| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Former General Eaton sez Rumsfeld should resign |
| 2006-03-20 |
| Al-Guardian, so you'll have to ignore some of the window dressing ... A former US army general yesterday called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign on grounds of incompetence in Iraq, hours after Ayad Allawi, the former US-backed Iraqi prime minister, declared the country to be in the thick of a civil war that could soon "reach the point of no return". Three years after Iraq was invaded, statistics published yesterday show that the frequency of insurgent bombings and group killings is growing, but both Mr Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and George Bush have vowed to fight on. "Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," the defence secretary wrote in a Washington Post commentary, as the administration tried to quell growing concern that the conflict was unravelling beyond Washington's control. President Bush made a brief appearance on the White House lawn to say he was "encouraged" by progress on forming a unity government in Iraq. But he had no other good news to mark three years of a war in which more than 2,300 Americans have died, and which has so far cost $500bn (nearly £290bn). The US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, said that the troop withdrawals he had forecast for this spring or summer might have to wait until the end of the year or even 2007. And Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004, marked the anniversary with a furious attack on Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was "not competent to lead our armed forces". In London, Mr Allawi told BBC 2's Sunday AM programme: "We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Britain's defence secretary, John Reid, rejected that assessment. In Baghdad's green zone, he said that most of Iraq was under control: "There is not civil war now, nor is it inevitable, nor is it imminent". In Washington, the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, also appeared on television to play down ideas of civil war. He told the CBS programme Face the Nation that the surge in attacks aimed at fomenting sectarian conflict simply reflected the insurgents' "state of desperation". The remark echoed a similarly optimistic phrase used by Mr Cheney in March last year, when he claimed the insurgency was in its "last throes". Yesterday, he maintained that that description was still "basically accurate". There were signs yesterday that the Bush administration was losing its ability to shape perception of the conflict, even among partisan Republicans. George Will, an influential conservative commentator, yesterday compared Iraq's war to that of the 1930s Spanish civil war. Mr Allawi now heads a list of secular parties that had hoped to broker a compromise between the Shia and Sunni parties. He warned that if Iraq reached the point of no return it would "not only fall apart, but sectarianism would spread through the region". He said even Europe and the US would "not be spared all the violence" linked to sectarian problems. There were no public gatherings in Baghdad yesterday. People continued to race to work and back home, fearing explosions, kidnapping or murder. Iraqi police reported that US troops had killed eight people, after a patrol was ambushed in the Sunni town of Duluiya, north of Baghdad, early yesterday. The victims included a 13-year-old boy and his parents, who were shot dead. According to figures compiled by the Brookings Institution, in Washington, there were 75 attacks a day last month, compared with 54 on average a year earlier. The number of Iraqi civilians being killed in the conflict rose to 1,000 in February, from 750 in February 2005. There are now 232,000 Iraqi security personnel, up 90,000 over the past 12 months, but their ability to control the situation is a matter of dispute. Oil production, the mainstay of the economy, is in decline. The Islamist parties have failed to agree on a national unity government and sectarian violence has markedly increased. Last July Gen Casey predicted that if the political process went well there could be "fairly substantial reductions" in US troops in Iraq this spring or summer. Yesterday, calling on the US to keep its nerve, Mr Rumsfeld pointed to the swelling ranks of Iraqi government forces. But Mr Eaton, a former major general, said the defence secretary had "shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically", and was "far more than anyone else, responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq". Mr Rumsfeld had to step down, he said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #10 Does the name MacArthur ring a bell General? He's not an 'ex'. He's retired and on the retired rolls, subject to recall. The only way you become an 'ex' is to be stripped of your commission, which by the way takes an act by the service secretary. Usually after a courts martial or less than honorable discharge for cause. |
| Posted by: Thith Angock4148 2006-03-20 15:21 |
| #9 More from Eaton: In today's NYT retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton has called for Bush to accept Rumsfeld's resignation which he offered. Twice. Eaton says Rumsfeld is not competent strategically, operationally, and tactically and is more than anyone else, responsible for the chaos in Iraq. He says he sees a growing reluctance of experienced military and civilians to challenge his leadership. He says they are intimidated by Rumfeld because of the way he retaliates by undercutting them. The Army finds itself severely undermanned-cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12-14. Eaton says that the Pentagon is at the mercy of Rumsfeld's ego, his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. Rumsfeld fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare and the demands it places on the ground forces, his only call is for 1,500 Special Operations forces. Rumsfeld ignored the Powell Doctrine, which led to looting and the general destruction of the infrastructure. Too few troops, then, according to J. Paul Bremer, the money that was to go for things like hospital building, providing police uniforms, money to pay for Iraqi firms to build barracks, was withheld. The contracts for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi army were rewritten in DC. Eaton says Rumsfeld demand more than loyalty, he demands fealty. And he has hired men who give it. The new Army Sec. Francis Harvey, who when faced with the compelling need to increase the size of the service, refused, instead he relied on a shell game of hiring civilians to do jobs previously done by soldiers. He kept the force strength static-on paper. Eaton says that it will work for a while but it will all fall apart in the next budget cycle. What to do? He says first of all, Rumsfeld should resign. Then Congress, with the power of the purse, should call upon our generals, colonels, captains and sergeants to testify frequently. Ask them their opinions and needs. Ask them publicly if they need more men. Then it will be made clear to all what they need. Last, he says that the most important of the Pentagon's judges are it's subordinates. A lesson, he says, Rumsfeld seems incapable of learning. I guess Rummy didn't listen to poor Paul. |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-03-20 14:39 |
| #8 Very odd, in this story here, he's called "the father of the Iraqi army". BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 14, 2004 — Less than a year ago an unassuming man from Weatherford, Okla., arrived in this country to guide an organization that didn’t even exist – to build an army that wasn’t there. There was no plan, no force, and only slight guidance. And 363 days later – despite a host of staggering setbacks and difficulties with logistics, contractors, funding, cultural differences and a plan that changed in scope, size and overall delivery – Iraq’s armed forces and civil security forces total more than 230,000 people. In only a matter of months, the army will consist of a 27-battalion, nine-brigade, three-division army and air force, navy, coastal defense force, civil defense corps, police service, facilities protection service, border police force, customs police force, immigration police force, national security police force and a diplomatic protection service officers force. “There’s nothing that could have prepared me for what I’ve encountered here – but a number of things have happened to me in my career that have proven helpful,” said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, the former Office of Security Transition Commanding General. I think his beef with Rumsfeld is not so much about the war in Iraq, but Rumsfeld's reorganization and transformation of the Army. Retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who ran Iraqi military training from 2003 to 2004, describes the hiring of civilians to do jobs previously done by the military as a "shell game" created by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to keep the "force strength static on paper." In an op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times, Eaton wrote, "This tactic may help for a bit, but it will likely fall apart in the next budget cycle with those positions swiftly eliminated." |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-03-20 14:29 |
| #7 They'll find this guy strangled next week sometime... |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-03-20 14:06 |
| #6 Anyone catch the response from General Casey on the talk shows when presented with the Allawi statement? Russert cited former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi as having declared that there was a civil war in Iraq. Did General Casey agree? The general said that since Allawi has "been out of the country for a while," they haven't had a chance to speak, but he doesn't think Allawi is correct. He doesn't think we are in a civil war, and he doesn't think one is imminent or inevitable. (Hint, hint, I'm here in country, he's elsewhere.) |
| Posted by: Sherry 2006-03-20 10:59 |
| #5 I think it's highly likely that most of these former CIA employees, former Generals, former whatevers were once promised juicy slots somewhere in the bureaucracy of the Gore and Kerry administrations-that-never-were. *shudder* |
| Posted by: Spugum Sherens5365 2006-03-20 10:45 |
| #4 The war may not be lost quite yet. Just more drivel from the guardian. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-03-20 08:34 |
| #3 ex-, not former, not retired. ex. As Allawi is to be soon. It's amazing that as he seems to have lost the election he has begun to parrot the donk line. Maybe he'll start being a regular on the Sunday morning talk shows. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-20 07:18 |
| #2 But is Eaton a 'former' general, or a 'retired' one? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-03-20 07:13 |
| #1 Technically, retired Generals can be recalled to active duty at any time. Wonder how Gen. Eaton would take it if he found himself in front of Secty Rumsfeld after a briefing from the JAG on Art. 88. Ouchie. |
| Posted by: Whuper Sninesing9169 2006-03-20 07:07 |