Generals Want Rumsfeld to Resign

[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]

Originally Posted by scandium

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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="bradclark1"]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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
Neal

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

...
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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

The code of "I was only following orders"?
How would you voice your displeasure and expect to be heard?

Strawman. 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?

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Why can't Democrats figure this out?

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.

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.