Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

At least the Iraqi's have barracks, dilapitated or not. American soldiers get run down warehouses - that's if they're lucky. They seldom get the luxury of a shower and stay clean as best they can using baby wipes that the folks back home send them in care packages. It is not unusual to for them to get as little as a quart of clean drinking water per day.

The US military simply does not have the man power to fully police the occupation of Iraq, and the majority of people in the US have no understanding of the hardships our troops are suffering.

[kaylar]

The 'default' position for the United States is War. Since 1776 the United States has almost constantly been at war, moving from one arena to another, sometimes, as with the Tripolitan War, taking a break to fight another, (War of 1812) then resuming where it left off.

Almost every President has been a 'war' President, so that there is nothing remarkable about Bush looking for a location to launch his. That he stupidly picked Iraq instead of Iran was due to him obsession with Sadam Hussein. He could have just as easily focused on Iran; which would have made a bit more sense.

(I suppose he's leaving Iran for his brother/son)

Like Vietnam, the war in Iraq is merely muscle flexing. There is nothing to 'win', except the oil, and the losses will be 'acceptable'. I suspect that the American People will begin to protest the war after the twenty thousandth
soldier is killed. (or more likely, after it is 'reported' that the twenty thousandth is killed, (around the time of the thirty thousandth).

One need not search for the 'sense' of the war in Iraq any more than the
screensaver that was shipped as 'default' with your computer.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by kaylar

The 'default' position for the United States is War. Since 1776 the United States has almost constantly been at war

We haven't been at war in decades.

[Happy Monkey]

Well, we've been at war, but without all those nasty rules that have to be enforced if we make it official.

[Undertoad]

When there are $7688 TVs at Walmart we are probably not at war.

[Happy Monkey]

Remember those planets in Star Trek that had eliminated all of the hassles of constant war? They had very nice TVs.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When there are $7688 TVs at Walmart we are probably not at war.

Then who's lying, walmart or Michael Yon?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The WSJ via CNN,says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The WSJ via CNN, says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.

And so we go right to what those four generals say:

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

When did Saddam bring down flight 93? When did Saddam attack the WTC and Pentagon?

The war in Iraq is not being won. 85% of problems are directly traceable to top management - clearly Rumsfeld and George Jr. AND the reasons given to fight a war in Iraq are justified by 11 September? Why are four generals lying to defend Rumsfeld? Are they simply following the president’s orders? Or are they that misguided?

How deep is this pool of outright liars? Anyone who can read knows Saddam was totally unrelated to Flight 93. Maybe these four generals think you - the person reading this - is that dumb? Or maybe these four generals also believe category three levees would not be breeched by a category five hurricane? Maybe Rumsfeld had to reach that deep into a barrel of retired generals to find support? Iraq is about Flight 93? They acutally wrote that in defense of Rumsfeld?

Meanwhile the reason for Flight 93 was in Afghanistan. Remember bin Laden who Rumsfeld and George Jr will not go after? Remember how 10th Mountain was denied access to Tora Bora and then later sent up without preparation - causing numerous unnecessary casulties? More micromanagement by Rumsfeld or Bush. So yes, let's listen to the tapes of Flight 93 - and remember that George Jr did not go after bin Laden. Four generals somehow call that competence? And when did those four generals say we will go after bin Laden?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The WSJ via CNN,says Bush has his own covey of generals to rebuke the dissenters and call them stogy old cranks as well as unpatriotic.

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

Was there some specific intelligence material I missed or is this another '9/11' response, an intellectual 'talk to the hand' that is not meant to provide information, merely 'wave a bloody shirt' and imply that the questioner is unpatriotic or out of touch.

As for the 'why we fight in Iraq', I would LOVE to hear a consistent and defensible explanation of that other than 'failed intelligence'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And so sayeth the Bush.....Oh yeah, oh yeah, well I've got generals too, so there.

[Maui Nick]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

It's believed that 75 percent of serving Army officers agree with what the retired generals have said. As someone who joined the Army out of high school, then went on to college, I have to agree with them as well.

I just don't get the feeling that Rumsfeld --- who served as an active-duty pilot in the years between Korea and Vietnam, thus neatly avoiding anything like real combat --- has a feel for what a real ground war is like. And I agree with the comparison to McNamara.

I can serve up a real rant on this, if you really want to set me off. Suffice it to say I'm dead certain Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow zealots dramatically underestimated the amount of ground troops that would would be needed to pacify Iraq, a mistake which has been paid for by the everyday grunt.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Maui Nick

It's believed that 75 percent of serving Army officers agree with what the retired generals have said.

So what is wrong with the other 25%? Are they ostriches? Too few troops is so obvious as to not even be debateable.

Principles upon which the Iraq invasion were predicated and justified were defined by Project for New American Century. A political agenda where unilateral miliary action should be applied liberally to fix the world. Iraq is a perfect example of that agenda. And yet even in Project for New... , it is a no brainer, slam-dunk, obvious. From Project for New American Century of 12 July 2005:

Bring The Troops Home?
Secretary Rumsfeld has time and again said that he defers to his generals in Iraq about the number of troops needed. No one vaguely familiar with how decisions are made in this Pentagon believes that to be the case. And, indeed, as visiting members of Congress and military reporters have repeatedly reported from Iraq, the military officers there know quite well that more troops are needed, not less.

Why do 25% of the officers so deny reality? Even the 'strike first and ask questions later' Project for New... identified this problem long ago because it was that obvious. But not to Rumsfeld or to a president who could not even name the countries adjacent to Israel.

If your closest friends and allies were saying this a year ago, then why is it not true today? Denial. Blind denial. Clearly those field officers must be demented or unpatriotic. Good Morning Vietnam. 500,000 troops for one year is required.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Jesus, TW....just because some don't agree doesn't make them "demented or unpatriotic". They just don't agree with that assessment. It would depend on where they are and if they need more manpower.

Do you think every "field officer" has a handle on the whole of Iraq? I'm not convinced any of them see the big picture, more likely they're trying to control their sector and if it's a fairly quiet one they may not need more men.

The ones in and around Baghdad know they need manpower because that's where the action is right now.
Hence, different perspectives, different assessments.

[FloridaDragon]

The only comment on this I have to make is why did these generals wait until they were retired to come out public like this? If they honestly felt as they claim they do now then they would have done everything possible to save the lives of the troops under their command. But instead, they wait till they retire to jump up and shout. Seems to me they had held their retirement pay and careers ahead of their own troops. Money and political motives over loyalty to their own men. Sad.