Generals Want Rumsfeld to Resign

[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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

@ Deep Six

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:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

No hard feelings here.

Not from here. I was wrong and you called me on it.

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

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.

[Ducimus]

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

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Thats been since god made generals

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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

I knew you'd say that. 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]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

I knew you'd say that. 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.