Another former US Commander speaks out.
 

Yet another top ranking military leader speaks out: :up::up::up:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...hez/index.html
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...41629620071013
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm

My favorite part:

Too true, too true... :nope:

He's letting his views known thats for sure and you can't call him wrong either.

Just curious, but I've noticed that they are all "ex-commanders" or retired. Why?

It's against the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any member of the armed forces to criticize the Commander-In-Chief under the Disrespect of an Officer statue, no matter how big an idiot he may actually be.

I don't know what he says about Abu Ghraib, but it was Rumsfeld and the PCA that ordered the General from Gitmo, Murphy I think his name was, to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib with Civilian Contractor interrogaters ordering US troops around to torture prisoners. This led to the scandal, which only fed the insurgency.

As the Iraq commander he was held ultimately responsible for Abu Ghraib. Goes with the job.

The problem with this story is that they only provide snippets of what he said, and attempt to roll it to supporting one policy preference over another.

Here is an other article which includes more of what he stated:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?secti...&article=49460

Included is a line usually left out of the other articles:

amazing how they all say its wrong after they have lead men into danger not while they are in those positions pension worries probably

This just goes to show that there really is nothing new under the sun, Iraq and Afghanistan are (as many feared) turning into Vietnam Mark 2, and it was years after the US pull out from SE Asia that complaints and criticisms surfaced. Very few people spoke out at the time with regard to complaints about poor policies and attrocities, and those that did were pretty much ostricized.

One of my personal heroes, Hugh C Thompson Jnr is a case in point for this kind of thing. He had the balls to stop the My Lai massacre and threatened to attack US troops if they carried on murdering villagers, going so far as to order his helicopter crewmen to open fire on anyone who did so, also ordering his superior officers to cease what they were doing (which, knowing they were doing wrong, was an order they obeyed, despite outranking him).

Of course, this did Thompson's career no favours whatsoever, and he (and his helicopter crew) were only eventually honored for their actions over thirty years after the event. Before that recognition, he was treated like dirt by the US Army, whereas what he actually did should be one of things of which they are most proud.

If more people displayed the kind of bravery and selflessness he did, the world would be a much better place.

You can read about Hugh C Thompson Jnr's actions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

:D Chock

Things are starting to change.
“If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

These are the junior field grade officers who are being groomed to lead the Army in the future. That this is happening at all at the Command and Staff course at all is kind of shocking to me but in a good way. It seems that professional courage and conscience is starting to grow. If it is happening here it is happening in the other services also.

For the sake of argument, a question was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?
“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

This is the most telling piece of the arcticle. By design the military are subservant to the national political authority. Are liberals now in favor of overturning this? Sounds like it. The unfortunate aspect for liberals is that they are unarmed by choice, and victims by predilection and birth.

I guess I need some of your overly wordy interpretation here SB:D

What does this clip to do with the thread subject?

Some will understand that without words, others even wont be helped with many words.

Sounds suspiciously like what the "The Sphinx" would say from the movie "Mystery Men".... Cool.... :cool:

But we can't just vacate Iraq with Iran standing by to fill the vacuum...

What can be done?

If you can't leave, as you say, then you have to stay. Your concerns you should have taken into account four and a half year earlier, beforer making the loosing move. Now it is too late, so you need to suffer the karma you have created yourself. You maybe will learn to understand what went wrong, and why, and see your errors back then. This will not free you from suffering your karma nevertheless.

I knew it Skybird... you are "The Sphinx"... :lol:

Funny how if you don't like something it's automatically liberal.:lol: Kind of narrow Waste Gate.

responsibility:
An act or course of action that is demanded of one, as by position, custom, law, or religion

They don't have to say no. That is wrong. But if more Generals had of honestly supported Gen Shinseki in claiming the goals were untenable would this disaster have happened? Was it right to fire a Army Chief of Staff because he gave a true assessment when asked by congress about his opinion on this invasion? Would the president have still pressed ahead if faced with the reality of his decision?
I leave it with this quote:
It is enough that this is being questioned.

Well what we do is learn from our mistakes . . . hunker down for the long-haul . . . grow our force size and capability to meet the foreseen needs of the situation . . . and adjust and overcome.
Defeat is not an option . . . the impact of a collapse of the Nation-State of Iraq on the region would have implications that would last dozens of years after that event. All those impacts would be foreseen as a negative on US interests in the region.
As with other situations, the US has the resources, if it chose to focus its resources, to avoid defeat, and achieve a marginal victory . . . if only we would have the willpower to avoid defeat.

Okay. Then where would these resources be to focus?

My question is simply this. Why can't we leave? Ultimately it is for the Iraqi people to figure out for themselves. Whether they live in peace or slaughter each other is ultimately their business and their responsibility. If all our troops are doing there is being targets for both sides of a religious civil war, what purpose are they serving there other than to protect oil. We need to remove our troops from Iraq and go back to hunting bin-laden and al-zuahiri in Waziristan, where our troops should have been concentrating the last four years.

But Bush won't do that. His plan is, and always was, to bankrupt the nation, break the military and dump this war off on the next administration so they can blame the next guy for "losing" Iraq.

Here's a clue. Iraq was lost the minute Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld and their little friends didn;t send enough troops to maintain civil order. If you read Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine", It's hard to escape the realization that chaos in Iraq was their plan all along.