Generals Vs. Rumsfeld

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Apr 16, 2006.

  1. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    I find this interesting, and will definitely research the thorny legal issue he brings up about "oath to the Constitution, not the leaders in charge"

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    I think its good, honest criticism. No one is untouchable, and Rumsfeld's misdeeds may finally have reached the tipping point. Recall the mini-rebellion hatched during Kosovo over Cohen and Clinton, or the way Colin Powell while on active duty as the head of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff essentially rebelled against Clinton back in 93.

    At least this time its RETIRED generals. They have the right, and really, the duty to open their mouths and offer their educated opinions.

    Take Zinni for example, back in 98 when he was the head of CENTCOM (Iraq's in that op area), DESERT FOX hit Saddam so hard that for a few days, folks in the military and intel communities were scared shitless that they might have knocked the regime out of power. They rushed to create a post-Saddam plan that encompassed everything from NGO relationships with the military to power-sharing agreements among the ethnic groups, as well as contigencies, like the Kurds refusing to cooperate and leaning towards independence.

    All of this was still revelant in 2002 when Rumsfeld and Franks ditched the plan calling it unrealistic, yet then never created a replacement for it, hence the post-Saddam chaos.

    IF you were Zinni, wouldn't you be pissed at seeing good American soldiers die because of ineptitude like that?

    I mean, whether Rumsfeld should be fired or not, he doesn't have the right not to recieve criticism.

    At LEAST, AT LEAST, at this point, the real targets of a lot of these generals ire, Cheney and Bush, are not being named. YET.

    Then it will really get ugly. To their credit though, they've kept it to Rumsfeld and stayed out of it until after the 2004 presidental election.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Simple fact ...... Iraq today, with it's factional infighting, is EXACTLY what the military community has been predicting since the first Gulf War would be the outcome of ousting Saddam. In that, the Bush Administration ignored the military in favor of following thier own course of action. The realities of the situation on the ground were ignored in favor of political correctness.

    I disagree with the author's assessment of just who or what military personnel owe their allegience to. We all swear (or affirm!) to "uphold the Constitution of the United States;" not, the current administration.

    These generals are retired. With that comes being freed of the yoke of subservience to the political machine. I'm one of the first to come to the defense of the current administration when the usual, two-a-week, BS accusations are thrown out to see if they stick. In this case, I believe the criticism is essentially correct. Instead of addressing the allegations, Rumsfeld, Pace, et al have chosen to attack the generals themselves.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Well over the weekend three other generals came out backing Rumsfeld, so we are probably going to be treated to a tug of war. I think the following editorial is quite right, though based on past history, the administration will cave and Rumsfeld will do, probably providing the final nail in the coffin of the WOT, until the next large scale attack:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008249



     
  5. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    That is unfair criticism of Zinni,

    Bush's "freedom" agenda is dead anyway, killed by his own blatant hypocricy and his adminstration's inexcuseable incompetence. You can't preach democracy in the Middle East and stand silent as innocent, unarmed Egyptians are beaten, tortured and murdered in the streets by their own government. Nor can you tout democracy and then treat Hamas and the Palestinian people's DEMOCRATIC election of them to office as unworthy of your aid, support or counsel because you don't like the results of the free and fair elections. Not to mention the fence sitting on genocide in Dar Fur and the slaughter of citizens in Uzbekistan.

    When I mean unfair criticism of Zinni, I mean that he is against centering "democracy" at the forefront of US foreign policy, but instead supports fighting "instability", whether addressing it preemptively when the warning signs are there (like investing heavily in the local police and counterintelligence of a nation that has experienced a terror bomb campaign like Bangladesh) or handling the "crisis' before it becomes a war, (as in using a credible threat of force against the Sudanese government to stop the slaughter of Dar Fur tribes that is leading to the destablization of that part of Africa and the increasing chances of war there).
     
  6. nosarcasm
    Offline

    nosarcasm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +68
    I think retired generals have the right to critisize government officials.

    In this case I felt they got it only partly right. Rumsfeld leaner attack force
    worked great, a modern armored fist Blitzkrieg attack that smashed the Iraqi army in record time driving through Baghdad before the Arab world could get out the popcorn.

    The occupation phase could have been handled better and then it seems the US lacked troop and planning. The looting and disorder after the end of fighting is a good indicator for that.

    That bruised egos and hindsight know it all syndrom are part of the critics brigades is inevitable but still the number of critics that came out indicate Rumsfeld did a less then stellar job. Since the Dems came out to headhunt now Bush has to keep him for political reasons.

    Since Rumsfeld twice before offered his resignation he himself seems to doubt his own success.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    NATO, I think many would agree with the assessment of Zinni. As for Palestinians, holding them responsible for their own choices does not negate their ability to elect whatever leadership they support. Since they chose a group that is on US terror list and has been for years; still calls for the destruction of our ally; continues to support missiles and suicide bombings, I think the government has made the correct call.

    As for Rumsfeld, I have little doubt Bush will cave, as he has done over and over again.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    This is what I meant regarding Palestinian rulers:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060417...HwUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    As for Eqypt, seems we are still in the diplomatic mode, do you think we should skip and go right for sanctions? There are considerations regarding Mubarak having also a 'very bad neighborhood' much like the reason that until the elections, we were funding the 'Palestinians', knowing that much of it was being diverted to terror and corruption:

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...gov&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...gov&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=firefox-a
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Have any of these retired generals shown that Rumsfield is acting in opposition to the Constitution? Or are they just spouting off in opposition to the war in Iraq?
     

Share This Page