| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Gen. Myers, Franks Support Rumsfeld re: Iraq |
| 2006-04-16 |
| Two of America's most experienced generals have backed Donald Rumsfeld, the embattled defence secretary, in the escalating row over his handling of the Iraq war. Gen Richard Myers, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George W Bush, and Gen Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq, both spoke out after six other retired generals urged Mr Rumsfeld to step down. That call prompted Mr Bush to interrupt his Easter break and express full support for Mr Rumsfeld, a move interpreted as a sign that the criticism had hit home. Gen Myers said: "My whole perception is that it's bad for the military, it's bad for civil-military relations and potentially it's very bad for the country because what we are hearing and what we are seeing is not the role the military plays in our society." The six retired generals condemned Mr Rumsfeld's prosecution of the campaign in Iraq and his management style. Their words were given added force as two had served as senior commanders in Iraq since the invasion. In his first public comment, Mr Rumsfeld, 73, struck a defiant tone in an interview with Al Arabiya television. "Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defence, it would be like a merry-go-round," he said. Gen Myers and Gen Franks were predictable cheer-leaders for a man with whom they have worked closely. Yet even within loyal Republican ranks, there are growing fears that Mr -Rumsfeld is a political -liability as public support for the administration's Iraq policy slides ahead of November's congressional elections. When Sen John Warner, the chairman of the armed services committee, was asked to comment, his spokesman said only that he "believes that the decision of whether to keep Secretary Rumsfeld is up to the president". None the less, the row has probably strengthened rather than threatened Mr Rumsfeld's position, as Mr Bush is famously loyal to his inner circle. Aides made clear that the president would not be seen to cave in to public pressure over the future of a man whose handling of Iraq mirrored his own views. The general whose comments would carry greatest weight has remained silent so far, however. Colin Powell, the country's former top soldier, lost repeated political battles with Mr Rumsfeld as secretary of state during the first Bush administration and has recently expressed doubts about pre-war US claims on Iraqi weapons programmes. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #4 And on a second note, this is a very serious and dangerous game that some folks are playing. The Pew poll a few weeks back showed the PresidentÂ’s approval rating at 28%. CongressÂ’s at 10%. The militaryÂ’s at 47%. I think the historical record is clear what happens when the basis of legitimacy for a government is undermined. To paraphrase Jefferson, the powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. With the absolute terrible display of ineffective government, perceived or real, the people will accept alternatives which offer solutions, perceived or real. The media and opposition criticisms and obstructionists have not only hurt the objective of their scorn, but have brought disrepute upon the entire organ of government. The SenateÂ’s recent role in the immigration issue is a basic display of complete disconnect with the people. At what point do people across the political spectrum start talking about the separation between those who govern and the people? Can we trust any of them? If theyÂ’re all corrupt, how does the existing processing cleanse itself? At what point does the unthinkable start to become thinkable? If it doesnÂ’t work what are we willing to consider as an alternative? History may not exactly repeat itself, but human nature is pretty consistent. Others have gone down this road before and it isnÂ’t a surprise what can happen next. Which is why those like General Myers are reminding his fellow officers of the modern role of the military in our society. |
| Posted by: Uninenter Thirong7060 2006-04-16 09:40 |
| #3 Gen Myers and Gen Franks were predictable cheer-leaders Hold it right the f*ck there. I worked for Dick Myers, and his integrity is WITHOUT question. If he thought for an instant that the Administration was needlessly risking American lives, he'd have stood up and said so - publicly - and resigned, none of this 'wait-till-I'm-out-and-writing-my-book" BS. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-04-16 09:31 |
| #2 And George Washington was always very respectful of the supremacy of the people's representatives in Congress, who even then and even to him and anybody else withan awareness of the military situation were idiots. See Newburgh Which was the more important General to the country and set the better example? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-16 09:26 |
| #1 Gen Myers said: "My whole perception is that it's bad for the military, it's bad for civil-military relations and potentially it's very bad for the country because what we are hearing and what we are seeing is not the role the military plays in our society." Just for the record, this is a modern development. General Winfield Scott, senior general of the Army, ran while in uniform as the Presidential nominee for the Whig Party in 1852, after his military successes in the Mexican American War. While Scott was unsuccessful, unlike his fellow commander General Zachary Taylor who did become president in 1848, he remained in service till after the start of the Civil War in 1861. General George B. McClellan, twice relieved of the command of the Army of the Potomac, ran against Abraham Lincoln in 1864 citing the effectiveness of the president's handling of the war. |
| Posted by: Uninenter Thirong7060 2006-04-16 09:16 |