Generals Want Rumsfeld to Resign

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

You just don't get it do you? This is not a political problem.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Chain of Command, Brad......Chain of Command.

[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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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. 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:

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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]

Originally Posted by scandium

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

I was referring to other posters further back.

You can understand my confusion, as you were quoting me.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

You can understand my confusion, as you were quoting me.

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.