NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

Damn.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html
*Giggles quietly at the "coming out" comment*

Communal property will be here in 5...4...3...

Fun. Is it a good thing...or a bad thing though...

Damn.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html
And in the same article,

A former top aide to Gen. Tommy Franks, a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, also stepped forward Thursday to defend Rumsfeld.

"Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," retired Marine Gen. Mike DeLong told CNN's "American Morning" on Thursday.

Further, the arguments against Rumsfeld seem to be what I had predicted, Another retired General, John Batiste said, "When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril." The generals are just P.O.'d that Franks was able to accomplish the invasion without the tens of thousands of casualties that they predicted.

Like I said, once you get Franks on record criticizing Rumsfeld, you have something to brag about.

Okay, one or two Generals might just be bitter and looking for a book deal. But this is what, the sixth or so General to blast Rumsfeld? Doesn't that show, even to the hardest Rumsfeld/Bush defender, that something just might be wrong?

This part of that article says it all:

Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders.

"If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."

Swannack also criticized the way the war was being run before he retired.

In May 2004, while still on active duty, Swannack told the Washington Post that he thought the United States was losing strategically in Iraq.

Okay, one or two Generals might just be bitter and looking for a book deal. But this is what, the sixth or so General to blast Rumsfeld? Doesn't that show, even to the hardest Rumsfeld/Bush defender, that something just might be wrong?

Actually the general impression is that a great deal of command doesn't like him. Too much of a micromanager. That worked well for the Germans didn't it? ;)

And in the same article,

Further, the arguments against Rumsfeld seem to be what I had predicted, Another retired General, John Batiste said, "When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril." The generals are just P.O.'d that Franks was able to accomplish the invasion without the tens of thousands of casualties that they predicted.

Like I said, once you get Franks on record criticizing Rumsfeld, you have something to brag about.
So Franks is the only person who can legitimatly criticize Rumsfeld? That's ridiculous. How about the other story I posted that said that he is extremely unpopular among active officers? They basically think he's stupid.

i really wanted this to be about gay sex!!!!

after the fort-bragg prono scandal, i cant get enough gay military sex.

So Franks is the only person who can legitimatly criticize Rumsfeld? That's ridiculous. How about the other story I posted that said that he is extremely unpopular among active officers? They basically think he's stupid.
The guys that are being trotted out by CNN and others are really third-tier generals. The military is just like any other bureaucracy, with generals jockeying for good assignments. There's more than a little back-stabbing and hurt feelings involved in the process. These guys just didn't make the cut and resent it.

The reason I put more emphasis on what Franks might say is because he is a first tier man. The fact that he enjoyed unparalleled success in the invasion and liberation of Iraq makes him a far more competent authority on the subject.

i really wanted this to be about gay sex!!!!

after the fort-bragg prono scandal, i cant get enough gay military sex.
The what?

On the general: Fantastic. Mebbe if we get all the generals protesting we could have a flat out military refusal to continue with operations in Iraq. Incredibly unlikely, but that doesn't mean we can't hope.

The guys that are being trotted out by CNN and others are really third-tier generals. The military is just like any other bureaucracy, with generals jockeying for good assignments. There's more than a little back-stabbing and hurt feelings involved in the process. These guys just didn't make the cut and resent it.

The reason I put more emphasis on what Franks might say is because he is a first tier man. The fact that he enjoyed unparalleled success in the invasion and liberation of Iraq makes him a far more competent authority on the subject.

Third-rate? The man who led the 82nd Airbourne during the Iraqi invasion is 'third-rate'?

So Franks is the only person who can legitimatly criticize Rumsfeld? That's ridiculous. How about the other story I posted that said that he is extremely unpopular among active officers? They basically think he's stupid.

I'm not in the Military, and I think he is stupid

i really wanted this to be about gay sex!!!!

after the fort-bragg prono scandal, i cant get enough gay military sex.

Me too.

Anyone can criticize Rummy. That's boring. A three star gay secks scandal. Now that would liven up an otherwise dull friday.

The guys that are being trotted out by CNN and others are really third-tier generals. The military is just like any other bureaucracy, with generals jockeying for good assignments. There's more than a little back-stabbing and hurt feelings involved in the process. These guys just didn't make the cut and resent it.

The reason I put more emphasis on what Franks might say is because he is a first tier man. The fact that he enjoyed unparalleled success in the invasion and liberation of Iraq makes him a far more competent authority on the subject.
No, the reason you put more emphasis on Franks is because it helps you to ignore the incompetence of this administration. So, let me ask you - rather than talk about what others say, how about you? How do you think it's going over there? :)

Here's an interesting take on it:

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=493&row=1

Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian
Friday, April 14, 2006

By Greg Palast

Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.

Well, according to my watch, they're about four years too late -- and they still don't get it.

I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink that the bemedalled boys in crew cuts are finally ready to kick Rummy In the rump, in public. But to me, it just shows me that these boys still can't shoot straight.

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up in front of the UN and identified two mobile latrines as biological weapons labs, was it, General Powell?

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who told us our next warning from Saddam could be a mushroom cloud, was it Condoleeza?

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who declared that Al Qaeda and Saddam were going steady, was it, Mr. Cheney?

Yes, Rumfeld is a swaggering bag of mendacious arrogance, a duplicitous chicken-hawk, yellow-bellied bully-boy and Tinker-Toy Napoleon -- but he didn't appoint himself Secretary of Defense.

Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of Defense you didn't read in the New York Times, related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our president placed in Baghdad as the US' first post-invasion viceroy.

Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working under the mistaken notion that when George Bush called for democracy in Iraq, the President meant the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding the President's true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of the cities to a desert base. "It's their country," the General told me of the Iraqis. "And," he added, most ominously, "their oil."

Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq's economy drafted secretly by neo-cons at the State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for "privatization" (i.e. the sale) of "all state assets ... especially in the oil and oil-supporting industries." See it here. The General knew of the plans and he intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don't shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big Tent" meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections. By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic government -- and this was back when Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation" turned into a hated "occupation."

But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition government would mean the death-knell for the neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.

On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line. He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack, Jack, you're fired."

Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators, just as Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.

Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the six generals' call for Rumfeld's ouster. Forget it.

For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can't shoot straight. They're wasting all their bullets on the decoy. They've gunned down the puppet instead of the puppeteers.

There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked General Garner from Baghdad without the word from The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl of approval. And ultimately, it's the Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.

Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't give them enough troops -- was ultimately a decision of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by the way, the problem was not that we lacked troops -- the problem was that we lacked moral authority to occupy this nation. A million troops would not be enough -- the insurgents would just have more targets.)

President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner, looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he's taken all their ammo."

When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld's resignation today, I can just hear George saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."

Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's the President, stupid.

No, the reason you put more emphasis on Franks is because it helps you to ignore the incompetence of this administration. So, let me ask you - rather than talk about what others say, how about you? How do you think it's going over there? :)
I've already stated that the invasion and liberation was an unqualified success. The occupation was initiated poorly by Paul Bremmer and, while he was eventually fired, it was too late. He had disbanded the Iraqi army and was doing english language broadcasts to the country. My opinion is that our troops, and the Iraqis alike, would have fared better if we had kept the State department out of the provisional government and allowed the military to subdue resistance by the most effective means. Oh, and we should have arrested Al-Sadr immediately and put down any subsequent protests in a forceful manner.

Strong action means the most in that part of the world. How fast did Khadafi back down from his WMD program after the invasion? And Syria started it's withdrawal from Lebanon, as well. The terrorists in Iraq would not have operated with such impunity if we had not allowed them the sanctuary of mosques.

Rumsfeld isn't the problem. It's the whole damned P.C. administration.

The what?

On the general: Fantastic. Mebbe if we get all the generals protesting we could have a flat out military refusal to continue with operations in Iraq. Incredibly unlikely, but that doesn't mean we can't hope.

Actually, the ones calling for Rumsfeld to resign are all retired generals, that no longer have authority to command the military.

Actually, the ones calling for Rumsfeld to resign are all retired generals, that no longer have authority to command the military.
Yes, because when active generals do that, they get the boot.

I've already stated that the invasion and liberation was an unqualified success. The occupation was initiated poorly by Paul Bremmer and, while he was eventually fired, it was too late. He had disbanded the Iraqi army and was doing english language broadcasts to the country. My opinion is that our troops, and the Iraqis alike, would have fared better if we had kept the State department out of the provisional government and allowed the military to subdue resistance by the most effective means. Oh, and we should have arrested Al-Sadr immediately and put down any subsequent protests in a forceful manner.

Strong action means the most in that part of the world. How fast did Khadafi back down from his WMD program after the invasion? And Syria started it's withdrawal from Lebanon, as well. The terrorists in Iraq would not have operated with such impunity if we had not allowed them the sanctuary of mosques.

Rumsfeld isn't the problem. It's the whole damned P.C. administration.
In one post you just echoed every sentiment that the generals complaining about Rumsfeld has said. just about every complaint you have here was Rumsfeld's call and these are some of the exact same things the generals are saying went wrong including your overall statement of too much civilian control over military decisions.