Generals Want Rumsfeld to Resign

[Fish]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-iraq-usa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[STEED]

So what's new?

Another link

Bush gives Rumsfeld vote of confidence
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-14-bush-rumsfeld_x.htm

[DeepSix]

President Bush, brushing aside an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, said Friday his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld's leadership of the Pentagon was "exactly what is needed at this critical period." (from the article)


:rotfl: - Because I'm thinking of what Bush said to Michael Brown (FEMA director), a few days before he booted him:

"You're doing a great job, Brownie."

Rumsfeld must be truly inspired by getting a vote of confidence from Bush! ;)

Please note: the foregoing neither expresses nor implies approval or condemnation of anybody. Cheers.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't think Rumsfeld has proven to be the greatest of military strategists but I have no idea if that justifies demanding his resignation.

Anyone have a list of potential replacements?

[CCIP]

Rumsfield isn't the brightest guy, either (second only to W in the number of gaffes he made in his time). But yea, under the current administration - I don't see a replacement for him. Time will tell; frankly, I don't think kicking off Rumsfield now would mean much of anything outside of partisan politics.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

my sentiments exactly DeepSix...
good call...


--Mike

[Takeda Shingen]

Rumsfield isn't the brightest guy, either (second only to W in the number of gaffes he made in his time). But yea, under the current administration - I don't see a replacement for him. Time will tell; frankly, I don't think kicking off Rumsfield now would mean much of anything outside of partisan politics.

That is the truth. Rumsfeld would most likely be replaced by either a Rumsfeld clone or an equally inadequate official (just reference this administration's appointments for examples). We're stuck with the Defense Department's strategem and policies until 2009.

[August]

Truth be told is that the Generals have always hated Rumsfeld because he wanted to ditch traditional command and mission baliwicks in favor of a leaner, more capable and effective fighting force and was willing to fire any brass that wouldn't get with the program.

That made him a lot of enemies which the political opponents of the administration are only too eager to use to mudrake.

[Skybird]

Point his: his new ideas failed with flying colours.

Zinni is no unknown in Germany, some of his essays he has published in American newspapers, have been translated for German ones as well. For a military he is a very unorthodox and flexible thinker, I got the impression, and far from being prisoner to old dogmas. I also got the impression that he knows what he is talking about. Rumsfeld's ideas were a parade of overhyped optimism lacking sense of realism. Like the intel community once thought that electronics and satellites could replace manpower (agents) on the ground, he thought technology could compensate for lacking numbers. He wanted to have an army that with the same ressources and manpower is capable of doing so much more to fulfill the neocon's goals for a new American world. I also think he is a cynic towards the fates of those he commands, John Smith and Betty Brown on the ground. Political responsebility? The only thing that could happen to him is that he gets fired, with a nice pension and no sorrows at all. It is the others that have to risk their lives, and bear the real responsebility.

Such guys make me sick. Giving commands, but not taking care that these commands decide over life and death of those they command. One could be cautionous a general, and still act aggressively. Rumsfeld only does the latter, but has no mind to understand the first. No balance, no stand, no team spirit. Court martial him. At least then he would face his responsebility. Bloody damn #?&%§$?...!!!

I cannot imagine how anyone could perform worse than Rumsfeld did. All vital assessements he made - were wrong. You cannot get a score below zero, so to replace him holds little risks, but only promises for things getting better - no guarantee, but a chance. If he is not replaced, then it is because of the upcoming internal elections. His replacement would signal some kind of imperfection of the Republicans, that they fear would be interpreted as "weakness".

[mog]

Since his resignation Colin Powell has spoken about how his State Department had drawn up detailed plans on how to manage Iraq after Saddam Hussein had been deposed, but they were thrown out by Bush and Rumsfeld in favour of Rumsfeld's strategy.

We now know that Rumsfeld's plan was to sit back and watch the grateful Iraqis shower their liberators with flowers and love. The various tribes were to set aside their centuries old differences and go about building a nice pro-America capitalist democracy.

I can't help but wonder how Iraq might have turned out if things weren't being run by a man living in a fantasy world. There's not much point in removing him now, as the damage has already been done.

[August]

Point his: his new ideas failed with flying colours.

Zinni is no unknown in Germany, some of his essays he has published in American newspapers, have been translated for German ones as well. For a military he is a very unorthodox and flexible thinker, I got the impression, and far from being prisoner to old dogmas. I also got the impression that he knows what he is talking about. Rumsfeld's ideas were a parade of overhyped optimism lacking sense of realism. Like the intel community once thought that electronics and satellites could replace manpower (agents) on the ground, he thought technology could compensate for lacking numbers. He wanted to have an army that with the same ressources and manpower is capable of doing so much more to fulfill the neocon's goals for a new American world. I also think he is a cynic towards the fates of those he commands, John Smith and Betty Brown on the ground. Political responsebility? The only thing that could happen to him is that he gets fired, with a nice pension and no sorrows at all. It is the others that have to risk their lives, and bear the real responsebility.

Such guys make me sick. Giving commands, but not taking care that these commands decide over life and death of those they command. One could be cautionous a general, and still act aggressively. Rumsfeld only does the latter, but has no mind to understand the first. No balance, no stand, no team spirit. Court martial him. At least then he would face his responsebility. Bloody damn #?&%§$?...!!!

I cannot imagine how anyone could perform worse than Rumsfeld did. All vital assessements he made - were wrong. You cannot get a score below zero, so to replace him holds little risks, but only promises for things getting better - no guarantee, but a chance. If he is not replaced, then it is because of the upcoming internal elections. His replacement would signal some kind of imperfection of the Republicans, that they fear would be interpreted as "weakness".

There are just so many things wrong with the above that it'd take too much time to counter them all. Maybe later. For now suffice to say Zinni's biggest fan is Zinni.

[Skybird]

Since his resignation Colin Powell has spoken about how his State Department had drawn up detailed plans on how to manage Iraq after Saddam Hussein had been deposed, but they were thrown out by Bush and Rumsfeld in favour of Rumsfeld's strategy.

We now know that Rumsfeld's plan was to sit back and watch the grateful Iraqis shower their liberators with flowers and love. The various tribes were to set aside their centuries old differences and go about building a nice pro-America capitalist democracy.

I can't help but wonder how Iraq might have turned out if things weren't being run by a man living in a fantasy world. There's not much point in removing him now, as the damage has already been done.

He admitted in an interview, word by word, that he "had been surprised by the intensity and duration of violance" after Saddam'S fall. This speaks volumes. If so many people all over the world saw exactly these consequences in crystal-clear vision, and warned of them, and he did not see it, and did not listen to these people's warnings, and had wiped all alternative planning to his "plan" (what plan?) off the table, then this definetely is no indication for his competence and foresight and understanding of the realities at location. Civilians should decide on the question whether to go to war or not, but on the basis of projected consequences by the military. the military should not judge the question of whether to go to war or not. It should say what the conseqeunces will be if one goes to war, or not. but Rumsfeld wants to be manager, trainer, team owner, goalie and goal-getter in one person. Reminds me of the military dilletancy of Hitler. Both of them are so great "Feldherren und Schlachtenlenker", for the same reason: megalomania and an unquestioned belief of how phantastic they are.

That he bypasses reality and lives in his own bubble, using force and cynism to push "his reality" through beyond reason and human interest, he has proven before in the far east, and in Korean diplomacy.

[GunnersMate]

He might not be the brightest star in the sky but he gave hilarious press conferences during Enduring Freedom! :rotfl:

[Skybird]

He might not be the brightest star in the sky but he gave hilarious press conferences during Enduring Freedom! :rotfl:
Admitted, he definetely is in the wrong business. He could be the star of every evening'S show program :lol: I even share his dry humour.

[Ducimus]

Truth be told is that the Generals have always hated Rumsfeld because he wanted to ditch traditional command and mission baliwicks in favor of a leaner, more capable and effective fighting force and was willing to fire any brass that wouldn't get with the program.


I read about this a long time ago. Rumsfield eraned my "oh crap!" reactioin awhile ago. Replacing manpower with technology is an entirely bad idea, and needs to be rethought out.

[DeepSix]

...
I read about this a long time ago. Rumsfield eraned my "oh crap!" reactioin awhile ago. Replacing manpower with technology is an entirely bad idea, and needs to be rethought out.

My thoughts exactly.

[August]

I read about this a long time ago. Rumsfield eraned my "oh crap!" reactioin awhile ago. Replacing manpower with technology is an entirely bad idea, and needs to be rethought out.

I'd be interested in hearing why you, and Deepsix, think replacing manpower with technology such a bad thing? Mass frontal attacks, overwhelming the enemies guns with too many targets to kill, isn't a very efficient way to fight a war y'know.

[DeepSix]

...
Mass frontal attacks, overwhelming the enemies guns with too many targets to kill, isn't a very efficient way to fight a war y'know.

No, it's not, but you're stretching what we said beyond what we (or at least I) meant. Technology is not a bad thing - but I think putting blind and total faith in its ability to solve human problems is a mistake. You need human supervision or it becomes wasteful in terms of life, materiel, and lessons learned.

Consider the development of the M-16. It was a great invention, but it had some flaws at the beginning. But the "Whiz Kids" paid no heed to the very legitmate complaints about its shortcomings. Another example, one more appropriate to subsim - the Mark XIV torpedo with the Mark VI magnetic exploder. To my mind that's the single worst example of the brass putting complete trust in faulty technology - all because it looked good on paper and was "supposed" to work. No one even tested the torpedo until... 1943 (I think), and the exploder wasn't tested until later still. Eventually, of course, the problems with all of these weapons were corrected when human decisions were made that weren't solely determined by slide rules.

Ducimus may have different reasons, but those are mine. Again, technology isn't inherently bad, but you can't win a war by bean counting alone.

[Ducimus]

I read about this a long time ago. Rumsfield eraned my "oh crap!" reactioin awhile ago. Replacing manpower with technology is an entirely bad idea, and needs to be rethought out.

I'd be interested in hearing why you, and Deepsix, think replacing manpower with technology such a bad thing? Mass frontal attacks, overwhelming the enemies guns with too many targets to kill, isn't a very efficient way to fight a war y'know.


Hard question to answer. Thers more to the military then killing people and breaking things.

For lack of a better term....

Coverage.

An easy example is Iraq. Our troops simply have too much ground to cover. No amount of sat images, night vision, smart bombs, multimillion dollar toys is going to help with that. You simply need boots on the ground, and alot of them.

Another term more near and dear to my heart..... something the USAF calls, "operation Tempo". Meaning the frequency of how often your deployed. As a Red Horse troop (USAF's version of the Navy Sea Bee's or Army's Corp of Engineers), id be deployed 200 days out of the year. I'd go to location A for 60 days. Go back to homestation, maybe get a week to recoup, then be back out again for another 75 days in another location.

Or, worse yet, be extended at that location because they didnt have enough troops to keep all the projects around a given area of operations with adequate manpower. Some people get extend to a project long enough for it to be1 day shy of being considered a short tour.

i can think of other "fun" instances where, i was seriously told, "Sgt, back already? Hope you didnt unpack your bags, your going over to this other project, you leave tommrrow, heres your outprocessing checklist, better get moving!"

Retenion, last i was in, is a serious issue, and im sure still is. This is the world that some serviceman live in, and then you have Rumesfield saying, "lighter, more flexible, blah blah blah", you have to wonder what the man is smoking, must be some good ****, cause from where i sat, we needed ALOT more poeple, not less. I dont see how we could be any lighter or more flexible, and no amount of technology is going to help when your strung out like that. Rumesfields plan is not the direction our military needs to go.

[Rockstar]

This is devisive, these 'generals' ought to tried for sedition then shot.


They should have never made their views public but followed the chain of command.

The last thing I ever want to hear from anyone in the military especially those in great authority is telling me how the government ought to be run.

[DeepSix]

Ducimus that's well put.

Rockstar has a point, too. I don't like Rumsfeld, but I'm not crazy about the military breaking ranks to support opposing political agendas, either.

[Ducimus]

This is devisive, these 'generals' ought to tried for sedition then shot.


They should have never made their views public but followed the chain of command.

The last thing I ever want to hear from anyone in the military especially those in great authority is telling me how the government ought to be run.

Well, i think they waited tell they retired before opening their yap for a reason. The biggest of which was probably to make sure they didnt screw their retirement. Other reason, i would like to think is because since they no longer wear the uniform, their more at liberty to say whats on their mind.


As for chain of command, it only goes so far, and the source of the proplem is at the very top of the chain (IE, SecDef). What are they going to do? Go to then? Go to congress? The President? Yeah right.

I don't think they're saying how to run the governemt outside of having a bad SecDef that in their opinion is a sack of excrement.

Granted though, there is a very thin line between military and civillain goverment where issues around, or near the vacinity of the SecDef are concerned. Its a line that has to be respected, and held with the upmost integrity. No one wants to see something remincent of a military coup ousting the government like in some 3rd world country.

On the other hand, theres also a matter of honor and duty to ones nation and the constitution. As an axample, cadets (officers in training) often live by a honor code. usually, goes something like, "I will not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do". Now im not saying the SecDef is lieing, cheating, or stealing, but what if his guilty of things along those lines that could repeat mistakes of past wars. What are you going to do? Say something out of intergrity for what you beleive in, or tolerate it?

Tolerating it, would be a breach of honor, and deriliciton to ones duty in my opinion. Unfortunatly all but one of these generals retired before saying anything. Im not sure what to make of that. Perhaps that one general kept his intergirty by saying something when it mattered most. If you havent got the integrity, you've got nothing at all.

Of course that goes right back to that thin govermental/civillian line. Catch 22.

[August]

...
Mass frontal attacks, overwhelming the enemies guns with too many targets to kill, isn't a very efficient way to fight a war y'know.

No, it's not, but you're stretching what we said beyond what we (or at least I) meant. Technology is not a bad thing - but I think putting blind and total faith in its ability to solve human problems is a mistake. You need human supervision or it becomes wasteful in terms of life, materiel, and lessons learned.

Consider the development of the M-16. It was a great invention, but it had some flaws at the beginning. But the "Whiz Kids" paid no heed to the very legitmate complaints about its shortcomings. Another example, one more appropriate to subsim - the Mark XIV torpedo with the Mark VI magnetic exploder. To my mind that's the single worst example of the brass putting complete trust in faulty technology - all because it looked good on paper and was "supposed" to work. No one even tested the torpedo until... 1943 (I think), and the exploder wasn't tested until later still. Eventually, of course, the problems with all of these weapons were corrected when human decisions were made that weren't solely determined by slide rules.

Ducimus may have different reasons, but those are mine. Again, technology isn't inherently bad, but you can't win a war by bean counting alone.

Nobody, including Rumsfeld especially is putting blind faith in technology. All he wanted was for the conventional forces to make better use of the high tech stuff available and to develop tactics that expoited their full potential on the battlefield.

Instead you have a bunch of general and admirals fighting the concept, or as a friend of mine who was stationed in the Pentagon wrote recently in another forum:

Rumsfeld never said he wanted mass produced specfor. That was ol military twisiting his words cuz they didnt agree with his thoughts of leaner, cheaper, faster, more lethal forces.

He said he wanted a bigger percentage of the military to operate and equip like specfor does. He asked his CDRs to come up with a plan to do so, and they drug there feet and blustered about things like "cant mass produce specfor, every military man knows that, but not civilians like the SoD". Typical military bull****.

Instead of getting rid of their meaningless multi-billion dollar platforms that have no practical use and coming up with a plan to tranform like their boss told them to, they spent all their time trying to refute him, threaten to quit, or retire. Now, they're coming out of the woodwork because they are still stung by his audacity in telling them they might not know what the **** they were talking about.

I think it says a lot about where the real problems lie.

[August]

Hard question to answer. Thers more to the military then killing people and breaking things.

For lack of a better term....

Coverage.

An easy example is Iraq. Our troops simply have too much ground to cover. No amount of sat images, night vision, smart bombs, multimillion dollar toys is going to help with that. You simply need boots on the ground, and alot of them.

But all those things do indeed help. Try operating without them like they did in my day and you'd see. Boots on the ground alone is what you rely on when you don't have anything else to minimize your casualty rates.

Another term more near and dear to my heart..... something the USAF calls, "operation Tempo". Meaning the frequency of how often your deployed. As a Red Horse troop (USAF's version of the Navy Sea Bee's or Army's Corp of Engineers), id be deployed 200 days out of the year. I'd go to location A for 60 days. Go back to homestation, maybe get a week to recoup, then be back out again for another 75 days in another location.

Or, worse yet, be extended at that location because they didnt have enough troops to keep all the projects around a given area of operations with adequate manpower. Some people get extend to a project long enough for it to be1 day shy of being considered a short tour.

i can think of other "fun" instances where, i was seriously told, "Sgt, back already? Hope you didnt unpack your bags, your going over to this other project, you leave tommrrow, heres your outprocessing checklist, better get moving!"

Oh i do understand operational tempo. 200 days a year in the field was about average in my own military experience. It's nothing new.

Retenion, last i was in, is a serious issue, and im sure still is. This is the world that some serviceman live in, and then you have Rumesfield saying, "lighter, more flexible, blah blah blah", you have to wonder what the man is smoking, must be some good poo poo, cause from where i sat, we needed ALOT more poeple, not less. I dont see how we could be any lighter or more flexible, and no amount of technology is going to help when your strung out like that. Rumesfields plan is not the direction our military needs to go.

"lighter, more flexible" means exactly that. It doesn't imply making do with less. Look at the combat power of an Infantry squad circa 1945 compared with that of 2005. The older one relied more on "boots on the ground" than technology but that doesn't mean it's a preferable way to fight a modern war.

Retention is an issue but it has been since we ended the draft back in the 70's. Goes with the territory when you have an all volunteer force. For all it's failings i'm still a proponent of it over the draft.

[Ducimus]

>>"lighter, more flexible" means exactly that. It doesn't imply making do with less.

Your gonna have a hard time convincing me of that. Doing more with less has been SOP for quite awhile. Rumesfields scary because he wants things smaller. throughout my example i neglected one little thing, we were doing all of that, AND we were being downsized. You know why im not in the service right now? They said my "career field is overmanned" . Aint that a good one? lol

( They gave me the option to retrain, i told them to stuff it. I considered myself a professional at my job, and i wasnt about to retrain to be some REMF on base. Foolish pride i guess.)


I wont argue high tek toys arent nice, but i will agrue they don't do much good when theres not enough people to utlize those toy's as effectivley and effieciently as "our masters" would like us to. It's really like a kick to the balls, we dont have enough people, and then theres rumsfield saying he wants lighter military. I can't help but think he is absolutley clueless in that regard. Rumsfield plan would work better if we werent in so many places at once.

[DeepSix]

...
Nobody, including Rumsfeld especially is putting blind faith in technology. All he wanted was for the conventional forces to make better use of the high tech stuff available and to develop tactics that expoited their full potential on the battlefield.
...

Not that you meant to, but I'm not here to argue. You asked what our reasons were; I gave you mine.

[August]

...
Nobody, including Rumsfeld especially is putting blind faith in technology. All he wanted was for the conventional forces to make better use of the high tech stuff available and to develop tactics that expoited their full potential on the battlefield.
...

Not that you meant to, but I'm not here to argue. You asked what our reasons were; I gave you mine.

No i was just disagreeing with you after getting clarification on your original meaning. Take it for what it's worth...

[August]

>>"lighter, more flexible" means exactly that. It doesn't imply making do with less.

Your gonna have a hard time convincing me of that. Doing more with less has been SOP for quite awhile. Rumesfields scary because he wants things smaller. throughout my example i neglected one little thing, we were doing all of that, AND we were being downsized. You know why im not in the service right now? They said my "career field is overmanned" . Aint that a good one? lol

( They gave me the option to retrain, i told them to stuff it. I considered myself a professional at my job, and i wasnt about to retrain to be some REMF on base. Foolish pride i guess.)

You can't just blanket statement something down to "he wants things smaller". Smaller how? Apparently from what you say your particular career field was overmanned. Right there's a valid example for "smaller" to be applied.

"Leaner and meaner" means streamlining the forces to fit the realities of modern warfare. Eliminating or reducing unneeded or over staffed MOS's is one way toward that. Restructuring tactics and training is another. Military brass has always been notoriously slow to accept change. Any time a SecDef tries it is met with resistance. Deepsixes mention of the early M-16 difficulties is a prime example of that. The US Army (NOT McNamaras wiz kids) replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder resulting in fouling that gave the weapon its bad reputation. I'd really like to know the name of the officer who approved that change. If it happened today he'd be writing a tell all book or being the darling of the political opposition saying how dumb Rumsfeld is for demanding the replacement of the M1 with something more modern.

I wont argue high tek toys arent nice, but i will agrue they don't do much good when theres not enough people to utlize those toy's as effectivley and effieciently as "our masters" would like us to. It's really like a kick to the balls, we dont have enough people, and then theres rumsfield saying he wants lighter military. I can't help but think he is absolutley clueless in that regard. Rumsfield plan would work better if we werent in so many places at once.

Again, "lighter" means easier to move, easier to deploy, easier to equip. It does NOT necessarily mean "less", unless less is necessary to achive those objectives. That takes us back to streamlining which was Rumsfelds intention and one that is resisted by the Pentagon old guard.

[Skybird]

This is devisive, these 'generals' ought to tried for sedition then shot.


They should have never made their views public but followed the chain of command.

The last thing I ever want to hear from anyone in the military especially those in great authority is telling me how the government ought to be run.

Kadavergehorsam that is called in German. It is exactly the kind of obedience that prevented the the Wehrmacht from rebellion against Hitler. Obedience beyond any limits, beyond any reason, at all cost, no matter how high they are. Such military would be the most dangerous, the most irresponsible and the most stupid one. It is the kind of military that always defends itself like in Nürnberg: "we just followed orders."

All six generals were for years hesitant to complain, and haven't done so. All of them followed orders. All of them have not given away any secret stuff. All of them know their stuff. All of them are no longer in service now, and as citizens have the right to say their opinion, if it is not violating any obligations concerning secret stuff.

If they step forward now, mind you: independently from each other, then this is a loud alarm signal how seriously Rumsfeld has messed up, and that he is a serious threat to the interests of the armed forces, the wellbeing of the subordinates in the field, and the nation which these generals once have sworn to defend. What they do now.

Shoot them? Shoot the stupid first. People like you, for example, who cannot think further then to kill everyone seriously criticising their views.

I cannot think of more competent critics of military affairs than leading high militaries themselves (not that the military should be left to military overwatch alone). And something tells me that each one of these know more about what went well and what went wrong with the planning for Iraq then you and me and all others here together. But we see the results in Iraq. Except hardcore-Bush-fans almost everyone agrees that the level of chaos, violance and crime is far worse than it ever has been under Saddam, and like this it has been reported in medias since quite some time now. saddam is gone, once that was considered to be good, nowadays we tend to rethink that former statement of ours. There was not that much violance and loss of life in every day life like there is now. There was not that ammount of religious fanatism, and of oorganized crime. There was not that ammo8nt of torture. Iraq'S security forces - if worth that name - are accused to use even worse torture, hidden prisons and mass arrests then Saddam'S police once did.

Wake up from your dreaming, open your eyes and see the harsh reality, instead of endlessly dreaming your American dream of how phantastic you are. Judge those in command by what they have acchieved. It's worse then before. The world has been better off with Saddam in power, then with the Iraq we now have, becasue Saddam was successfully isolated, unable to project any danger to outside of Iraq. Noone can claim that today for Iraq. Same has been said by some Israeli politicians and members of their intel community in the last weeks. Not only did Rumsfeld shoot no goal - he even shot an series of own-goals. not only a war for the wrong reasons, and based on lies - it even was handled ion a most incompetent way, and under ignoration of competent advise available. Troops are dying for this.

Do your countrymen a favour - hold their lifes and healths in some higher respect, stop wasting them.

[August]

Thank you Skybird for your always unsolicited opinions. And now for an interesting article concerning the topic of discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/17/rumsfeld/index.html

[scandium]

Thank you Skybird for your always unsolicited opinions. And now for an interesting article concerning the topic of discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/17/rumsfeld/index.html

These generals stepping forward in support of Rumsfeld are out to lunch. Seriously. Here's a snippet from their op-ed where they trot out the administration's tired and discredited linking of 9/11 to Iraq:

"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."

Garbage.

[Konovalov]

Thank you Skybird for your always unsolicited opinions. And now for an interesting article concerning the topic of discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/17/rumsfeld/index.html

These generals stepping forward in support of Rumsfeld are out to lunch. Seriously. Here's a snippet from their op-ed where they trot out the administration's tired and discredited linking of 9/11 to Iraq:

"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."

Garbage.

I noticed that two of those retired generals are Fox News "contributors" which means they are on the Fox News payroll. Nothing wrong there. My problem is that neither of them (retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, former assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force; and retired Maj. Gen Paul Vallely, former deputy commander of the U.S.. Army, Pacific.
) have served in Iraq and both have been retired for a long time. And yes it also peeves me to high heaven the sly 9/11 reference with Iraq as if the two are connected. As you said Scandium, garbage.

It is also interesting when they wrote this:
In The Wall Street Journal article, the four retired generals wrote, "We do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war," and called the Rumsfeld critics' feelings "irrelevant."

Yet it is entirely appropriate for the likes of Vallely and McInerney to backslap and applaud the brilliant performance of Rumsfeld and Co on Fox News. What a pack of hypocrites.

[scandium]

It is also interesting when they wrote this:
In The Wall Street Journal article, the four retired generals wrote, "We do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war," and called the Rumsfeld critics' feelings "irrelevant."

Yet it is entirely appropriate for the likes of Vallely and McInerney to backslap and applaud the brilliant performance of Rumsfeld and Co on Fox News. What a pack of hypocrites.

Dismissing anyone critical of US foreign policy as "irrelevant" seems to be a favoured technique of the pro-Bush camp which they use over and over. In this case the lie to that claim is in the fact that Rumsfeld's critics wouldn't be getting as much press and discussion if it were true, and these sycophants wouldn't have to air their worn out propaganda in an op-ed piece.

[Rockstar]

Sorry, unlike your NSDAP Germany we people have, for the moment, the power to elect our president AND still throw him out if he's not doing his job.

We the people is not the military or it's generals they have their place and thats to support and defend our constitution and the follow orders given to them by our civilian elected officials. Like I said I think what they did is devisive

If they have other ideas then perhaps a military coup.

[scandium]

Sorry, unlike your NSDAP Germany we people have, for the moment, the power to elect our president AND still throw him out if he's not doing his job.

We the people is not the military or it's generals they have their place and thats to support and defend our constitution and the follow orders given to them by our civilian elected officials. Like I said I think what they did is devisive

If they have other ideas then perhaps a military coup.

You seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that they are no longer in the military, and that they are now civilians who are free to air their opinions publicly the same as you are.

[August]

Sorry, unlike your NSDAP Germany we people have, for the moment, the power to elect our president AND still throw him out if he's not doing his job.

We the people is not the military or it's generals they have their place and thats to support and defend our constitution and the follow orders given to them by our civilian elected officials. Like I said I think what they did is devisive

If they have other ideas then perhaps a military coup.

You seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that they are no longer in the military, and that they are now civilians who are free to air their opinions publicly the same as you are.

You seem to have a hard time comprehending that military retirees are never truely separated from the service. In addition to their continued retirement checks, security clearances, free medical and dental care they are also subject to being called back into active service at any time. For them to engage in such political mudslinging is inexcusable.

As for their objectivity. Skybirds icon Anthony Zinni is the author of a book (autobiography) i recently read. Let me tell you, Anthony Zinnis greatest fan is Anthony Zinni. To read him tell it he's US Grant, Bobbie Lee, George Washington and Doug MacArthur all rolled into one and anyone that disagrees with him in any way is totally incompetant. I am not suprised he would weigh in on this issue because it wasn't done the Zinni way.

[Konovalov]

For them to engage in such political mudslinging is inexcusable.

As for their objectivity. Skybirds icon Anthony Zinni is the author of a book (autobiography) i recently read. Let me tell you, Anthony Zinnis greatest fan is Anthony Zinni. To read him tell it he's US Grant, Bobbie Lee, George Washington and Doug MacArthur all rolled into one and anyone that disagrees with him in any way is totally incompetant. I am not suprised he would weigh in on this issue because it wasn't done the Zinni way.

So now that you yourself have engaged in some mudslinging of your own upon Zinni do you care to offer an opinion with regards to Rumsfeld and should he resign?

[Rockstar]

You seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that they are no longer in the military, and that they are now civilians who are free to air their opinions publicly the same as you are.

The fact is, Military Retired Pay is "Retainer Pay", described by even the United States Supreme Court as "Reduced Pay for Reduced Services". The military member does NOT pay into a pension fund or retiree's plan to receive his or her Retainer Pay.

If these generals want to refuse this and all that comes with it then they can be called civilians with an opinion, not generals

[Konovalov]

Ok guys. Should I burn my copy of "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks or my copy of "Waging Modern War" by General Wesley K Clark because they voiced their opinions of recent military campaigns and the politics surrounding them?

[August]

So now that you yourself have engaged in some mudslinging of your own upon Zinni do you care to offer an opinion with regards to Rumsfeld and should he resign?

At this point, with less than two years remaining until he is replaced by the next president anyways, i feel that forcing him to resign would have no benefit and potentially cause a great deal of turmoil.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Rumsfeld is human and thus like anyone else far from infallable. Thinking that the State department and UN would step up to run the reconstruction effort in Iraq being the largest mistake he's made. Although it should have been their job to do so, and that the military is far from the best organization to handle such such things, he should have known they'd drop the ball and that ultimately the US military would have to do the job themselves as they are doing now.

However, I feel that he's getting blamed for problems a lot of these Generals created, or at least exacerbated, themselves.

[August]

Ok guys. Should I burn my copy of "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks or my copy of "Waging Modern War" by General Wesley K Clark because they voiced their opinions of recent military campaigns and the politics surrounding them?

Wesley Clark, the former Democratic party candidate for president of the United States? Naw he wouldn't have a political axe to grind against a republican administration would he?

[Konovalov]

At this point, with less than two years remaining until he is replaced by the next president anyways, i feel that forcing him to resign would have no benefit and potentially cause a great deal of turmoil.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Rumsfeld is human and thus like anyone else far from infallable. Thinking that the State department and UN would step up to run the reconstruction effort in Iraq being the largest mistake he's made. Although it should have been their job to do so, and that the military is far from the best organization to handle such such things, he should have known they'd drop the ball and that ultimately the US military would have to do the job themselves as they are doing now.

However, I feel that he's getting blamed for problems a lot of these Generals created, or at least exacerbated, themselves.

Fair comment. Thanks.

Ok guys. Should I burn my copy of "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks or my copy of "Waging Modern War" by General Wesley K Clark because they voiced their opinions of recent military campaigns and the politics surrounding them?

Wesley Clark, the former Democratic party candidate for president of the United States? Naw he wouldn't have a political axe to grind against a republican administration would he?

He has some valid things to say at times. Simply because someone is a Democrat, Republican, tree-hugger, crazy liberal, neo-con, or of far right wing pursuasion doesn't mean their opinions should be immediately dismissed or trashed.

[August]

He has some valid things to say at times. Simply because someone is a Democrat, Republican, tree-hugger, crazy liberal, neo-con, or of far right wing pursuasion doesn't mean their opinions should be immediately dismissed or trashed.

Maybe so, but i'm always suspect of anything the Democrats say about the Republicans and vice versa. Both sides have gone way overboard in recent years in their willingness to distort the truth when it comes to the opposing party.

The Dems in particular really tore it with me when they tried to use the courts to prevent Nader from getting on each states presidential ballot. Even the bad old GOP didn't stoop so low when it was Perot splitting the conservative vote. Coupled with their tendancy to cheer our military failures in Iraq (because they think it means more votes next election if we do fail) they have a lot of fence mending to do before i'll trust anything they and their allies have to say.

[Skybird]

Don't get me wrong, I believe Rumsfeld is human and thus like anyone else far from infallable. Thinking that the State department and UN would step up to run the reconstruction effort in Iraq being the largest mistake he's made.

It certainly was not that Rumsfeld & Co had isolated the influence of the state department and kicked them out more or less, so that it did not had much to do as a direct result. And that other nations withdraw their - often civilian - staff from organisations operating inside Iraq when the security situation ´turned worst and noone was able to guarantee a reasonable level of safety anymore - Rumsfeld's inept handling and lacking planning for the post-war phase certainly had nothing to do with it.

To say now that Rumsfeld expected the state department or the UN to run the show is pure cynism and a 180°-distortion of history. Truth is he did everything possible to get it all run under his/the pentagon's supervision, and actively engaged in an attempt to keep the others away. It was his show. If he would have succeeded, you would have claimed credits all for him alone. Now that he has failed, it is the responsebility of others, of course, and that he was let down. Truth is: it was exactly the other way around!

[DeepSix]

...
The Dems in particular really tore it with me when they tried to use the courts to prevent Nader from getting on each states presidential ballot. Even the bad old GOP didn't stoop so low when it was Perot splitting the conservative vote. Coupled with their tendancy to cheer our military failures in Iraq (because they think it means more votes next election if we do fail) they have a lot of fence mending to do before i'll trust anything they and their allies have to say.

Exactly. I wasn't for Nader, but he deserved a shot like anybody else. Both parties obviously want to survive, but the Dems in particular seem given to ugly attempts at self-preservation. They'd practically have to have God on their ticket to get me to consider it.

[kholemann]

Gosh, ex Generals calling for Rummy to resign... maybe that is why they ARE EX-GENERALS! The supported what was going on while they were in the military and now they are neither in the military nor support what is going on. There is no surprise here. Just move along citizens, move along.

[DeepSix]

A family member is a retired brigadier general who worked in Europe and in the Pentagon. He refuses to discuss Rumsfeld or the war directly, even though it is evident from other things he says that he does not like the war. He believes, however, that it is inappropriate for military men, whether active or retired, to break ranks to publicly support one political side or the other (whether they are opposed to Rumsfeld or support him). That is not one of the duties of a soldier, and politics is not his battlefield.

[bradclark1]

You seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that they are no longer in the military, and that they are now civilians who are free to air their opinions publicly the same as you are.

Retired military are never "retired" in the civilian sense. They can be called back in at anytime.
As a soldier you have to follow orders but nowhere does it say you can't voice your opinion when no longer in uniform. Being a general officer doesn't mean you should be gagged by the current administration.

[bradclark1]

A family member is a retired brigadier general who worked in Europe and in the Pentagon. He refuses to discuss Rumsfeld or the war directly, even though it is evident from other things he says that he does not like the war. He believes, however, that it is inappropriate for military men, whether active or retired, to break ranks to publicly support one political side or the other (whether they are opposed to Rumsfeld or support him). That is not one of the duties of a soldier, and politics is not his battlefield.

What utter horsepoopy. It is a soldiers responsibility to speak up if he see's something wrong, which these generals obviously see. If they see soldiers that to them are needlessly dieing it is their moral duty to speak up. It also takes more guts to speak up then remain silent. So you can tell your family member that he is failing in his moral duty. This isn't WW3 fighting other countries with uniformed forces. This is something this country started and politicaly and militarily were unprepared to properly perform this mission. Also I doubt they are choosing political sides as something like 90% of the officer corp are republican.

[DeepSix]

[quote=DeepSix]
...
What utter horse****.
...
So you can tell your family member that he is failing in his moral duty.
...

It is a soldier's responsibility to speak to others in his chain of command - not grandstand in the public eye.

I referred to my relative as an example of one man's opinion, which I happen to share. I felt that the example of his behavior said more than whatever words I could come up with.

But where do you get off being such an ass? I don't care whether you agree or disagree with the opinion I express, but you have NO right to make disparaging remarks about my family.:stare:

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, I can't handle more than one battle at a time. Let's get this topic back on track and steer away from the personal stuff. Not assigning any blame here, no sir. Asking for your cooperation, just carrying on discussing Rumsfeld and the generals.

thanks :yep:
Neal

[Ducimus]

It is a soldier's responsibility to speak to others in his chain of command - not grandstand in the public eye.



This is true. It lightly touch's on the subject why, " i was just following orders" isnt a valid defense, and how the serviceman is expected to recognize the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.

In my opinion, every general, (retired or not), should have made their feelings known, but in a less public manner. There has to be some way to go around the SecDef if theres a problem. Whatever that channel is, im not sure, but there has to be a way to circumvent him, if he IS the problem in the chain of command.

Much like how it works lower. If you have a problem, you go see your NCO. If he can't or won't address the problem, you go to your LT, then your Captain, so and an so forth. If all routes fail there's always the IG.

So, im guessing there has to be SOME way around the SecDef.

The keything herein now is, the president, CAN'T fire Rumesfield, even if he wanted to. Simply because Military staff members went public with a problem their civilian handler. It crosses a thin line that can't be acknowledged in an official capacity.

[Sea Demon]

Also I doubt they are choosing political sides as something like 90% of the officer corp are republican.

Yes, alot of military officers who leave the military generally vote Republican. When I was a USAF officer, it was made clear to me to be a professional officer, one needed to be non-partisan. A professional military officer must be able to serve a Democrat President just as effectively as a Republican. Some of you other officer types here can vouch for this. I registered Independant for this very reason even though I prefer Republican leadership to Democrats. But it is true that Clinton filled these leadership roles with people who would toe his line and got rid of alot of effective military leadership. Another example of Clinton fleecing our military. These generals are some of those people. I'm assuming you missed General Myers who dismissed these Generals and labelled them as unprofessional in their demeanor.

The civilians make the decisions, we military people must live by those decisions. Otherwise chain of command means nothing. When you start screwing with this concept, you present certain dangers to the system. It's OK in the chain of command to bring up concerns and voice displeasure. But these generals did not abide by this code. But I guess since they're saying what you want them to say, it's OK, right?

[August]

But I guess since they're saying what you want them to say, it's OK, right?

Bingo. If they were praising Rumsfeld the same people who are defending them here would be calling them liars.

[DeepSix]

...
In my opinion, every general, (retired or not), should have made their feelings known, but in a less public manner. There has to be some way to go around the SecDef if theres a problem. Whatever that channel is, im not sure, but there has to be a way to circumvent him, if he IS the problem in the chain of command.
...

That's exactly what I was driving at; you put it better than I did.

[bradclark1]

You have to look at it like this. If you are a serving officer (any rank actually) you keep quite and follow orders. If you do not you just aren't going to be promoted, you'll get deadend jobs and you will be left to rot on the vine. Once you are retired you have a few options:

1) Talk to the serving generals and they can agree but won't say anything because they don't want to get canned or told to shut up because it's not their job anymore.

2) Come out in public and let your feelings be known.

3) Don't say a word.

Now this is my opinion. If you feel that soldiers are needlessly getting killed I would feel that it is my moral duty to speak up. To not say anything about it is tatamount to cowardice.
This isn't about Iraq specifically it is about what you think is right or wrong.
Now these general are going to be ostersized for the rest of their lives by their fellow general officers and they know it. Knowing this I say they showed great courage by speaking up.
I don't think this has got squat to do with politics. It's got to do with what is percieved as right or wrong.
I was only following orders can only go so far. And it's not what we think it's what they think that matters.
If there is one thing I learned in my career is that life is precious (odd statement coming from a military man huh?) and it was one of my duties to make sure my mens lives were not needlessly wasted.
Rumsfeld got rid of a Chief of Staff because he didn't follow his line.

[Sea Demon]

Y
Now this is my opinion. If you feel that soldiers are needlessly getting killed I would feel that it is my moral duty to speak up. To not say anything about it is tatamount to cowardice.


I already adressed this. I hate to quote myself, but here goes...

The civilians make the decisions, we military people must live by those decisions. Otherwise chain of command means nothing. When you start screwing with this concept, you present certain dangers to the system. It's OK in the chain of command to bring up concerns and voice displeasure. But these generals did not abide by this code.

This is how I saw it as a military officer. It looks like these guys are trying to get face time on CNN. And there's quite a few military flag officers that support Rumsfeld, the President, and wish to see success. General Myers is one such officer.

[bradclark1]

It's OK in the chain of command to bring up concerns and voice displeasure. But these generals did not abide by this code.
The code of "I was only following orders"?
What do you do if this code doesn't work?
How would you voice your displeasure and expect to be heard?
I try to think that our general officers are above trying to get face time on CNN.

And there's quite a few military flag officers that support Rumsfeld, the President, and wish to see success. General Myers is one such officer.
But the Chiefof Staff before General Myers was fired for following the party line and I think it's safe to say he was right.
Also these officers are abiding by the "code" because they are serving.

[Sea Demon]

It's OK in the chain of command to bring up concerns and voice displeasure. But these generals did not abide by this code.
The code of "I was only following orders"?
How would you voice your displeasure and expect to be heard?

Strawman. :down: What you describe is not considered professional military conduct. Nor is it how a professional military officer conducts themselves in uniform when confronted with such a situation. Nor does it apply to the context of this particular issue. There is a formal chain of command, use it.

Bottom line, the military is not a political organization. Why can't Democrats figure this out? :doh:

[bradclark1]

Why can't Democrats figure this out? :doh:

Oh I got it now. If you don't agree you are a democrat. Hate to tell you this but I'm not. I'm not republican either.
You would fit right in with the Wehrmacht(?) Hear no evil see no evil.

Bottom line, the military is not a political organization
You just don't get it do you? This is not a political problem. :doh:

You put professional military conduct before mens lives. I am glad I didn't serve in your unit.
What I think is that you aren't reading what I'm saying. You see this as a political problem. I see this as some general officers making a moral decision. You notice that I haven't voiced my opinion as for them or against them. Thats because that opinion has no place in this coversation.
I know you took a class on moral ethics so think about it.
You see this as a political so we are just passing each other.

[Sea Demon]

Why can't Democrats figure this out? :doh:

Oh I got it now. If you don't agree you are a democrat. Hate to tell you this but I'm not. I'm not republican either.
You would fit right in with the Wehrmacht(?) Hear no evil see no evil.

Bottom line, the military is not a political organization
You just don't get it do you? This is not a political problem. :doh:

Oh stop it. The comparisons of people you don't agree with to Nazi Germany are very unbecoming and prove the loss of face for the accuser.

This whole thing is indeed political. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. The generals have a way to address their concerns without making it political. They didn't do that. They are not abiding by traditional military norms and professional conduct. That's the point. And I notice a couple of these guys may be peddling books. hmmm :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Sea Demon,
I understand what professional military conduct is. We wouldn't last two minutes without it.
What is being complained about is the running of the war. These are two totally different animals.

Brad

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon,
I understand what professional military conduct is. We wouldn't last two minutes without it.
What is being complained about is the running of the war. These are two totally different animals.

Brad

Chain of Command, Brad......Chain of Command. :yep:

[bradclark1]

Oh stop it. The comparisons of people you don't agree with to Nazi Germany are very unbecoming and prove the loss of face for the accuser.
No. I didn't say Nazi. I said Wehrmacht(?). Read what I print not what you want to see.

This whole thing is indeed political. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
Tell me what makes it political? You found out these guys are Democrats?
Or because they didn't follow this blind code of yours.

They are not abiding by traditional military norms and professional conduct.
So that makes what they are saying wrong? Because they didn't do it in the prescribed manner what they are saying is automaticly wrong? You can not be serious?

And I notice a couple of these guys may be peddling books. hmmm
Have you been to the bookstore lately? They can stock a whole shelf of books written by generals. Think up something better than that.

[Sea Demon]

No. I didn't say Nazi. I said Wehrmacht(?). Read what I print not what you want to see.

Hmmm. Gee. I thought the Wehrmacht was Nazi Germany's military forces during WW2. Including SS units. You compared me to someone serving in these forces. I got news for you, adherence to Chain of Command doesn't make you like one of these people at all. I don't see what you're getting at. But, whatever. :roll: Dick Durbin (D) made the same kind of whacked out claims a few months back. And he was ridiculed for it publicly.

I don't know. When I served in the Air Force, I didn't know my respect for military operational structure, and Chain of Command made me a lock-step Wehrmacht soldier blinded by Nazi political propaganda. I wonder if some of you other guys who served feel the same.

You put professional military conduct before mens lives. I am glad I didn't serve in your unit.

This proves you have no understanding of professional military conduct. It is this conduct which saves lives, not jeapardizes them. Not adhering to these principles would be tantamount to chaos. I also thank God you weren't in any unit I served in.


Tell me what makes it political? You found out these guys are Democrats?
Or because they didn't follow this blind code of yours.

If you can't see the politics in this, there's no use in even trying. Have a good night, and good luck to you.

[Skybird]

I cover you, Brad. Strange feeling to do so :) , but what you said almost exactly mirrors how I feel about the issue.

The "Kadavergehorsam" (word by word: cadaver-obedience) demanded by some people here is alarming and deeply troublesome.

Armies should not be sworn in to their leaders, nor should they risk lifes for a thing like a flag. They should serve their people instead, and can fulfill the spirit for which a flag stands (in values)even with all flags burning in the dust. It reminds me of the differenc between regular legions in Rome, and the Praetorians. The latter, first bodyguarded the emperor, then were turned into a tool of the emperor to push through his interests and keep the people of Rome in line, then became a power faction of their own and followed their own interests, often turning against their emperor. The Praetorians did not serve the interests of Rome that way, and it's peoples.

The Wehrmacht also decided for a perversion of arguments like "duty", "obedience" and "chain of command", that way rallying behind a dicator instead of protecting the interests of the German people whom to protect they had sworn oaths. their was nothing wrong with the old Prussian code of honour, and Prussian sense of duty. It became wring once it was no longer understood that this Prussian attitude was no self-purpose, but pointed towards something beyondn that was bigger than itself. That way it became a purpose that only served itself. And this always is dangerous, and uselessly costs lifes.

The six rebellious generals have been hesitent to step forward for YEARS. They never did something like that as long as they were in active service. After leaving the army, again a long time has passed. To think they made an easy decision now is mean, and unjust. Chain of command would mean: their complaints finally would end on the desk of Rumsfeld and be buried there. And this is what some guys in this thread obviously are hoping for. The six generals decided to defend the interests of the soldiers in the field and their peopl,e at home, ranking both above the interests of Rumsfeld - and that makes them so much more valuable than a single Rumsfeld or a perverted sense of duty.

[The Avon Lady]

As I said, I'm not wild about Rummy but I'm not zany about Zinni either.

From Austin Bay (http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1050):
The Marine Sends (and the subject is GEN Zinni)

I served in Iraq with the young man (a Marine reservist) who uses the nom-de-plume “The Marine” when he posts comments on this site. His tour in Iraq was his second deployment since 9/11. He epitomizes the “ready reservist.”

Here are his thoughts on the revolt of the generals, in particularly General Anthony Zinni , USMC retired. (this also appears as a comment on a recent post). This is Marine on Marine, and for my friend, a rather restrained statement. I am still waiting for a reporter to ask General Zinni what he means when he argues that “the sanctions were working.” Saddam had broken the UN Desert Storm sanctions regimen. Look at Oil For Food. We now have officials from Saddam’s regime admitting that Saddam intended to revive dormant special weapons programs once the sanctions were lifted. So how is it the sanctions were working? I suspect Zinni will make the argument that Saddam got rid of his WMD. That appears to be true. Forcing Saddam to stop his programs is (or was) an achievement. However, it was a narrow achievement, and a short-run achievement, which means “the sanctions were working” in a very technical sense regarding WMDs. In the strategic sense they were not. Saddam was still murdering ethnic and religious minorities (which UNSCR 687 also forbid, and was part of the sancitons regimen). Saddam had not given up the desire for WMD (the programs weren;t dead, but dormant). Saddam possessed missiles and delivery systems in violation of the sanctions regimen (so technically the sanctions weren’t working in the sphere of delivery systems). If Zinni argues that the sanctions had weakened Saddam’s military machine I’ll agree with that. But once again, that’s a “dormant, not dead” weakness. Anyway, here are The Marines thoughts :
I find it interesting that so few are critically examining why a handful of retired generals have decided to publicly call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s head on the proverbial silver platter. Are these retired military men immune from probing public scrutiny, unlike those civilian men, they formerly served but currently challenge?

Take General Zinni, who astonishingly now asserts he was “never convinced” about Iraq’s WMD programs. Yet General Zinni while still serving as the Commanding General of CENTCOM testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2000 that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf…primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR)…” As if this was not enough Zinni’s testimony continued “despite claims that [Iraq’s] WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions,…Even if Baghdad…surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to agents and munitions within weeks or months.” That’s right folks General Zinni, who was now blithely states he was “never convinced” about the threat of Iraq’s WMD programs was in point of fact, not too long ago, sufficiently convinced to deliver a threat assessment to the U.S. Senate in which he concluded among other things that Iraq’s WMD programs and its ties to terrorism made it “the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests.”

Perhaps Zinni’s most incredulous indictment of Rumsfeld comes in his stunning claim that the Iraq Invasion Plan was “fatally flawed” and based on “erroneous intelligence.” Well, sheer seriousness of these bald assertions certainly begs the question - Who was responsible for collecting reliable intelligence and properly planning U.S. military operations in support of established U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives and threat assessments within the CENTCOM AOR? Ups…Has the cat finally got the general’s well used tongue? Just to clarify the record, Bill Clinton changed the official U.S. Foreign Policy regarding Iraq in 1998, establishing the new objective of “Regime Change.” At the time General Zinni was the theater commander overseeing a JTF responsible for enforcing the “Northern & Southern No-Fly Zones” in Iraq. As such he was already commanding U.S. Forces engaged in routine low level hostilities over the skies of Iraq. Furthermore, Zinni’s testimony in front of the U.S. Senate indicates he was at least aware of Saddam’s UNSCR transgressions, WMD proclivities, terrorist connections, and belligerent history. Additionally, he assessed Iraq as the “most significant near-term threat the U.S. interests.” All of which suggests at the very least that General Zinni in support of the new “Regime Change” policy and in light of his own threat assessment should have vigorously planned and prepared a wide range of “full spectrum” military operations for Iraq. He should have redoubled the intelligence collection effort in Iraq. He should have war gamed every possible “Regime Change” and invasion scenario. He should have developed contingency plans and post hostilities plans. Yet, inconceivably the seemingly omniscient General Zinni did precisely the opposite and apparently did nothing to improve intelligence collection or operational planning. These facts beg another question - Was General Zinni too ignorant to fully appreciate the potential likelihood of CENTCOM fighting a war in Iraq in the near future OR was General Zinni too incompetent to make the necessary preparations?

Although it is hard for me to imagine why on earth anyone would oppose such a dynamic, aggressive, substantive and consequential leader, it is nevertheless unnecessary to enthusiastically support Secretary Rumsfeld to detect the rant odor of hypocrisy and ulterior motives underpinning the all too convenient recent statements of General Zinni. In case there is anyone left who hasn’t heard, General Zinni “knew all along” invading Iraq was a “bad idea” but at the time nobody wanted to listen. But what’s new? After all General Zinni enjoys nothing more than another PR opportunity to say again “I told you so.” In an uncanny way I actually agree with General Zinni, it is indeed too bad more people didn’t pay closer attention to what he said and what he did on the eve of 9/11. Just for the record General Zinni – I told you SO!!
UPDATE: A reader sends a link to the Center for Defense Information site. GEN Zinni is now a Dinstinguished Military Fellow at CDI (http://www.cdi.org/aboutcdi/Zinni.html).

Make of this what you will. CDI has a political track record– definitely on “the left” side of the spectrum. I was not aware of this. Has he mentioned this professional connection on his book tour? Zinni’s bio is that of a distinguished military man, that’s for sure. The Somalia operation –both before and after the battle of Mogadishu– was a complex a military-politica operation, and Zinni served in a variety of jobs, each one of them demanding and critical.

[Skybird]

Surprising that Zinni as an active general now is accused of having done (rallying beghind Rumsfeld, supporting his war) - what in this thread he is expected to do (giving up support for Rumsfeld) and is accused of not doing any longer (giving it up). He is not the first military who complains about Rumsfeld wiping all advise and planning of his staff off the table, and insisting on his own plan - which then, with biting lips, had been set out by the generals.

The generals that way are held responsible for the operations in the war theatre, although it was rumsfeld'S plan, not theirs. And they did not complain. that big their loyalty and sense of obedience to their superior has been. Look at the chatastrophic results and see how good that plan of Rumsfeld&Co has been. Now some generals demand that rumsfeld - finally, after years! -. is held responsible for his incompetence. Oh shame! Oh lacking honour! Treachery!

Bush and followers are also well-known for having massively influenced the processing of intel data time and again, since before 9/11. Intel was demanded to deliver the reasons for war - no matter if they were there or not. Intel gathering is the responsebility of the according official staff, yes. But if these procedures are influenced, and the results are filtered and tailored for the wanted outcome, and if in this manner it is decided by superior ranks like the administration itself what the intel gathering procedure SHOULD show, and what not, it all becomes a farce. Nevertheless guilt is always sought for in the intel community, not in those political idiots messing up the process and tell them in advance what the intel procedure should deliver them.

The criticism voiced in the above quote is so damn hypocritical and biased. The motivation obviously is: "if he is not supporting war/Bush/Rumsfeld, discredit the guy and silence him that way".

[The Avon Lady]

Now some generals demand that rumsfeld - finally, after years! -. is held responsible for his incompetence. Oh shame! Oh lacking honour! Treachery!
Not really. Just hypocrisy on the part of some of them.
Bush and followers are also well-known for having massively influenced the processing of intel data time and again, since before 9/11.
Do you have a link to verify this claim?
The criticism voiced in the above quote is so damn hypocritical and biased.
Why? Are the quotes from Zinni incorrect?

Maybe the bias is on the other foot.
The motivation obviously is: "if he is not supporting war/Bush/Rumsfeld, discredit the guy and silence him that way".
Maybe the motivation is simply "you can dish out the medicine but you can't take it."

[scandium]

Now some generals demand that rumsfeld - finally, after years! -. is held responsible for his incompetence. Oh shame! Oh lacking honour! Treachery!
Not really. Just hypocrisy on the part of some of them.

That's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't, isn't it? Speak out while on active duty and they're traitors who should be lined up and shot. Speak out after they retire and are no longer active duty and they're traitors who should be lined up and shot.

Personally I smell spin here in this whole "Unamerican/traitor" deflection that this thread has taken. The tactic of trying to discredit the critic rather than discuss the criticism has become a little old and rather transparent. I guess when you have no arguement against what these 6 Generals are saying, and when you cannot impeach their creditials, then the only thing left to fall back on is diversion by polluting any discussion with claims that they had no right to speak out.

The irony is that the people who are doing this are probably very vocal in how people should "support the troops". Yet those who've served in Iraq (as I believe at least 2 of these six Generals have) and retired honourably are essentially told, if they have anything other to say than how well things are going there, to just shup up. Support the troops indeed.

[The Avon Lady]

Now some generals demand that rumsfeld - finally, after years! -. is held responsible for his incompetence. Oh shame! Oh lacking honour! Treachery!
Not really. Just hypocrisy on the part of some of them.
That's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't, isn't it? Speak out while on active duty and they're traitors who should be lined up and shot.
I never said that.

Zinni's hypocrisy, as pointed out by the letter I posted, does not make him a traitor.

If you'll look back at the start of the thread, you'll see my opinion of Rumsfeld. There much to criticize and maybe there is room to even argue his resignation at this time. But some of those arguing so are not being honest about themselves and their own prior statements.
Speak out after they retire and are no longer active duty and they're traitors who should be lined up and shot.
Where did I say that?

Where does it say that in the letter I posted above.

If you're referring to other posters, never mind. Same is true for much of the remaining points in your post.

[scandium]

If you're referring to other posters, never mind. Same is true for much of the remaining points in your post.

I was referring to other posters further back.

[The Avon Lady]

If you're referring to other posters, never mind. Same is true for much of the remaining points in your post.
I was referring to other posters further back.
You can understand my confusion, as you were quoting me. :doh:

[scandium]

If you're referring to other posters, never mind. Same is true for much of the remaining points in your post.
I was referring to other posters further back.
You can understand my confusion, as you were quoting me. :doh:

Understandable. :|\

[bradclark1]

Well I now know I got my point across to a few people that understand what I'm saying so I'm pulling out because there isn't anything else to say on the matter besides repeating myself.
And just for your information Sea Demon my wife got huffy with me for staying up so late last night. I tried putting the blame on you but she did't want to hear it. :cry:

[bradclark1]

@ Deep Six
but you have NO right to make disparaging remarks about my family.
You are right, it came across wrong. Please except my apoligies.

Brad

[DeepSix]

@ Deep Six
but you have NO right to make disparaging remarks about my family.
You are right, it came across wrong. Please except my apoligies.

Brad

I apologize, too. I admit I got a bit huffy about it, but I probably should have left my uncle out of it to begin with. I also neglected to say that I agree with you that any soldier should do his or her utmost to correct problems; I think the only point where we disagree is over the public nature of the recent criticism. I think (just my opinion) that in coming before the public, they made the issue political, whereas had they not, it would have been - as you very rightly say - entirely a question of duty:

Now this is my opinion. If you feel that soldiers are needlessly getting killed I would feel that it is my moral duty to speak up.

Absolutely; I just meant that IMO it should be done within the chain of command - but to me that's not the same thing as the "I was just following orders" cop-out. I hear where you're coming from; I'm not a fan of Rumsfeld either.

No hard feelings here. ;)

[bradclark1]

No hard feelings here. ;)
Not from here. I was wrong and you called me on it. :oops:

Back to the chain of command thing. What if the chain of command doesn't work? What do you do then? Active duty don't want to hear it.
The Chief of Staff before Myers was an example of what happens if you disagree with Rumsfeld. Do you just shut up?
What avenues are open to them? Should they say "Oh well I tried" and go about their business or do you go to the only avenue left and that is to go public. Nobody has been able to answer that question.
Thats why I keep on saying it's a moral issue.
Never once in the eighteen and a half years I served did I have to question an order. I would like to think if there was something wrong I would have the honor and the courage to speak up.
To the political animal I know that honor and courage is not in their vocabulary. You serve your country and those legally appointed over you. But you do not do so blindly.

[August]

Interesting article on the subject:

Washington Times
April 20, 2006
Pg. 21

The Rumsfeld Detractors

What do the generals' service records say?

By Stephen E. Herbits

Where is the rest of the story on the recent attacks on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by a few in the retired military? The news media will better meet its obligations to the public when it seeks more depth of experience and information about these generals-turned-Rumsfeld critics.

Having had the privilege of participating in Defense Department transitions now for four presidents, with my own experience in military affairs going back to 1967, I can offer such information.

The first observation to be made is that now that these generals have stepped out of their uniforms to make a personal and conscious entry into the political arena by calling for the resignation of a Cabinet official, they are opening their own records and their own performance -- perhaps even their own motivations -- to public scrutiny. This is not only fair game for the media, but absolutely essential for a public seeking to understand the full debate.

My experience points to several relevant issues -- some of which I personally know apply to some of those making the attacks.

First, while Mr. Rumsfeld has worked within the long tradition of civilian control of the military to modernize and strengthen the promotion and assignment system for senior uniformed officers, there are some who have actively tried to obstruct his efforts and could be acting as an extension of that opposition. For instance, within weeks of Mr. Rumsfeld's arrival in 2001, eight nominations -- two from each service -- were sent to the new secretary for one of the nine top senior military officers in command positions.

Upon examination, however, a simple fact leapt off the pages. The secretary had really been given one selection and seven non-comparable alternates, who, if not less qualified, were clearly less preferable than the one. When it happened a second time, the secretary instituted a new process. This new process has been in place for nearly five years and has required significantly more scrutiny, vetting and long-term planning.

Over that time, many generals who might have been promoted under the old system did not make it in the new one. The most telling indicator here is that of the top 40 senior military positions today, the Army now holds the fewest joint positions in its history. For too many years, the Army had simply not produced the needed talent for such critical positions. The effects of such cronyism had taken its toll. Mr. Rumsfeld's changes corrected that problem; they also provoked the resentment of some top Army brass.

There are a group of Army officers who adamantly oppose change, modernization, rationalization, transformation or whatever one wants to call the move to create a military for the future rather than a battery of tank divisions for the past. Many of these former officers stick together on retirement. They obtain the highest-level briefings from the active Army and offer their opinions, if not more, on everything from weapons to promotions. The Army can gain greatly from their experience, of course. But this clique is effectively a powerful, hidden informal force outside the Defense Department structure and outside the national political system.

There is at least one of the attackers who was passed over for promotion because of personal behavior which did not clear a routine morals examination. Not a problem; that is why top officers are vetted at each promotion and eachassignment.But shouldn't the public be permitted to know this information about those attacking the civilians in charge so that they may better judge the reasons behind the reasons?

Finally, there is the style issue. Anyone who has worked closely with this secretary will tell you that he is tough. What do they mean? He acts like a prosecutor. It is often said that you had better not present policy options to this secretary if you are not thoroughly prepared. I was held to the same standard -- and it is the right one.

There is no way the secretary can be an expert on every single issue that comes before him. But he can ask questions and he can drive down into the facts and analyses as few others can. It is through that process that he gains confidence in those making the recommendations so he can put his stamp on them. Or the opposite. Some interpret the tough sessions as personally affronting. Others, such as I, believe it is in the best service of this country.

It will also be a service to this country when the media digs a bit below these attacks to examine the generals who wish to play a political role in our civilian society. The public can then understand who is making the attacks and why. Arguably, such an understanding is helpful in any public debate. It is inarguably essential in this one.

Stephen E. Herbits has served five presidents as a military affairs adviser since 1967, including the Defense Department transition in 2001 and post-September 11 reforms.

[Sea Demon]

And just for your information Sea Demon my wife got huffy with me for staying up so late last night. I tried putting the blame on you but she did't want to hear it. :cry:

:lol: :lol: Well, tell her I take full responsibility for my actions. Just don't put her on a plane to California right now as my wife ain't too thrilled with me about something else.

The last thing I need right now is dirty looks and complaints from two females at the same time. :-j :doh: :dead:

[Ducimus]

Personally, with a couple exceptions, i feel generals in the modern military stopped being general's years ago.

[bradclark1]

Personally, with a couple exceptions, i feel generals in the modern military stopped being general's years ago.
What do you mean?

[Ducimus]

Politics.

[bradclark1]

Thats been since god made generals. :)
Ask Ike. Sometimes the germans were the least of his problems.

[August]

Thats been since god made generals :)

:yep:

[DeepSix]

Back to the chain of command thing. What if the chain of command doesn't work?

I knew you'd say that. :D I confess I don't know; maybe I have too much faith in the idea that there's always a way to work within the system....

...
Should they say "Oh well I tried" and go about their business or do you go to the only avenue left and that is to go public. Nobody has been able to answer that question.

Yeah, it's perfectly valid to ask "well, what do you do if you feel you have no other option" - I guess it's one of those "burden of command" kind of decisions that every individual has to make on his or her own. I'm not military, so it'd be disingenuous of me to say "Oh, well, I know I'd handle it such-and-such a way...."

And by that rule maybe I shouldn't criticize the generals speaking out now at all. On the other hand, what bugs me about having delicate situations handled "on camera" like this is that - and I may be waaay off base here - it's that ever since Watergate (which I'm barely old enough to include as an event in my lifetime), we as a nation seem less and less able to deal with delicate situations according to the processes of state which we claim to value. Instead, we go from scandal to scandal and from one quick and dirty solution to the next. It's always about the drama, the investigation, laying the mighty low, etc. Whether it's Watergate, Iran-Contra, Clarence Thomas, Clinton's women, Bush's drinking, the contested election, John Kerry and patrol boats, Dan Rather, Sept. 11th, Katrina... you name it. We've had so may "unusual circumstances" in my lifetime that there aren't any "usual" ones left. We just flail from episode to episode to episode.

Hope I'm making sense; I realize I'm off on a bit of a tangent to the original discussion. So to (hopefully) get back on track, part of my aversion to this thing with the generals and Rumsfeld is that it's just another episode.... It's exhausting.

P.S. Sorry you got into hot water with the wife. Had some explaining to the girlfriend to do myself.... :)

[August]

Washington Post
April 21, 2006
Pg. 23

The Generals' Dangerous Whispers

By Charles Krauthammer

Last time around, the antiwar left did not have a very high opinion of generals. A popular slogan in the 1960s was "war is too important to be left to the generals." It was the generals who had advocated attacking Cuba during the missile crisis of October 1962, while the civilians preferred -- and got -- a diplomatic solution. In popular culture, "Dr. Strangelove" made indelible the caricature of the war-crazed general. And it was I-know-better generals who took over the U.S. government in a coup in the 1960s bestseller and movie "Seven Days in May."

Another war, another take. I-know-better generals are back. Six of them, retired, are denouncing the Bush administration and calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as secretary of defense. The antiwar types think this is just swell.

I don't. There are three possible complaints that the military brass could have against a secretary of defense. The first is that he doesn't listen to or consult military advisers. The six generals make that charge, but it is thoroughly disproved by the two men who were closer to Rumsfeld day to day, week in, week out than any of the accusing generals: former Joint Chiefs chairman Richard Myers and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong. Both attest to Rumsfeld's continual consultation and give-and-take with the military.

A second complaint is that the defense secretary disregards settled, consensual military advice. The military brass recommends X and SecDef willfully chooses Y. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Rumsfeld's crusade to "transform" a Cold War-era military into a fast and lean fighting force has met tremendous resistance within the Pentagon. His canceling several heavy weapons systems, such as the monstrous Crusader artillery program, was the necessary overriding of a hidebound bureaucracy by an innovating civilian on a mission.

In his most recent broadside, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste accuses the administration of "radically alter[ing] the results of 12 years of deliberate and continuous war planning" on Iraq. Well, the Bush administration threw out years and years and layer upon layer of war planning on Afghanistan, improvised one of the leanest possible attack plans and achieved one of the more remarkable military victories in recent history. There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.

As for Iraq, it is hardly as if the military was of a single opinion on the critical questions of de-Baathification, disbanding Saddam Hussein's army or optimal coalition troop levels. There were divisions of opinion within the military as there were among the civilians and, indeed, among the best military experts in the country. Rumsfeld chose among the different camps. That's what defense secretaries are supposed to do.

What's left of the generals' revolt? A third complaint: He didn't listen to me . So what? Lincoln didn't listen to McClellan, and fired him. Truman had enough of listening to MacArthur and fired him, too. In our system of government, civilians fire generals, not the other way around.

Some of the complainers were on active duty when these decisions were made. If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld's disregard of their advice, why didn't they resign at the time? Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions secured?

The Defense Department waves away the protesting generals as just a handful out of more than 8,000 now serving or retired. That seems to me too dismissive. These generals are no doubt correct in asserting that they have spoken to and speak on behalf of some retired and, even more important, some active-duty members of the military.

But that makes the generals' revolt all the more egregious. The civilian leadership of the Pentagon is decided on Election Day, not by the secret whispering of generals.

We've always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.

That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America. Some other retired generals have found it necessary to rise to the defense of the administration. Will the rest of the generals, retired or serving, now have to declare which camp they belong to?

It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.

[bradclark1]

First let me make something clear. I don't know if the generals are right or wrong in their thinking. I was/am backing them in that if they think something is wrong and they felt strongly enough about it and they had the courage to speak up.........

Rumsfeld's crusade to "transform" a Cold War-era military into a fast and lean fighting force has met tremendous resistance within the Pentagon.
This stuff going on in the middle east proved that this thinking was a mistake.
This could be a thread all of it's own.

was the necessary overriding of a hidebound bureaucracy by an innovating civilian on a mission.
This shows who's camp this guy is in.

In his most recent broadside, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste accuses the administration of "radically alter[ing] the results of 12 years of deliberate and continuous war planning" on Iraq. Well, the Bush administration threw out years and years and layer upon layer of war planning on Afghanistan, improvised one of the leanest possible attack plans and achieved one of the more remarkable military victories in recent history. There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.
War plans are made for a reason. If "A" happens we go by this plan.
If "B" happens we go by this plan. Everything is planned and trained to support these missions. Seeing as I don't know what plan "A" was it's impossible to make a comparison.
If I was a betting man I would say that plan "A" had us reacting with a much larger force. The Army Chief of Staff that Rumsfeld fired was probably fired over this.

There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.
No there is nothing sacred about them but a lot research and planning went into them. No plan is lock step but it serves as a template.

Well, the Bush administration threw out years and years and layer upon layer of war planning on Afghanistan, improvised one of the leanest possible attack plans and achieved one of the more remarkable military victories in recent history. There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.
Their was nothing remarkable about this action. A well organized modern fighting force went against a disorganized rabble. If I follow the news right the real battle is just going to begin now and I guess the UK forces are going to bear the brunt of it in the beginning.

Some of the complainers were on active duty when these decisions were made. If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld's disregard of their advice, why didn't they resign at the time?

You will not find an American leader alive who would abandon their command in time of need. This shows how ignorant of miliary life this writer is.
Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions secured?
Again, Ignorant of military life. I covered this earlier in this thread. Their pensions were secure anyway. You retire at the highest rank held. So even if they were busted they would have gotten the same retirement anyway.

That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America.
No it isn't. It is always there but in this case it's in the open.

It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.
The sky is falling. The sky is falling said chicken little.

This writer is unqualified to even write this kind of article.

[bradclark1]

And by that rule maybe I shouldn't criticize the generals speaking out now at all.
This isn't and shouldn't be a common occurrence. That is why I felt so strongly that their had to be a reason to speak up like that. I don't have blind faith in generals I've been around a few and some I didn't think much of. But to do something extrordinary like this, there has to be a reason.

[Ducimus]

Back to the chain of command thing. What if the chain of command doesn't work?

I knew you'd say that. :D I confess I don't know; maybe I have too much faith in the idea that there's always a way to work within the system....



It's an intresting thought. The chain of command only goes so far. For an enlisted man (or field grade officers), there is always a way to advance/escalate an issue when somethings a crock of excrement that stinks. Your immeidate supervisor, NCOIC, your OIC or section cheif, XO, CO, and on and on, and if those don't work, theres an real unpopular alternate route one can go if the chain isnt working via OSI or the IG.

But if your a general, who do you go to? I honestly don't know.

[August]

First let me make something clear. I don't know if the generals are right or wrong in their thinking. I was/am backing them in that if they think something is wrong and they felt strongly enough about it and they had the courage to speak up.........

These Generals opinions, all 8 of them (out of how many hundreds of retired Generals and Admirals?), do not, as far as i can tell, mirror the feelings of their respective services. As you say in a subsequent post, their ranks and retirements are secure. What courage are they displaying exactly?

This stuff going on in the middle east proved that this thinking was a mistake.
This could be a thread all of it's own.

It proves only that with resistance come problems that are manifested in the field. Fast and lean is a valid and necessary goal to strive for. As much as we all like heavy forces, heck i was in 1st AD for three years, they are very difficult to move, require enormous amounts of taxpayer cash to keep outfitted, and are very difficult to keep supplied in the field. Where do you envision a use for things like the Crusader 155mm SPH? How do you intend to get them to the battlefield?

This shows who's camp this guy is in.

Like the Generals are not?

War plans are made for a reason. If "A" happens we go by this plan.
If "B" happens we go by this plan. Everything is planned and trained to support these missions. Seeing as I don't know what plan "A" was it's impossible to make a comparison.
If I was a betting man I would say that plan "A" had us reacting with a much larger force. The Army Chief of Staff that Rumsfeld fired was probably fired over this.

You can bet all you want but it's just unsupported speculation. For all we know those plans could have been totally unrealistic given the rapidly changing situation.

No there is nothing sacred about them but a lot research and planning went into them. No plan is lock step but it serves as a template.

Well, the Bush administration threw out years and years and layer upon layer of war planning on Afghanistan, improvised one of the leanest possible attack plans and achieved one of the more remarkable military victories in recent history. There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.

Their was nothing remarkable about this action. A well organized modern fighting force went against a disorganized rabble. If I follow the news right the real battle is just going to begin now and I guess the UK forces are going to bear the brunt of it in the beginning.[/quote]

Real battle? I can see "second battle" but there was nothing fake about the initial invasion or the destruction of tora bora. Also "well organized modern fighting force" does imply the plans they had were pretty good.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling said chicken little.

I didn't know Chicken Little was a retired US Army General. Is he the one who ran for president in the last election?

This writer is unqualified to even write this kind of article.

Krauthammer has been around awhile. I don't agree with everything he writes about but neither would i reject anything he says out of hand either.

[bradclark1]

These Generals opinions, all 8 of them (out of how many hundreds of retired Generals and Admirals?), do not, as far as i can tell, mirror the feelings of their respective services. As you say in a subsequent post, their ranks and retirements are secure. What courage are they displaying exactly?

Reread what I've said earlier.

It proves only that with resistance come problems that are manifested in the field. Fast and lean is a valid and necessary goal to strive for. As much as we all like heavy forces, heck i was in 1st AD for three years, they are very difficult to move, require enormous amounts of taxpayer cash to keep outfitted, and are very difficult to keep supplied in the field. Where do you envision a use for things like the Crusader 155mm SPH? How do you intend to get them to the battlefield?

This could be a thread all of it's own. I'm not going to get into it here.

This shows who's camp this guy is in.

Like the Generals are not?
Are not what? I haven't read any articles the generals claim to be reporting on.
This article had one specific purpose and that was to put these generals down.

War plans are made for a reason. If "A" happens we go by this plan.
If "B" happens we go by this plan. Everything is planned and trained to support these missions. Seeing as I don't know what plan "A" was it's impossible to make a comparison.
If I was a betting man I would say that plan "A" had us reacting with a much larger force. The Army Chief of Staff that Rumsfeld fired was probably fired over this.

You can bet all you want but it's just unsupported speculation. For all we know those plans could have been totally unrealistic given the rapidly changing situation.

Read the fifth sentence in that paragraph again.

Real battle? I can see "second battle" but there was nothing fake about the initial invasion or the destruction of tora bora. Also "well organized modern fighting force" does imply the plans they had were pretty good.
This wasn't a battle. It was hard fighting. There is a difference.
This is my concept of battle: A general encounter between armies, ships of war, or aircraft.

I didn't know Chicken Little was a retired US Army General. Is he the one who ran for president in the last election?
Well that hit the nail on the head seeing as you brought it up. :D
It went from WMD's to bringing democracy to a country run by a dictator.
Bush "chicken littled" to get his foot in the door. But then there are about twenty threads on this particular subject and I don't think anyone has won yet.
Krauthammer has been around awhile. I don't agree with everything he writes about but neither would i reject anything he says out of hand either.
I've been around for a while too and you won't see me writing articles about a subject I know nothing about. He should stick to writing about what he knows. So trust me you can reject this article out of hand.

[August]

I've been around for a while too and you won't see me writing articles about a subject I know nothing about. He should stick to writing about what he knows. So trust me you can reject this article out of hand.

Not to dismiss your advice but i'd rather trust the career military officer who sent me the article (and the previous one as well) and who said they were spot on.

[bradclark1]

Go right ahead. A career military NCO isn't good enough for you? :hulk: :D

[August]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110008284

Rage at Don
The war on Rumsfeld is really a bureaucratic turf battle.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"I think Director [of National Intelligence John] Negroponte has battles to fight within the bureaucracy, and particularly with the Department of Defense. DOD is refusing to recognize that the director of national intelligence is in charge of the intelligence community."--Sen. Susan Collins

On Sept. 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a town hall meeting at the Pentagon and identified what he saw as the gravest threat to national security: the Pentagon's own bureaucracy. "With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk," he said. He may have underestimated both the size and tenacity of this foe.

In the opening pages of their new book about the Iraq war, "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor quote the Sept. 10 speech to frame the battle that has raged inside the Pentagon for five years. As the nation has weathered the most deadly terrorist attack on its soil in history, fought a global war on terror and liberated two countries, there has been a battle inside the Pentagon over the size, organization and weaponry of the U.S. military. And that battle has only intensified as the bureaucracy that Mr. Rumsfeld chastised for being stuck in a Cold War mindset has picked up allies in Congress, the military and in some quarters of the administration. It is this coalition that is now pushing for Mr. Rumsfeld to be fired.

But it's not just the defense secretary's head the former generals, anonymous leakers and senators are after. This is a classic Washington turf and policy war. In the balance is the nation's ability to fight the war on terror and confront other threats around the globe. One of the more significant theaters of this war has been waged in the intelligence community. Two years ago at the behest of the 9/11 Commission, Congress created the director of national intelligence to sit atop the CIA, FBI and other intelligence gathering agencies. In theory the DNI would improve the nation's ability to collect, analyze and disseminate information about national security threats. In this process Congress was cheered on by the Bush administration's normal critics in the media.

Initially the Bush administration resisted creating the new post, but as the 2004 presidential election approached Mr. Bush came out in support of it. A few members of Congress, however, put the breaks on for a few weeks. They included Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, a relatively new arrival on Capitol Hill, who as a former Marine helicopter pilot had seen the need for good intelligence firsthand while carrying the "nuclear football" for President Reagan and while serving in Somalia in the 1990s. Before the legislation creating the new layer of bureaucracy was sent to the president to be signed into law shortly after the election, these few holdouts in the House won a critical battle for the military. They ensured that the Pentagon would not lose its ability to gather and analyze intelligence independently to support soldiers in harms way.

That victory, however, always depended on vigorous civilian control over a Pentagon that would rather not make enemies on Capitol Hill. That leadership starts with the defense secretary and also requires support from a president who understands that it's vital for the Pentagon to control its own intelligence assets. Sen. Collins, who led the fight in Congress against Reps. Hunter and Kline, has never accepted the powerful but limited role for the DNI. Instead she has continued to insist that Mr. Negroponte push to expand his mandate and gain total dominance over the intelligence community. This has come even as the New York Times and Washington Post have printed articles recently pointing out that the DNI has turned out to be--surprise, surprise--ineffective at creating more-accurate intelligence or even in turning out competing analysis that then filters up to policy makers. If anything, the creation of the DNI has made it less likely that members of Congress will receive anything but a consensus view from the intelligence community.

A recent House Intelligence Committee report puts its finger on the problem by saying the DNI is in danger of becoming "less an intended 'orchestration mechanism,' and more another layer of large, unintended and unnecessary bureaucracy." The committee is threatening to cut Mr. Negroponte's funding unless he comes up with a plan for reforming the intelligence community. But short of abolishing his own position, it's hard to see how that is possible.

It is in this context that we can view the criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld intensifying over the past year. The underlying theme from the handful of retired generals who have spoken out against the defense secretary to the critics on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is that Mr. Rumsfeld has been too forceful a leader at the Pentagon. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, wants to go so far as to hold a symbolic "no-confidence vote" on the defense secretary. "Let the Senate go on the record," he told reporters last week.

Unable to persuade the president from invading Iraq or to stop him from pushing for a more flexible military with an expanded role around the world, it seems the critics are now trying to throw sand in the gears of the military machine in the hope that it will grind to a halt. It's hard to see how this serves the national interest.

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

[corvette k225]

So what six or eight, what about the other 1,800, what are they saying?

just a some old Clinton hold overs. :-j :-j

[August]

http://www.examiner.com/a-88357~Jed_Babbin__Keep_the_Big_Dog_running.html

Jed Babbin: Keep the Big Dog running

PDF | Email
Jed Babbin, The Examiner
Apr 25, 2006 7:00 AM (4 hrs ago)
WASHINGTON - Everyone is saying that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s days are numbered, thanks in part to increasing calls by some former generals for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

But Rumsfeld was hired by George W. Bush to do precisely what he has done to the consternation of the generals who are now coming out to complain about him.

When President Bush brought Rumsfeld back to the Pentagon, the president told him to shake up the Pentagon, to transform it from the Cold War structure and culture that it was stuck in to a new force with strategies that could respond to the post-Cold War world.

Months before Sept. 11, as Rumsfeld began the transformation of the Pentagon, he ran into contumacious obstructionism from the army and its then-Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. Shinseki dug his heels in and refused to change much of anything about the Army. Shinseki went as far as to go behind Rumsfeld’s back to the Senate where his political mentor (and long-time family friend, Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii) and others backed his play.

But for the political cover Sen. Inouye gave Shinseki, he might have been fired then and there. Civilian control of the military means people such as Shinseki cannot be allowed to play the back-channel political games he played again and again. Shinseki stayed, and the Army went on to spend billions on the Stryker armored vehicle, a Cold War style peacekeeping vehicle that is too big and too heavy to be moved by a C-130 tactical airlifter without being partially disassembled.

And then came Sept. 11. The Secretary of Defense became the secretary of war and the transformation he had brought to the Pentagon had to be continued under fire. Still, the Army resisted.

Shinseki balked at striking at the Taliban. For the record, our forces slashed into the Taliban around Oct. 5, 2001, less than a month after Sept 11. But — aside from Rangers and Army Special Forces — the Army stayed home. Shinseki wanted at least six months to assemble and move an enormous Soviet-like force into Afghanistan and the president wasn’t having any of it. This is why Shinseki retired in 2003 with a festering grudge against Rumsfeld.

And then Rumsfeld did the unthinkable. Instead of replacing Shinseki with one of his like-minded underlings, Rumsfeld looked for someone who would fight. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, a Special Forces vet, was brought out of retirement to transform the Army in the middle of a war. And he did it. But in the process Rumsfeld, Schoomaker and his team shook up a lot of people.

Of the six who have called for Rumsfeld’s firing, all came to rank and prestige in the Clinton days, what some Pentagon wags now call the “Great Period of Neglect.” It was the era of “Blackhawk Down,” of Shinseki ordering the army to wear black berets and buying them from China and of Gen. Anthony Zinni, then commander of CENTCOM, becoming addicted to “stability” in the Middle East, entranced by the Arab leaders he’d come to know well. Stability meant leaving Saddam alone, so Zinni spoke often against the Iraq war before it began. Stability now means leaving Iran to pursue its nuclear weapons program undisturbed.

President Bush has made it clear that Rumsfeld has his confidence and that, in his judgment, it’s best for America that Rumsfeld stays. This will only result, sooner rather than later, in another political exercise — and that’s all the “generals’ revolt” is — to remove him. Mr. Bush’s opponents see Rumsfeld as vulnerable. They can’t rid themselves of George W. Bush, but they can damage him by damaging Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld is the Big Dog, and those whose feathers he has ruffled in the Pentagon, the press and Congress are the poodles who chase after him. They should follow the principle one Southern gent often reminds me of: If you can’t run with the big dog, you’d better go sit on the porch.
Jed Babbin is a former deputy under-secretary of defense and the author of “Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think” and (with Edward Timperlake) “Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States.” He is also a contributing editor at FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Examiner

[bradclark1]

Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration.
Duuh! Does anything else need to be said? :hmm:
The guy has elephants on his pajamas and Miniter is his room mate. Try and do better. :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

The guy has elephants on his pajamas
They're really not that bad looking, you know.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4404/1181854x4008hp.jpg

[August]

Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration.
Duuh! Does anything else need to be said? :hmm:
The guy has elephants on his pajamas and Miniter is his room mate. Try and do better. :rotfl:

Yet you take the word of a former Democratic party candidate for President as gospel. :roll:

If it were up to guys like you our troops would still be armed with single shot blackpowder rifles and the Cavalry would still ride horses into battle. Both things the Generals had to be forced to let go of...

[bradclark1]

Yet you take the word of a former Democratic party candidate for President as gospel. :roll:
Who would that be?

If it were up to guys like you our troops would still be armed with single shot blackpowder rifles and the Cavalry would still ride horses into battle. Both things the Generals had to be forced to let go of...

No sir. What I believe in is that you stay prepared to handle any mission to the best of your ability.
Just because the latest fashion in fighting in some peoples eyes is light fighting doesn't mean that a heavier force is not going to be needed tomorrow. You must maintain a balanced force.
You don't use a sledge hammer to kill an ant and you don't use spit balls to drop a bull elephant.
America has been caught with it's pants down twice in it's history(WW2 and Korea). You want to shoot for three?
Call that old fashioned if you want. To me it's common sense.
It's just like the intelligence community. They depended on technology mostly and fell on it's arse. It takes a balance of humint and technology to make it work. The same goes for our military. You have to have a balance of force structure.

[August]

Who would that be?

Why, don't you keep up with the news? Wesley Clark has joined the generals revolt.

No sir. What I believe in is that you stay prepared to handle any mission to the best of your ability.
Just because the latest fashion in fighting in some peoples eyes is light fighting doesn't mean that a heavier force is not going to be needed tomorrow. You must maintain a balanced force.
You don't use a sledge hammer to kill an ant and you don't use spit balls to drop a bull elephant.
America has been caught with it's pants down twice in it's history(WW2 and Korea). You want to shoot for three?
Call that old fashioned if you want. To me it's common sense.
It's just like the intelligence community. They depended on technology mostly and fell on it's arse. It takes a balance of humint and technology to make it work. The same goes for our military. You have to have a balance of force structure.

Fine theory, but unfortunately the truth is that America has been caught with it's pants down in the past precisely because of the defense establishments refusal to accept new realities in modern warfare. Look how long they held onto the battleship as the primary naval fighting weapon. Look what they did to Billy Mitchell for suggesting otherwise. As for Korea, it started just 5 years after the end of WW2. Just enough time for all those draftees and "duration" volunteers to have been returned to civilian life. Are you seriously suggesting we should have kept the WW2 troop levels, overseas, for that long?

Do i want to shoot for three? No, which is why i believe these very few generals are wrong.

Please don't insinuate that i think technology is a be all/end all of modern warfare, but as the last two US wars have shown us, a smaller but more modern equipped force can easily beat a much larger enemy force that's armed with obsolete weapons.

If you really want more "boots on the ground" then get your representatives to support the resumption of the draft because that's the ONLY way you're going to get the manpower you're advocating.

[bradclark1]

Why, don't you keep up with the news? Wesley Clark has joined the generals revolt.
If you roll back a little to earlier comments you will see that I said I don't know if the generals are right or not. I have been saying that if they have come out like that there must be something to it and it bears looking at.
We all know Clark is a wannabe politician.

Fine theory, but unfortunately the truth is that America has been caught with it's pants down in the past precisely because of the defense establishments refusal to accept new realities in modern warfare.
The pants were dropped in WW2 because our politicians kept the department of defence on a bare bones budget.

The pants were dropped in Korea because our politicians kept the department of defence on a bare bones budget. They went to Korea in summer uniforms and minimal equipment and supply.

As for Korea, it started just 5 years after the end of WW2. Just enough time for all those draftees and "duration" volunteers to have been returned to civilian life. Are you seriously suggesting we should have kept the WW2 troop levels, overseas, for that long?
No they shouldn't have also been stripped down to nothing.

Do i want to shoot for three? No, which is why i believe these very few generals are wrong.
How many generals do you think were involved in Iraq?

Please don't insinuate that i think technology is a be all/end all of modern warfare, but as the last two US wars have shown us, a smaller but more modern equipped force can easily beat a much larger enemy force that's armed with obsolete weapons.
Yes they can win the battle but we can't hold the ground and we aren't winning the war. Why? Because we don't have the people to do it with!
Why? Because we wanted a smaller leaner force. Hello?

If you really want more "boots on the ground" then get your representatives to support the resumption of the draft because that's the ONLY way you're going to get the manpower you're advocating.
Thats what happens when you chop your forces to the point they can't accomplish the mission.
These are our options:

1) Maintain the status quo and keep feeding the fodder and not getting anywhere because we don't have the manpower to do any more then what we are doing which is nothing but hanging on.

2)Because our force structure is is chopped past the fat and into the meat and the volunteers aren't volunteering anymore because they don't want to get killed, restart the draft. This one won't want to go into history for that. He will play weasel and pass it to the next president to make that decision.

3)Dump them and leave.

Do you have any other options?

You want to know what option we end up taking? Number 3

[Ducimus]

Fine theory, but unfortunately the truth is that America has been caught with it's pants down in the past precisely because of the defense establishments refusal to accept new realities in modern warfare

You know, after WW2, the general thought was conventional wars was a thing of the past with the advent of atomic weaponry, and the new reality it presented. So they downsized and scaled the US armed forces to fit that view. A view which did not fit the requirements of the Korean war.




If you really want more "boots on the ground" then get your representatives to support the resumption of the draft because that's the ONLY way you're going to get the manpower you're advocating.

We'll always need more boots on the ground. Given how many area's were acutally inivolved in. As for a draft, i'm split on that. On one hand , i feel it is EVERY CITIZENS duty to serve the country for 2 to 4 years. On the other hand, i dont want some dillweed watching my back who's some disgrunted ****head.

Personnally i dont think they're very far from a draft. If they've had to tap into the IRR, you can't scrape the manpower barrel any lower then that.

[August]

If you roll back a little to earlier comments you will see that I said I don't know if the generals are right or not. I have been saying that if they have come out like that there must be something to it and it bears looking at.
We all know Clark is a wannabe politician.

Yeah it was worth looking at last week, but it's obviously a case of sour grapes spurred on by the political opposition.

The pants were dropped in WW2 because our politicians kept the department of defence on a bare bones budget.

The pants were dropped in Korea because our politicians kept the department of defence on a bare bones budget. They went to Korea in summer uniforms and minimal equipment and supply.

So what? You might as well add to that list; WW1, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary war. In short we're a country that has always maintained a small standing military in peace time and have been slow to arm for war. The length of that peace has little to do with the eagerness of its citizens to shed their uniforms and get back to their interrupted civilian lives and families. Nor does it mean the politicians won't try to take advantage of the "peace dividend" (remember that term?). What you are asking is, as i have said, unrealistic. Our history proves it. Don't expect it to change.

No they shouldn't have also been stripped down to nothing.

Again, a natural occurance found after every war in our history. Hard for a professional military man to understand, believe me i know, but there's no arguing with facts.


How many generals do you think were involved in Iraq?

Offhand I can think of one who's opinion i'd take over all the others and thats Schwarzkopf's. Other than that i'll take the opinion of my field grade officer friend who is in a position to know.

Yes they can win the battle but we can't hold the ground and we aren't winning the war. Why? Because we don't have the people to do it with!
Why? Because we wanted a smaller leaner force. Hello?

...

Thats what happens when you chop your forces to the point they can't accomplish the mission.

Our purpose isn't and never was to "hold ground" as an occupier of a sovereign nation. The Iraqis aren't a US vassal state and if you advocate we treat them that way then you haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam.

These are our options:

1) Maintain the status quo and keep feeding the fodder and not getting anywhere because we don't have the manpower to do any more then what we are doing which is nothing but hanging on.

2)Because our force structure is is chopped past the fat and into the meat and the volunteers aren't volunteering anymore because they don't want to get killed, restart the draft. This one won't want to go into history for that. He will play weasel and pass it to the next president to make that decision.

3)Dump them and leave.

Do you have any other options?

You want to know what option we end up taking? Number 3

I see your options as inaccurate and your assesment of the choice being made as incorrect, barring of course a Democrat getting into office in a couple years and ensuring its failure by dismantling the gains that have been made.

[August]

You know, after WW2, the general thought was conventional wars was a thing of the past with the advent of atomic weaponry, and the new reality it presented. So they downsized and scaled the US armed forces to fit that view. A view which did not fit the requirements of the Korean war.

It wasn't the generals who downsized the army after WW2, it was the millions of men and women who rightfully wanted to go home after the job was done. You don't seriously think the Truman administration, or any other for that matter was going to say, "oh wait hold on, now that we've beat the Axis we might have to fight the commies, so we're going to extend your enlistments for a few years. The American people just wouldn't have stood for it.

We'll always need more boots on the ground. Given how many area's were acutally inivolved in. As for a draft, i'm split on that. On one hand , i feel it is EVERY CITIZENS duty to serve the country for 2 to 4 years. On the other hand, i dont want some dillweed watching my back who's some disgrunted ****head.

Personnally i dont think they're very far from a draft. If they've had to tap into the IRR, you can't scrape the manpower barrel any lower then that.

Actually the IRR is the top of the manpower barrel. They're already trained and quicker to prepare for duty than any civilian off the street.

I agree with you about a citizens duty, (i put in 7 years myself) and the military itself much prefers a volunteer over a draftee anyways, but that will always limit the size of the force that can be sustained.

Nukes aside, our military, unit for unit, is more powerful than it has been at any time in it's history. I don't see technology as being the entire answer to every concievable situation that crops up but it certainly helps the effectiveness of what troops the political and social climate provides.

[bradclark1]

Yeah it was worth looking at last week, but it's obviously a case of sour grapes spurred on by the political opposition.
:roll:

So what? You might as well add to that list; WW1, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary war. In short we're a country that has always maintained a small standing military in peace time and have been slow to arm for war.
:roll:
Your problem is you are incapable of understanding what "balanced" means. All you see is that if I don't want small I want huge.

Again, a natural occurance found after every war in our history. Hard for a professional military man to understand, believe me i know, but there's no arguing with facts.
You assume that makes it right? Lets just keep doing the same old crap. And you call me incapable of change.

Our purpose isn't and never was to "hold ground" as an occupier of a sovereign nation. The Iraqis aren't a US vassal state and if you advocate we treat them that way then you haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam.
This is the facts. Iraq police and military control nothing. The U.S. controls the ground they are standing on at that moment. You haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam because history is repeating itself. As long as we are there we are looked at as being an occupying force. You can call it whateve politically correct name you want to call it but it doesn't change the fact we are an occupier.

I see your options as inaccurate and your assesment of the choice being made as incorrect, barring of course a Democrat getting into office in a couple years and ensuring its failure by dismantling the gains that have been made.
I see you didn't come up with any options. Each option is distasteful but it doesn't make them go away.
What gains have we made besides the vote and an ineffectual goverment?
How many years have we been there doing all this good?

I've started reading the books that are coming out on Iraqi freedom. I'm on my second book. The current book I'm reading is "No True Glory" which mainly covers the battle for Fallujah. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Not the way the book was written but what happened.
This book is written by Bing West who was an assistant secretary of defence under President Regan. Must be an in vogue thing for past secretaries in defence to write books. :)

[August]

Yeah it was worth looking at last week, but it's obviously a case of sour grapes spurred on by the political opposition.
:roll:

So what? You might as well add to that list; WW1, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary war. In short we're a country that has always maintained a small standing military in peace time and have been slow to arm for war.
:roll:
Your problem is you are incapable of understanding what "balanced" means. All you see is that if I don't want small I want huge.

Again, a natural occurance found after every war in our history. Hard for a professional military man to understand, believe me i know, but there's no arguing with facts.
You assume that makes it right? Lets just keep doing the same old crap. And you call me incapable of change.

Our purpose isn't and never was to "hold ground" as an occupier of a sovereign nation. The Iraqis aren't a US vassal state and if you advocate we treat them that way then you haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam.
This is the facts. Iraq police and military control nothing. The U.S. controls the ground they are standing on at that moment. You haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam because history is repeating itself. As long as we are there we are looked at as being an occupying force. You can call it whateve politically correct name you want to call it but it doesn't change the fact we are an occupier.

I see your options as inaccurate and your assesment of the choice being made as incorrect, barring of course a Democrat getting into office in a couple years and ensuring its failure by dismantling the gains that have been made.
I see you didn't come up with any options. Each option is distasteful but it doesn't make them go away.
What gains have we made besides the vote and an ineffectual goverment?
How many years have we been there doing all this good?

I've started reading the books that are coming out on Iraqi freedom. I'm on my second book. The current book I'm reading is "No True Glory" which mainly covers the battle for Fallujah. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Not the way the book was written but what happened.
This book is written by Bing West who was an assistant secretary of defence under President Regan. Must be an in vogue thing for past secretaries in defence to write books. :)

Whatever Brad. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't hold your breath waiting for Rumsfeld to resign though...

[bradclark1]

Actually the IRR is the top of the manpower barrel. They're already trained and quicker to prepare for duty than any civilian off the street.

I think what Ducimus means is that we don't have the number of volunteers needed to sustain the force. If we are down to that we are sucking to fill slots.

[bradclark1]

Whatever Brad. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't hold your breath waiting for Rumsfeld to resign though...

:D No, I don't think I'll hold my breath.

[bradclark1]

Oh boy I have hit my 1000th post.

[Ducimus]

Actually the IRR is the top of the manpower barrel. They're already trained and quicker to prepare for duty than any civilian off the street.

I think what Ducimus means is that we don't have the number of volunteers needed to sustain the force. If we are down to that we are sucking to fill slots.


Yup.

If memory serves me correctly the whole drawdawn scheme under clintion was to downsize the active duty, but maintain the same level of "total force" by augmenting that downsized active duty with reserves.

Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it.


As manpower tasking goes, here is my understanding of it:

Active duty -> Active Reserve-> National guard -> IRR

Now what comes after the IRR?

Nothing. That is, unless you wanted to reinstate a draft. So if they've tapped into the IRR (which they have), then their sucking to fill slots, in a bad way. Until the iraqi invasion, when was the last time you heard about people in the IRR being recalled?

[Ducimus]

Not intending to stir the pot, but i found this really intresting:

Could Rumsfeld Court-Martial the Retired Generals?
Surprisingly, yes.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:59 PM ET

Donald Rumsfeld has a notorious vindictive streak. How low will he stoop to pursue it? Let's put him to the test. If he wanted to get really brutal, Rumsfeld could convene a court-martial and prosecute the six retired generals who have been calling for his head. Military law, if read literally, permits him to do this. So, will he?

http://www.slate.com/id/2140616/

[August]

Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it.

No, they are not discharged until their entire enlistment is completed. See when you sign up for the service you do it in what used to be a 6 year hitch (think it's 8 now). Some of that you do on active duty (3 years min when i was in) and the rest in the IRR. You are not discharged until the end of the IRR period.

Think of it as "indefinite leave". During that reserve time you are subject to recall at any time to serve the remainer of the hitch on active duty subject to the needs of the service. Activating National Guard and Active Reserve units requires, i believe, Congressional approval. Recalling an IRR does not.

If you look at it practically these people are far more prepared for active duty than a bunch of aging, out of shape reservists or National Guardsmen trained on last generation equipment.

[August]

Not intending to stir the pot, but i found this really intresting:

Could Rumsfeld Court-Martial the Retired Generals?
Surprisingly, yes.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:59 PM ET

Donald Rumsfeld has a notorious vindictive streak. How low will he stoop to pursue it? Let's put him to the test. If he wanted to get really brutal, Rumsfeld could convene a court-martial and prosecute the six retired generals who have been calling for his head. Military law, if read literally, permits him to do this. So, will he?

http://www.slate.com/id/2140616/

Well i'm not sure where the writer gets this idea:

"But if it is a crime, punishable by court-martial, to disdain Donald Rumsfeld, he could lock up half the Army officer corps."

But in any case I would be highly suprised if the SOD brought charges against Zinni and company. After all, the only person you have to keep happy in any military unit, private company or government organization is the boss and Rumsfeld has that.

[Ducimus]

Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it.

No, they are not discharged until their entire enlistment is completed. See when you sign up for the service you do it in what used to be a 6 year hitch (think it's 8 now). Some of that you do on active duty (3 years min when i was in) and the rest in the IRR. You are not discharged until the end of the IRR period.




Yeah i know what the contract says. I signed one too. But i'm being realistic here. Like anything in the miltary, theres what the book says, and then there's how its really done. (unless you work on technical equipment and have to follow a TO).

The book answer is the one you give. Yeah yeah, 4 active, 4 inactive reserve. But what normally REALLY happends?

Johny enlists in Highschool under the DEP. Graduates, goes to active duty for 4 years. Gets his DD FORM214 and certificate of Discharge, maybe a medal as a kick out the door, maybe goes on terminal leave, then goes back to school or back to work. Then maybe shows up once a year for a weigh in. ( i didnt do that part, i went active reserve :roll: )

Thats what NORMALLY happends. What's abnormal is
John goes back to work, starts a family 2 years after DOS. Then 1 year after he establish's his family, he's recalled. Well, yeah he did sign a contract, but the reality is, if they have to recall someone like THAT, they are hurting for people.

An intresting thought, although i doubt it could happen is what happends after they run out of IRR to pull upon? what then? It might not be a problem now, but if recruitment and retention remains low, in a few years it could be.

[August]

Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it.

No, they are not discharged until their entire enlistment is completed. See when you sign up for the service you do it in what used to be a 6 year hitch (think it's 8 now). Some of that you do on active duty (3 years min when i was in) and the rest in the IRR. You are not discharged until the end of the IRR period.




Yeah i know what the contract says. I signed one too. But i'm being realistic here. Like anything in the miltary, theres what the book says, and then there's how its really done. (unless you work on technical equipment and have to follow a TO).

The book answer is the one you give. Yeah yeah, 4 active, 4 inactive reserve. But what normally REALLY happends?

Johny enlists in Highschool under the DEP. Graduates, goes to active duty for 4 years. Gets his DD FORM214 and certificate of Discharge, maybe a medal as a kick out the door, maybe goes on terminal leave, then goes back to school or back to work. Then maybe shows up once a year for a weigh in. ( i didnt do that part, i went active reserve :roll: )

Thats what NORMALLY happends. What's abnormal is
John goes back to work, starts a family 2 years after DOS. Then 1 year after he establish's his family, he's recalled. Well, yeah he did sign a contract, but the reality is, if they have to recall someone like THAT, they are hurting for people.

An intresting thought, although i doubt it could happen is what happends after they run out of IRR to pull upon? what then? It might not be a problem now, but if recruitment and retention remains low, in a few years it could be.

Well I can sympathize with Johnny but that's like joining in peacetime and trying to quit when it looks like you might be shot at. A contract is a contract and like i said it doesn't take an act of congress to activate IRR troops.

If its any consolation retirees are in the same boat. During the first Gulf war, my Dad, a 61 year old retired Army Master Sgt got a letter from Uncle Sam telling him to prepare to report to Ft. Dix for activation believe it or not and that was back in 91.

As for retention, last i heard reenlistments were up and recruitment will meet or exceed quotas in all 4 services, although the Army was the only one looking like it might miss them for awhile.

BTW you said you were issued a DD214 when you left active duty. I was under the impression they weren't handed over until IRR was finished. Personally i don't know as i spent my entire 6 year hitch on Active.

[Ducimus]

BTW you said you were issued a DD214 when you left active duty. I was under the impression they weren't handed over until IRR was finished


yeah i got my DDform 214 after i outprocessed my final base. I dont remember if i walked out the gate with it, or they mailed it to my HOR. But know i HAD my DDform 214 because i couldnt get a job without it, or so was my understanding.

As for the certificate of discharge.. that came later. I've sat here thinking about it trying to remember because i have two of them on my wall....


When you go active reserve, it releases you from your prior contract and you sign a new one. So they issue you the certificate of discharge, right there on the spot. You get a second certificate later (without a DDFORM 214) after you finish your term in the active reserves, releasing you from THAT contract.


I think time in DEP counts towards your 4 year inactive requirement too.
:hmm: At any rate, im pretty sure if you do 2 year's active reserve, your not required to do the 4 year inactive IRR. Primarly because to go active reserve, they have to release you from your prior contract. So i never did the yearly weigh ins. I just played weekend warrior for a couple years and said to hell with it. Just wasn't the same as active duty.

edit:
Come to think of it, im not sure if 2 years active reserves releases you from the 4 year IRR requirement or not now. See, i had 1 year under DEP, and then i had my enlistment extended a year because i was overseas. So i acutally had 5 years active duty and 1 year IRR under dep. So i only had 2 years left over anyway when i got out. *shrug*