Article

2006-04-14 Home Front: Politix

Retired General Denies Coordinated Effort to Get Rumsfeld Fired

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-14 13:27|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Defense Secretaries fire generals. Not the other way around. There are countries where generals fire Defense Secretaries. They are located mainly in Africa and Latin America.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-04-14 14:09|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-04-14 14:09|| Front Page Top

#2 My humble opinion: When this many recently retired generals - from two different services - all with "boots on the ground" time in one or both theaters, leading divisions or higher - say that the 74 year old SECDEF is "going sideways" and needs to be replaced, that's good enough for me. Better Rumsfeld steps down now, before things get worse - if he is actually inspiring key leaders to depart the service DURING WARTIME - then something is seriously wrong.

Until all this came up, I was pretty accepting of Rumsfeld. But - if there is this much heatburn, then the situation needs fixing pronto.

And - (as someone who is an alumnus of the same undergraduate institution that Eaton, Swannack, and Batiste graduated from), I feel comfortable with the generals airing their criticisms AFTER leaving active duty. That is the only way such comments should ever be aired - when it is clearly not a challenge to the concept of total civilian control over military commanders.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2006-04-14 14:33|| 2006-04-14 14:33|| Front Page Top

#3 that's true lone ranger, you make a good point. But I still don't agree in the principle of going to the media - who is clearly on the side of our enemy to bring attention to this matter. Five isn't very many. In an arena with egos this big, you can always find five that will disagree with the method to move forward. It happens in war and it happens in school boards, and city councils etc., etc.

The difference here is that the ONLY people being given the microphone are those who thought it should be done differently.

Even if Rumsfeld made mistakes - then I'd have to say ....well, duh. Mistakes are always made in war. I always tire of the bastards that grandstand and say, if only they had done it my way ..... because if it had been done their way, then it would be the others standing up bitching about how they didn't plan the immaculate war.

Clearly, Rummy has made enemies. I don't know if these complaints are valid or not, but I sure as heck am not going to make my decision that based on only 5 guys. What say we wait until we hear from the other 8,9995?

Posted by 2b 2006-04-14 14:42|| 2006-04-14 14:42|| Front Page Top

#4 That is the only way such comments should ever be aired - when it is clearly not a challenge to the concept of total civilian control over military commanders.

I'd agree if the comments were made the day after he left the service. That was the message of McMasters book about how the generals should have behaved in Vietnam. But this game of let's-gang-up-with-the-MSM-to-get-even strikes me as low office politics. I've read nothing positive from these guys in the sense of "this is what we should be doing" beyond get rid of Rummy because he intimidated me.

If they thought something was going down that was bad for the country, they owe it to the country to resign and explain what the bad thing is in real time. Not to skulk around and a year later say this is what 20-20 hindsight shows the boss who wasn't nice to me did wrong.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-14 15:01|| 2006-04-14 15:01|| Front Page Top

#5 How many of these generals were Clinton's men?

How many want to be SecDef under Hillary?

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-04-14 15:40|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-04-14 15:40|| Front Page Top

#6 he declined an opportunity to get a promotion to the rank of lieutenant general and return to the wartorn country as the No. 2 U.S. military officer because he could not accept Rumsfeld's tough management style. This really sounds like someone whining that he doesn't like taking orders. HE should be in charge, dammit! How dare the Secretary of Defense order him around! He's General!! He may very well have done a marvelous job commanding for which he should be commended but you just don't air your grievences in public like that. Patton didn't like how Eisenhower was running things but he did not complain to the press.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2006-04-14 16:08|| 2006-04-14 16:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Obviously these retirees must be Democrats. Only Republican generals and servicemen "get it".

Posted by Wholuque Spoluling6332 2006-04-14 16:40|| 2006-04-14 16:40|| Front Page Top

#8 So, he's a military man who can't accept a tough management style...hmmm...

Should we call him Courtney or Wesley.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2006-04-14 16:40|| 2006-04-14 16:40|| Front Page Top

#9 I had to take DW to the hospital this morning for a routine medical appointment. I caught part of the Fox News broadcast while I was there. One of the guests on the show was a total a$$hole, and blamed Bush for everything from eggs not cooking properly to forcing the Iranians to build nuclear weapons. The other guest said something that caught my attention. Basically, she said that most of the generals whining about Rumsfeld were those that didn't like the SecDef coming in and making wholesale changes in the military, trying to reorganize and reconstitute the forces to something more in line to what the nation needs. Those generals are uncomfortable with change, and take their discomfort out on Rumsfeld. That struck me as very plausible, because I've known several dozen general officers during my military career, and many of them were like that. That could also be why many are retiring: they can't accommodate themselves to the changes taking place as the result of Rumsfeld's reorganization. Now they're retired and bitching. They need to be cognisant of the fact that, although they're retired, they still fall under the auspices of the UCMJ, and CAN be held accountable for violating the military's rules.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-04-14 16:43|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-04-14 16:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Mark Larson on KOGO radio sez there are 875 active Generals in the latest Census. 9000 retired Generals still living. These should get that same % of attention.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-04-14 18:02|| 2006-04-14 18:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Ernest Brown, I recommend calling him General George McClellan.

Posted by Scott R">Scott R 2006-04-14 18:02|| http://five24.net]">[http://five24.net] 2006-04-14 18:02|| Front Page Top

#12 Secretary of War Elihu Root Part Deux.

Secretary Root had to drag the Army into the 20th century with all the moaners and groaners, particularly the old generals and colonels, who didn't want change. Go read up on it. Its basically the same 'critics' playing the same game.

We're not going to refight WWII again for a long while. Meantime we need a force structure to support what we are actually are going to be doing with some degree of fiscal responsibility. I've never seen a general who didn't think he needed more troops, more money, more resources.

Posted by Glolung Crish8020 2006-04-14 18:28|| 2006-04-14 18:28|| Front Page Top

#13 We have some Generals that had no problem with Rumsfield when they were doing their job, and getting good intel from the military. Then in civilian life they getting their intel from CNN and the NY Times and suddenly their opinions on the war change.

That's what it looks like to me at least.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-04-14 18:40|| 2006-04-14 18:40|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm with you Ranger. Anyone with any sense knows you can't speak up while serving. Gen. Shinseki did and they forced him out even though he was correct. Truth is, Dummy (er, Rummy) is the worst Defense Sec'ty since McNamara. He's arrogant like Mac and his whole scope of the problem was wrong. Now we have another unending mess. Time to gather our guys and go. If problems continue, time to start mass eliminations.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-04-14 20:23|| 2006-04-14 20:23|| Front Page Top

#15 Well the white house website from the President just said he is keeping Rummy, so this is mute like I said yesterday McArthur was a poular general pissed off the boss, lost job end of story

Posted by djohn66 2006-04-14 21:16|| 2006-04-14 21:16|| Front Page Top

#16 LR: My humble opinion: When this many recently retired generals - from two different services - all with "boots on the ground" time in one or both theaters, leading divisions or higher - say that the 74 year old SECDEF is "going sideways" and needs to be replaced, that's good enough for me. Better Rumsfeld steps down now, before things get worse - if he is actually inspiring key leaders to depart the service DURING WARTIME - then something is seriously wrong.

I don't worship military men. A few dozen generals supported Kerry. Should I have voted for Kerry?

I don't worship Bush or Rumsfeld either. But the facts on the ground tell me that the war in Iraq could not have been better-run. By all historical measures, this is the lowest-casualty large scale guerrilla war I have seen. The retired generals who accuse Rumsfeld of incompetence are telling us that they could have done better. I seriously doubt it.

The guerrilla war in Iraq has been going on for several years not because our people, civilian or military, can't hack it. It's going on because there is nothing we could have done to convince Arab Sunnis that it is better for Arab Shias and Kurds to rule Arab Sunnis than it is for Arab Sunnis to rule Arab Shias and Kurds. It's also been going on for three years because that's the nature of guerrilla wars - the whole guerrilla strategy is to draw out the conflict over years - decades if necessary - and avoid decisive battles so as to psychologically wear down the government (but primarily to avoid getting destroyed by government forces).

Malaya's (now Malaysia and Singapore) guerrilla war is often quoted as an example of how counter-insurgency operations should be run. And yet British involvement that war lasted for ten years - against a few thousand guerrillas fighting with looted Japanese military equipment from the end of the war. Note that Malaya had no porous borders in evey direction - just a short border of under 500 miles with Thailand to the north. Iraq's borders are thousands of miles long. Unlike Iraq, Malaya had no adjoining neighbors supporting the guerrillas with bases and rest areas - just Communist China almost 2000 miles north. Malaya's guerrillas also had nothing like Saddam's tens of billions of dollars of oil money to spend on personnel and weaponry. And British involvement in Malaya not only lasted ten years, the guerrilla war went on for another twenty years, until the Chinese government stopped spending billions on communist guerrilla movements in Southeast Asia, around the time of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-04-14 22:16|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-04-14 22:16|| Front Page Top

23:35 2b
23:25 CrazyFool
23:10 Ptah
23:01 jpal
22:58 BillH
22:52 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:50 Chinter Flarong9283
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:16 Zhang Fei
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:47 JosephMendiola
21:38 JosephMendiola
21:35 JosephMendiola
21:26 john
21:23 ed
21:16 djohn66
21:09 Joel Richardson
21:07 Old Patriot
21:03 JosephMendiola
21:02 Old Patriot
20:52 john
20:47 JosephMendiola