• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Is the SECDEF incompetent?...MGen Eaton would suggest so

Reconstruction was too important to be left to a retired has been like Garner. The administration wanted a diplomat. For the same reason a White House staffer was put on Franks' staff for OIF. Anyway here is another view of the comments made by these retired officers.

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/grumbles_from_t.html

 
How can you compare Germany and Japan to Iraq?  Both were culturaly homogenous non-tribal societies.
Allowing Sunni Baathists to retain control of the military and bureaucracy would have been a complete disaster. The Kurds and Shia would never accept that.
 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/04/14/1534818-ap.html

Bush says he won't fire Rumsfeld
   
WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush rebuffed recommendations from a growing number of retired generals Friday that he replace U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"He has my full support," said Bush.
Bush said Rumsfeld's stewardship at the Pentagon is crucial for the United States.

"Earlier today, I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror," Bush said.
"I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."
Bush's strong endorsement, conveyed in a statement released by the White House while Bush was at Camp David, Md., for the weekend, appeared designed to blunt a rising clamour from within the ranks of retired commanders for Rumsfeld's ouster.

Six retired generals have called for Rumsfeld to resign, accusing him of mishandling the Iraq war, ignoring advice of field commanders and having an arrogant management style.

Rumsfeld has rejected all such calls, while noting Bush had twice turned down his offers to resign.
Meanwhile, in an interview aired Friday on Al-Arabiya television, Rumsfeld said he intends to continue serving.
"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," Rumsfeld said.

"But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defence of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."
A senior administration official said Bush considered a formal statement was warranted given the "type of voices" engaged in the most recent criticism of Rumsfeld. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.
Similar statements are not likely to be forthcoming for other officials whose jobs are viewed to be in potential trouble, such as Treasury Secretary John Snow, the official said.

Joshua Bolten took over from retiring Andy Card on Friday as White House chief of staff and several administration personnel changes are widely anticipated, perhaps as early as next week.
The timing of Bush's statement on Rumsfeld seemed designed to tamp down speculation, particularly in Sunday newspapers and on weekend television news shows, that Rumsfeld might be on his way out.
Bush's statement also appeared directed at criticism from some of the retired generals that Bush ignored military recommendations from his commanders on missions in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism.

"I have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how to best complete these missions," Bush said.
"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this period.
"He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

One of those calling for Rumsfeld's replacement, retired general John Batiste, called the recent series of critical statements "absolutely coincidental" earlier Friday and said he did not know of any co-ordinated effort to discredit the defence secretary.
"I have not talked to the other generals," Batiste, interviewed from Rochester, N.Y., said on a television show.
Nevertheless, he said he thinks the clamour for Rumsfeld to step down is "happening for a reason."

Batiste said he retired, rather than accept a promotion to lieutenant general, because he could not accept Rumsfeld's management style.
Separately, Batiste told interviewers on a television show, he had served under a defence secretary "who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant and who didn't build a strong team."

Also calling for Rumsfeld to resign were retired army major general John Riggs, retired marine general Anthony Zinni, retired army major general Charles Swannack, retired army major general Paul Eaton, and retired marine lieutenant general Gregory Newbold.
 
hmmmm,... Sounds like scapegoat time. Looks like Rummy might take one for the team  :salute:

This time Iraq was a total fiasco. Thank God we didn't sign up.
 
Another good article on this drama. Rumsfeld is a symbol of our war effort and as a result if he was forced out it would be cause for celebration by our enemies. I think Rummy will be in the saddle til the end of the administration.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/04/generals-revolt.html
 
Tomahawk, dont take this the wrong way, but i find some of yoru comments to be contrdictory and, sadly, delusional. 

First, Rummy and the Bush family are so tight, the only way they would use Rummy as a scapegoat is if he was proven to be a (insert horrible crime), and even then theyd fight to the wall for him.

Second, you mention earlier that it would have been crazy to hire the Baathists to control the government and military while the elections were going on....?????  Im confused, thats exactly what happened! IT IS like the Nazis running Germany after the war. (Which by the way if you would read your history you would know that many leading Nazi industrialsts WERE running Germany after the war, and many of them were excused from prosecution at Nurmeberg for 'national security reasons').

Third, the Kurds were not a problem, they were in line with US demands; thats why the Turks were so cheesed off! (They hate the Kurds!)

Fourth, MIGHT HAVE GALVANZIED A GREATER OPPOSITION? Holy cow, is this date right?  Are you one of those who believe that the Iraqi resistance is against the wall?  Sounds like someone is believing too much national political propoganda!

With respect, I think some of your facts are in error!
 
I saw this on MSN Newsweek this morning. As Tomahawk rightly points out, we have to take media filtering and biases into account, but check this out:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12335719/site/newsweek/

An extract:

The Revolt of the Retired Generals has created considerable discomfort in the E-Ring of the Pentagon and at the White House. President George W. Bush felt compelled last week to issue a written statement expressing his "full support" for the SecDef. For now, Bush has no intention of firing Rumsfeld. "He likes him," says a close friend of the president's, who requested anonymity in discussing such a sensitive matter. "He's not blind. He knows Rumsfeld sticks his foot in it." Adds a senior Bush aide, who declined to be named discussing the president's sentiments: "I haven't seen any evidence that their personal rapport is at all diminishing. They see each other often and talk often." Rumsfeld says he has twice offered his resignation to Bush, who has declined it.

The old generals can be quite biting about Rumsfeld; retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wrote an op-ed calling the secretary of Defense "incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically." But their criticisms are probably best understood as "the first salvos in the war over 'Who Lost Iraq'," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired U.S. Army colonel whose book "Breaking the Phalanx" was influential in inspiring the military's blitzkrieg assault on Baghdad. "Yes, Rumsfeld should go," says Macgregor. "But a lot of the generals should be fired, too. They share the blame for the mess we are in."

Rumsfeld is the chief villain of a very influential new book, "Cobra II," by retired Marine Corps Gen. Bernard Trainor and New York Times reporter Michael Gordon. In their detailed, thorough accounting of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Rumsfeld is shown badgering the reluctant but mostly quiescent generals into attacking with as few troops as possible. Despite all the talk of the war's being hatched by a neoconservative cabal, Rumsfeld himself appears indifferent to ideology; he was profoundly suspicious of the notion that America could bring democracy to Iraq. Rather, he focused on forcing a transformation of the hidebound, heavy-laden, slow-moving Army. Rumsfeld disdains "nation-building" and blithely counts on the Iraqis to rebuild their own country. But right after the invasion he signed off on orders by the American proconsul, Paul Bremer, to disband the Iraqi Army and fire most of the top civil servants—leaving the country vulnerable to chaos and a growing insurgency.

The publication of "Cobra II," plus talk-show comments from Zinni, the former chief of CENTCOM who was promoting his own book, "The Battle for Peace," appear to have encouraged retired generals to attack Rumsfeld in public. "There was a lot of pent-up agony," says Trainor. "The dam broke."

One of the most powerful indictments came from Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who was chief of operations for the Joint Staff during the early planning of the Iraq invasion. Writing in Time magazine, Newbold declared, "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—Al Qaeda." Actually, it was not the job of a uniformed officer, even a high-ranking one like Newbold, to challenge the president's decision to invade Iraq. That's a political judgment: it's up to the president and Congress to decide whom to fight. The military's job is to win the fight.

Interesting to see the prominence of Marines in this.

Cheers
 
LA Times article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich15apr15,0,4080791.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
 
PBI, nice article. 

Very oft repeated line at the end, and very true, but you cant win the fight if you are hamstrung by the people ordering you to the fight (isnt that what this site is al about?)

Ref Rummy, everyone in government knew he was calling the shots during the Iraqi attack, and he was just as much to blame for the bungles that happened.  The war was won by US soldiers who used their tools to the highest standard capable, the failure to secure the country afterwards was due to Rumfield believing that the Iraqi's would rise up and overthrow the Baath party (as he was led to believe by the ex-patriot Iraqi community) in support of US troops.

Of note, Karzai said the same thing when the US went into Afghnaistan, and he was right, so the US is currently 50-50 for believing ex-patriot communties over the past 5 years. 
 
Tomahawk: thanks for that. When I read things like:

In one sense, the unedifying spectacle of disenchanted generals publicly attacking their erstwhile boss does serve a useful purpose. It reveals the dirty little secret that the Pentagon has attempted to conceal ever since Vietnam: At the upper echelons of the national security establishment, relations between soldiers and civilians are mired in dysfunction.

it makes me wonder if tension between senior military leaders and politicians is something that just can't be avoided, particularly in a democracy, but even in states like Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union.

As Canadians, we often tend to view the US military's situation through very rose-coloured glasses. My exposure to US forces over the years, and listening to US officers talk has made me wonder if maybe we actually share alot of similar problems, differeniated only by scale.

Cheers
 
Pbi I think we do have alot of the same problem's. I don't think the issues are limited to the military but are seen in government and in industry.
 
Buck Sgt says the Soapbox Six don`t know what they are talking about

http://americancitizensoldier.blogspot.com/      Read "Demigods and Generals"
 
According to this story the average soldier with the help of the internet has more say and a faster response as to what the guys in theater need.

This also apparently includes ideas of leadership, of which the opinions of the now infamous six retired generals that where heralded by the media as speaking out for all soldiers, have been panned widely by most soldiers that use an internal military internet to exchange idea's.


Six Generals Shot Down By The Internet

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20060425.aspx

April 25, 2006: The recent flap over six retired American generals publicly calling for the Secretary of Defense to resign, also brought out opinions, via the Internet, from lower ranking troops (active duty, reservists and retired.) The mass media ran with the six generals, but got shot down by the troops and their blogs, message board postings and emails. It wasn't just a matter of the "troop media" being more powerful. No, what the troops had going for them was a more convincing reality. Unlike the six generals, many of the Internet troops were in Iraq, or had recently been there. Their opinions were not as eloquent as those of the generals, but they were also more convincing. Added to that was the complaint from many of the troops that, according to the American constitution, it's the civilians (in the person of the Secretary of Defense) that can dismiss soldiers from service, not the other way around. While the six generals were only expressing their opinions (which only active duty troops are restricted from doing, because of the different military legal system they operate under), it rubbed a lot of people (military and civilian) the wrong way because of the constitutional angle.

Naturally, the details of this media battle didn't get a lot of coverage in the mass media. Makes sense. Who wants to discuss a defeat, by a bunch of amateurs no less. But the mass media has been missing an even larger story about the military and the Internet.

The military has become a lot more responsive to "what the troops want" in the last decade, since the Internet became widely available. What happened was simple. The troops got on line, found each other and have been sharing opinions and experiences, getting to know each other, and doing it all very quickly. The most striking example of this is how it has changed the speed with which new weapons and equipment get into service. Troops have always bought superior commercial equipment, usually from camping and hunting suppliers. And a lot more of that gear has been available in the last decade. Because the word now gets around so quickly via the net, useful new gear is quickly purchased by thousands of troops. After September 11, 2001, with a war on, having the best gear was seen by more troops as a matter of life and death. This quickly got back to politicians, journalists and the military bureaucrats responsible for buying gear for the troops. The quality of the "official issue" gear skyrocketed like never before because of the Internet pressure.

But the troops also exchanged information on tactics and techniques, as well as anything else they knew that could help keep them alive in combat. This alarmed the Department of Defense, which put some restrictions on active duty bloggers. The troops did not fight back, as, once reminded, they understood that, in public forums, anyone could read what they were saying, including the enemy. So a lot of this information continued to be exchanged email and private message boards. The military got into the act by establishing official message boards, for military personnel only, where useful information could be discussed and exchanged. All this rapid information sharing has had an enormous impact on the effectiveness of the troops, something that has largely gone unnoticed by the mass media.

The brass have not tried to discourage all this communication, because the officers use it as well, for the same reasons as the troops. Most junior officers grew up with the Internet, and many of the older ones were using the Internet before it became popularized in the 1990s. Even the generals of today, have experience with PCs when they were young, so have no trouble getting into this new form of communication. The military is eagerly building a "battlefield Internet" for use during combat, and parts of this are up and running and heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is all uncharted territory. There's never been an army before where all the troops were so well connected with each other. So far, the benefits have outweighed any liabilities. But no one is sure where it will go next, and the public is largely unaware of the impact, because the mass media has not grasped nature and extent of the changes.




 
Back
Top