generals. Besides, retirement of the Old School brings opportunity for those capable of adapting to 21C demands. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-14 12:47 |
| #5 I assume all of these Generals attended West Point or Annapolis. As graduates, they were perfect gentlemen. They're not such gentlemen any more. That doesn't say much for 30 or 40 years in the service, does it ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-04-14 10:09 |
| #4 lotp, did the transfer of primacy from the division to the brigade have any impact on the number of high level slots available? Also don't forget sacking Crusader. I predict Rumsfled will be the first Sec Def to serve two full terms. That ina an of itself says something about the old man. |
| Posted by: Glaviper Slaimble4232 2006-04-14 09:50 |
| #3 Good summary, lotp. And, i'd note that (at least) 1 of these 5 got "screwed" (in his mind) in being forced to retire. Wonder how many others will be writing "insider" books soon? If so, that could very well be the motive. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-04-14 09:01 |
| #2 Under Rumsfeld, Marines command Strategic Command (!) and hold the Chair of the Joint Staff. A Special Ops guy was brought back FROM RETIREMENT, over the heads of serving regular generals, to be Chief of Staff of the Army. In Fallujah, we used a joint ops structure in which marines reported to soldiers and v.v. It's a revolutionary change for the Army and not one that some officers are comfortable with, it would appear. Note that the Marines - in part because their smaller force size and expeditionary organization makes it possible - have pioneered the use of a lot of high tech in Iraq - for instance, the Raven mini-UAV for tactical recon. And in some places in Iraq, Marine style small wars doctrine has replaced Army doctrine with what some would say was greater success. Note also the increased emphasis on Special Opns and the move to smaller units of deployment/action (from division to brigade). Again, a move away from the massive army force-on-force doctrine to a doctrine a lot closer to what the Marines do well. Change isn't easy and revolutionaries aren't necessarily correct. But it would seem these changes have a lot to do with the discomfort of many old school Army leaders. I'll leave it to others to argue whether they or Rumsfeld are more right. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-04-14 07:43 |
| #1 Monday-morning-quarterbacking and sour grapes. Maybe general Pace likes Rummy. He encourages subordinates to push back? I bet that does intimidate some folks! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-04-14 07:11 |