Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

[tw]

How incompetant is Rumsfeld? Years ago, the Republican Party newspaper, the National Review, called Rumsfeld incompetant. Meanwhile George Jr will say, "Your doing a heck of a job, Rummy". Gen Batiste is only the latest in a chorus of retired generals saying reams about incompetant top management - and we really know who they are talking about - why Rumsfeld is still there:

Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals
... Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005 ... It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. ...
Batiste said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle -- ensuring there are enough forces -- helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.

Outright violations of well proven principles from 500 BC such as disbanding the army and police; incompetance that even violates Military Science 101. Notice again the repeated refraim that George Jr claims no one is saying - too few troops.

"We won't get fooled again," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in an essay in Time magazine this week. Listing a series of mistakes such as "McNamara-like micromanagement,"

... retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." ...

"The problem is that we've wasted three years" in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he "absolutely" thinks Rumsfeld should resign.

Zinni had predicted many problems that are now situation normal in Iraq - a situation that has only been getting worse as even some in the Cellar said otherwise.

Gen. Peter Pace, who is the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attempted to tamp down the revolt of the retired generals. No officers were muzzled during the planning of the invasion of Iraq, he said.

But then do you remember how far down into the ranks Rumsfeld went to find replacement generals in 2002? Why do you think Zinni was removed? Rumsfeld had to recruit one and two star generals to top ranks because so many generals 'disagreed' with Rumsfeld - and ended up retiring. You tell me how many really were permitted to speak their minds when Rumsfeld's management is a most common complaint from retired military commanders.

Other retired generals said they think it is unlikely that the denunciations of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease. ... "A lot of them are hugely frustrated," in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. ...

Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said he believes that his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch" but that, even so, his sense is "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out."

Of course they are frustrated. Other sources cite Gen. Tommy Franks, who lead the Iraq invasion, is also quietly saying same criticism which is why the Current Joint Chief Chairman is said to reply, "Not once was Tom told, `No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, you can't have that, ". Tommy Franks also describes how he breifed George Jr in detail before the "Mission Accomplished" war. Woodward described all that George Jr remembered from that detailed breifing - the sun bursts that Tommy Franks put on the charts.

First thing a civilian leadership must do is plan for the other 50% of a war - the peace settlement. This Military Science 101 concept posted here so many times previously. During the Kuwait liberation, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc all were drinking champagne when they should have been issuing the conditions for Saddam's surrender. Schwarzkopf had to improvise because those Washington civilian leaders did not do their jobs.

In the "Mission Accomplished" war, those same people did nothing for seven months which is why the commander of 101st Airborne literally had to steal funds to get something started. Again incompetent George Jr administration somehow thought Iraq would magically flourish if all we did is defeat Saddam. And so looting continued everywhere: predictable. No serious attempt to restore basic services occurred for seven months - as even Tobias should be able to testify to - because Rumsfeld and his boss are incompetent. But again, these are now well documented historical facts.

The US currently has two options. 500,000 soldiers for the next year to restore order in Iraq; or an announcement of total withdrawl in 6 months - forcing Iraqis to actually try to run their country. The status quo is a no win solution. Another source - and they are coming like termite swarms - instead leaks administration plans for a 20 year war. Well at least they are planning for what current strategy - with way too few troops - will create. Ready yet to talk about competancy in the George Jr administration? Vietnam deja vue. Yes, administration plans call for 20 continuous years of war. Why do you think retired generals are doing what generals never do? 20 years.

[Beestie]

I'm too paralyzed; frozen stiff - brain... locked... in.. a.. death grip with itself as it struggles to comprehend the incomprehensibility of what I am reading:

tw
is agreeing with
high-ranking military officials.

I'm reading this right, right? I mean, why would he lie?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Beestie

tw is agreeing with high-ranking military officials

It is obvious that these high-ranking military officials hate America.

[Griff]

They must be with the enemy.

[Flint]

All is lost. The freedom-haters have infiltrated the highest echelons.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

tw
is agreeing with
high-ranking military officials.

Maybe you did not notice. But so much of what I have posted about Iraq was quietly said by generals through their only mouthpiece - the retired generals. No, not General Miller who promoted torture and is apparently 'persona non-grata' among other generals. It should be obvious. What those retired generals are saying is what they have long been grumbling about AND what I have been saying all along.

Those who strongly reiterated decrees from a mental midget president were only subverting the troops. That should have long been obvious if you are anything close to being a supporter of the American military. You don't do to soldiers what we have done to ours in Iraq. And yet some Americans so hate American servicemen as to put them into Iraq - into a no win situation - without a strategic objective and without an exit strategy.

Notice things have gotten so bad that the retired generals are now getting loud - saying same things I have been saying all along. George Jr has screwed the American serviceman big time. The officers know it. Only political extremists would deny it. What you have read in my posts are what supporters of America's military have long been saying.

BTW, Rumsfeld even looks a lot like McNamara.

All very true. I have been posting endlessly about the low morale of our troops, stretched far too thin in what promises to be an endless war. There are no Iraqi's on our side. They hate our presence there and want us out. Some of them are glad to be rid of Saddam, but now they want to be rid of us as well. A soldier back on leave from Iraq told me stories of little kids one day selling cans of pop at the entrance to a command post and the next day that same little kid is throwing explosive devices at the soldiers. Shades of Vietnam, indeed.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Flint

All is lost. The freedom-haters have infiltrated the highest echelons.

Yup. Freedom makes profits less predictable. You have to control the supply chain so that the available money finds its way into the right pockets. Fascism works very handily to accomplish this. Stick around, kids, there's lots more election-rigging, patriotic drumbeating, cause creation and pre-emptive wars to come down the road.

Remember...when you say "Diebold", you've said "Republican!".

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Remember...when you say "Diebold", you've said "Republican!".

:::hides under my bed while the black choppers take you away:::

Originally Posted by Elspode

Remember...when you say "Diebold", you've said "Republican!".

Christ, if Diebold says "Republican," then "Halliburten" must say "Mussolini"! (*Hides under bed with Flint - politics make strange bed fellows* )

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 14 Apr 2006 - or 'add more generals to the list':

More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.

Ask which major military units are not yet represented of the list. These are the best of the best. They are doing what military men never do - speak out. It says - no yells in your face - that the administration is corrupt. Why yell? So many here still remained silent - condone torture and rendition. Policies so anus that silence can only mean approval.

Our political landscape is now so corrupt that even the generals are speaking out again a vile administration. Generals cannot, on principle, criticize George Jr. But don't fool yourself. They know where the problem lies - and why Rumsfeld still remains in office.

Meanwhile, when are we going after bin Laden? Just another competency question.

[skysidhe]

The WHOLE administration is incompetent! Seems they MADE themselves believe in WOMD to go to war even though the intellegence reports said otherwise and they read them!


I don't allow any right wing christians who voted for Bush in order to save their soul from going to hell because he is against aborting unborn fetus to complain to me!

I just say ' he's the antichrist' instead of going on some rant about how much I can't stand him and I saw all this comming and maybe next time they should use the wisdom god gave them to make an intellegent choice.

Did god EVER say. Please leave your brains at the door?

[tw]

Even The Washington Times demonstrates a problem that is well beyond Rumsfeld.

Retired general's call puzzles Rumsfeld aides
"I was particularly taken aback by Batiste," said Larry Di Rita, a senior Rumsfeld adviser. "It seemed very contrary to the interaction I saw in Iraq."

Where has he been besides at extremist indoctrination seminars? Batiste stated why he would not return to Iraq as second in command. Even Rumsfeld's own senior staff somehow did not know this? Or do they even lie to themselves? Where do they think reality lies? With a president who still says we are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war and who says "Nobody expected the levees to be breeched"?

Add another general to a list of critics:

Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a former commander of the Army War College, said the Army, Marines and special operations need 100,000 more troops.
"If you're going to fight a long war," Gen. Scales said, "if this war is generational, and if our grandchildren are going to be fighting this war, and if this war continues to be principally ground warfare, then it just seems overwhelmingly obvious that over the long term we are going to need a bigger ground force."

If our grandchildren will be fighting this war? Leaked was that "Mission Accomplished" would only take 20 years? Our grandchildren will be fighting this?

Is this word from Homer Simpson found in the Oxford dictionary? Duhhhhhh....

[Elspode]

If I comment any further on this thread, we'll have to move it into Conspiracy Theories.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It occurs to me that "retired generals" would imply old men, steeped in military tradition, trained in the army way and maybe resistant to change. Maybe they don't grasp or trust the new fangled gadgetry of the "army of one".

But then I thought, being generals with years of experience they would appreciate the value of not expending anymore soldiers than necessary. Accept technology that would let them keep as many as possible out of harms way.

The administration has bought the military contractors sales pitch, lock, stock and barrel. They're sold on the gee whiz, high tech, systems and their promised results, whereas the old generals have to be convinced these improvements are really improvements and not bullshit.

They way things have been going over there, the reticence to give up lots of depth in the front line may be justified. It's hard to judge the effectivness of the new systems when the people using them, or at least their bosses, don't have a plan.