| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| "Military" Times To Call For Rumsfeld Resignation? |
| 2006-11-04 |
| (An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.) 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. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 good for you, 49 Pan! |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-04 21:12 |
| #16 What the military says: Defense Department Response I wouldn't have guessed it, but it seems like the "Military" Times isn't put out by the military. You have just voiced what will be the biggest loss to Military Times. This publicity will make it common knowledge that it is a civilian magazine that is just an arm of Gannett. Few people knew that. People buy it because it lists promotions, pay rates, benefits, and a few other standard features that are of interest. But all of their articles have had a typical MSM negative tone for quite some time. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-04 21:10 |
| #15 loud right fuc&ing now. like mine ending my suscription. Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-04 20:13 Not to worry, we will remove the trash from our lives. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-04 21:08 |
| #14 what does military.com have to say about it? I second this question. I wouldn't have guessed it, but it seems like the "Military" Times isn't put out by the military. Hmm. If the military has something to say, it better say it fast and loud right fuc&ing now. Otherwise it might as well give its tacit approval. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-04 20:59 |
| #13 In the case of Gannett, I'd be just as inclined to see this as an editorial decision that echoes the ownership. USA Today has been increasingly anti-Bush all year. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-04 20:55 |
| #12 They had to be aware that this was circulation suicide for them. No, they have a chinese wall between news/editorial and business. The newsies disdain the business side and could care less whether the boss makes a profit. If they run the paper under they'll just get a job somewhere else. The world owes them a living. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-04 20:51 |
| #11 I guess I should proof read before I hit submit. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-04 20:50 |
| #10 I think it was interesting that Military Times made this decision. They had to be aware that this was circulation suicide for them. I have no doubt that the decision was made knowing fully well that their circulation would plummet as a result. Apparently, they masters at Gannett felt that it was worth throwing in the towel for the advantage they believe this will give them on Nov. 7. I've notice in that last 10 days that many other papers are are talking of major cuts in the very near future. It's like they are hanging on until after this election. Perhaps that is what is going on at Military Times. Maybe Gannett isn't winning enough hearts and minds for the money they pay to keep Military Times afloat and they have decided to maximize their advantge in this next election before they bail. Whatever. It's interesting that they decided to cash in their chips. Quite honestly, I don't think it is going to have that big of an impact as they had hoped. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-04 20:48 |
| #9 Watch the circulation of the Army Time to take a dive. The next two week will have some interesting comments, like mine ending my suscription. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-04 20:13 |
| #8 It is an obvious attempt to influence an election. It is unlikely their readers will take kindly to that. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-04 15:34 |
| #7 Mark Z - Points well-taken, I assure you... print media's losing value and whacking staff like crazy these days, and not for fun IMO, so I do consider it a suicide agenda from a business POV - they just seem to think their editorial opinion is more important than the sales / circ numbers. Stuck on 1969, as someone said long ago. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-04 15:26 |
| #6 what does military.com have to say about it? |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-04 15:22 |
| #5 Yes, Garnett, the proud owners of US Today. I suspect the troops know what to do with this editorial (hint: anyone need toilet paper?) |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-11-04 14:22 |
| #4 "What is it with the print media's suicide agenda these days?" .com, it's not a suicide agenda to the MSM. It's nostalgia. Cue the cut from Bob Dylan's All Around the Watch Tower performed by Jimi Hendrix. The MSM have been following the polls nationwide. They realize their unrelenting anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Repub drum beat has finally taken root and will sprout fruit on November 7th. Hey folks, it's just like the late 1960's and early 1970's all over again! Gosh, let's have a War Moratorium Day! Let's have another Woodstock! Joni Mitchell and CSN&Y are still alive, right? (If we - the USA - walk on Iraq and/or Afghanistan we'll be accomplice to the murder - read slaughter - to a countless number of people in those countries that allied with us. Let's review: We walked from North Korea in '53. We walked from Viet Nam in '74-'75. We walked from Iran in '79. We walked from Lebanon in '83. We walked from southern Iraq in '91. We walked from Somalia in '93. What was the aftermath? Notice the pattern? I know you do. The MSM and Dems do not. If the Dems win just a little next Tuesday I'll blame the Repubs (for stupidity) and the MSM (for bias). If the Dems win big I will blame the MSM (bias and treason)and the American people (stupidity) for failing to recognize the threat to Western Civ. and for failing to have the will to defend (cowardice). The MSM and most Dems do not view "walking away" or kicking the can down the street as a bad thing, but rather something to be celebrated and admired. We both know that's bullsh+t. I'm going to shut now before I say something that will get me sinktrapped. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-11-04 13:41 |
| #3 What is it with the print media's suicide agenda these days? I thought they were in "business" to make money. Guess not. Somehow I think the goofy "truth to power" thingy plays a little better in Berkeley than Fort Benning. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-04 12:07 |
| #2 ..The 'Times' papers have no idea how badly this is going to blow back on them. The troops will stop buying and subscribing and start reading Stars and Stripes - which most overseas personnel do anyways. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-11-04 11:54 |
| #1 the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. And a hell of a lot harder to come by from any of the mainstream media. All these 'military' papers fall under the Gannett Co. empire which considers USA Today to be their flagship McNewspapaer. I'm betting this cheap trick generates some nasty letters to the editor and a big-ass circulation drop-off. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-11-04 11:06 |