Generals Vs. Rumsfeld

[NATO AIR]

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"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,4080791.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

From the Los Angeles Times
Generals versus Rumsfeld
By Andrew J. Bacevich
ANDREW J. BACEVICH is professor of international relations at Boston University and the author of "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War."

April 15, 2006

THE ENDGAME of America's misbegotten crusade in Iraq may be nowhere in sight, but the search for scapegoats has begun in earnest. Who shall bear primary responsibility for this shipwreck, the civilian officials who conceived the war or the generals charged with waging it? After three years during which no one paid much attention to matters of accountability, those questions are now assuming a sudden urgency.

In recent days, one retired general after another has declared his views, hurling accusations of recklessness, bad judgment and bad faith at the Pentagon's senior civilian leadership. Gens. Anthony Zinni, Greg Newbold, John Riggs, John Batiste, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack — the latter three of whom are Iraq war veterans — have singled out Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for particular abuse and are demanding that he be sacked.

Yet even if the charges leveled against the defense secretary have merit, framing the issue as one of stalwart warriors versus meddling politicos is dishonest and deceptive. When Swannack, for example, blames Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib, he gives up the game: By pointing fingers at Rumsfeld, the generals hope to deflect attention from the military's own egregious mistakes.

In one sense, the unedifying spectacle of disenchanted generals publicly attacking their erstwhile boss does serve a useful purpose. It reveals the dirty little secret that the Pentagon has attempted to conceal ever since Vietnam: At the upper echelons of the national security establishment, relations between soldiers and civilians are mired in dysfunction.

A relationship that requires candor and mutual respect is instead based on mistrust and manipulation. The rituals of deference and warm regard displayed at news conferences or on ceremonial occasions can no longer conceal this reality.

An effective partnership between the brass and their civilian masters implies balance. When it comes to conducting the fight, politicians ought to allow their generals a certain autonomy. When it comes to defining a war's purpose and establishing its parameters, the generals must recognize that the authority of the politicians is supreme.

Since the day he took command of the Pentagon, Rumsfeld has been using his famous "8,000-mile screwdriver" to tilt the civil-military balance his way. According to his critics, he is Robert McNamara reborn — an arrogant micromanager, contemptuous of soldierly expertise and certain of his own infallibility.

Especially telling, in their eyes, was Rumsfeld's treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, who before the Iraq invasion warned that the occupation was likely to pose large challenges. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz immediately retaliated. For speaking unwelcome truths, Shinseki found himself pilloried, humiliated and marginalized. In the eyes of his fellow generals, Shinseki became a martyr.



BUT IN THEIR eagerness to settle scores, Rumsfeld's pursuers are flirting with ideas that can only be regarded as subversive. Newbold, for one, has resurrected the notion that a senior officer's primary obligation lies not to those atop the chain of command but to the Constitution.

This theory last surfaced during the Korean War, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur publicly derided the proposition that soldiers "owe primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch." In citing a higher allegiance, MacArthur was attempting to justify the flagrant insubordination that had cost him his job. Wrong in 1951, MacArthur's theory is equally wrong today. To grant even the most narrowly drawn exceptions to the principle of civilian control is to open up a Pandora's box of complications.

In the short term, instigating Rumsfeld's ouster might secure him top billing in the list of bunglers who screwed up the Iraq war. In the long term, it would only exacerbate the underlying problem. Unless and until we can restore some semblance of civilian-military effectiveness, defective policies will be the norm rather than the exception. This — not the sins of Donald Rumsfeld — is the nub of the matter.

The issue is one that ought to be addressed in the political realm. Indeed, it cries out for serious and sustained legislative attention. In past conflicts, Congress has established joint committees to evaluate the war's conduct. Such an investigation of the Iraq war is long overdue.

If the manifestly anemic Congress cannot rouse itself to undertake such a task, it might create a commission like the one that investigated the events of 9/11, charging it with assessing the civilian-military dissonance that has hampered the war's planning and execution. Today's dissident generals could testify before such a commission, making their case against Rumsfeld but also accounting for the military's performance.

In the meantime, they can best serve their country by heeding the example set by the martyred Shinseki. Since his departure from active duty, Shinseki has kept his own counsel. He has not joined the pack of those hounding Rumsfeld. His silence is a rebuke more telling than any words that he might speak. And it offers a model of true military professionalism as well.

 

[NATO AIR]

Gosh, I hate to see this going on right now, while our men and women are over in Iraq and Afganhanistan. It saddens me to know end. This is six military men out of HOW MANY? I'm holding my thoughts.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[Annie]

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

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Generals War
What's behind the attacks against Rumsfeld.

Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

So when did Generals cease to be responsible for outcomes in war? We ask that question amid the latest calls by certain retired senior military officers for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over U.S. difficulties in Iraq.

Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr., for one, was quoted last week as saying the Defense Secretary's "absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq" mean he is not "the right person" to continue leading the Pentagon. Mr. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq, joins other ex-uniformed Iraq War critics such as former Centcom Commander Anthony Zinni and retired Army Major General John Batiste. But there's far more behind this firefight than Mr. Rumsfeld's performance.

Mr. Zinni in particular neither fought the Iraq War nor supported it in the first place. He is a longtime advocate of "realism" in the Middle East, which is fancy-speak for leaving Arab dictators alone in the name of "stability." What Mr. Zinni really opposes is President Bush's "forward strategy of freedom," not the means by which the Administration has waged the Iraq campaign.

As for those who've raised the issue of competence, we'd be more persuaded if they weren't so impossibly vague. If their critique is that Mr. Rumsfeld underestimated the Sunni insurgency, well, so did the CIA and military intelligence. Retired General Tommy Franks, who led and planned the campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein, took a victory lap after the invasion even as the insurgency gathered strength.

If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.

Our point here isn't to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there's a reason the word "snafu" began as a military acronym whose meaning we can't reprint in a family newspaper. But if we're going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.

A recent article by former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the Center for Defense Information details how the U.S. advance on Baghdad in March and April 2003 was slowed against Mr. Rumsfeld's wishes by overcautious commanders on the scene. That may have allowed Saddam and many of his supporters to escape to fight the insurgency. General Abizaid also resisted the first assault on Fallujah, in April 2004, which sent a signal of U.S. political weakness. We don't agree with all of Mr. Macgregor's points, but it is likely that these Rumsfeld critics are trying to write their own first, rough draft of historic blame shifting.

Our own view is that the worst mistakes in Iraq have been more political than military, especially in not establishing a provisional Iraqi government from the very start. Instead, the U.S. allowed itself to be portrayed as occupiers, a fact that the insurgency exploited. But the blame for that goes well beyond Mr. Rumsfeld--and would extend to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and to Mr. Bush himself.

Mr. Rumsfeld's largest mistake may have been giving L. Paul Bremer too free a hand to govern like a viceroy in 2003 and 2004 when a more rapid turnover of political power to Iraqis, and more rapid training of Iraqi forces, might have made a big difference. More than anything else, that unnecessary delay in Iraq's political and self-defense evolution has contributed to the current instability.

But that is for the historians to sort out. What matters now is doing what it takes to prevail in Iraq, setting up a new government and defeating the terrorists. How firing Mr. Rumsfeld will help in any of this, none of the critics say. They certainly aren't offering any better military strategy for victory.

More than likely, Mr. Rumsfeld's departure would create new problems, starting with a crisis of confidence in Iraq about American staying power. What do Mr. Rumsfeld's critics imagine Iraqis think as they watch former commanders assigning blame? And how would a Rumsfeld resignation contribute to the credible threat of force necessary to meet America's next major security challenge, which is Iran's attempt to build a nuclear bomb? Sacking the Defense Secretary mid-conflict would only reinforce the Iranian mullahs' belief that they have nothing to worry about because Americans have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in their part of the world.

The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration.

Mr. Rumsfeld's departure has been loudly demanded in various quarters for a couple of years now, without much success, and on Friday Mr. Bush said he still has his every confidence. We suspect the President understands that most of those calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's head are really longing for his.

 

[NATO AIR]

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).

 

[nosarcasm]

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.

 

[Annie]

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).

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.

 

[Annie]

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).

This is what I meant regarding Palestinian rulers:

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

Suicide Bomber Kills 8 in Tel Aviv

By DANIEL ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 17 minutes ago

A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling commercial area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49, police said. Israeli Prime Minister-designate Ehud Olmert said Israel would respond "as necessary."

"We shall, of course, continue to use all means at our disposal to prevent every other attempt," he said.

Israeli defense chiefs were to consult later Monday, but security officials said a possible reoccupation of Gaza, the base of the new Hamas government, was not being considered.

The White House strongly condemned the attack, calling it "a despicable act of terror for which there is no excuse or justification."

A security guard posted outside the restaurant, the target of a suicide bombing in January, prevented Monday's bomber from entering the building, police said.

It was the first suicide attack in Israel since the Hamas militant group took over the Palestinian government 2 1/2 weeks ago. Hamas, which has killed hundreds of Israelis in attacks, has largely observed a cease-fire since February 2005.

The Islamic Jihad militant group, which is believed to be funded in part by Iran and refuses to observe a cease-fire, claimed responsibility in a telephone call to The Associated Press. The group identified the bomber as Sami Salim Mohammed Hammed, from the West Bank town of Jenin.

Islamic Jihad later released a video showing Hammed reading a statement saying the bombing was dedicated to the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

"There are many other bombers on the way," he said. Hammed, appearing to be in his mid to late teens, was dressed in black and wore a headband with yellow Quranic verses.

Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for all six of the previous suicide attacks inside Israel since the cease-fire was declared. On Sunday, the group pledged to carry out more attacks.

Hamas leaders called the bombing a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression" — a sharp departure from the previous Palestinian leadership's immediate condemnations of such attacks.

"We think that this operation ... is a direct result of the policy of the occupation and the brutal aggression and siege committed against our people," said Khaled Abu Helal, spokesman for the Hamas-led Interior Ministry.

Earlier, Moussa abu Marzouk, a Hamas leader abroad, told Al-Jazeera television that "the Israeli side must feel what the Palestinian feels, and the Palestinian defends himself as much as he can."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fatah Party, condemned the bombing, calling it a "terrorist attack."

The bomber struck at about 1:40 p.m. at "The Mayor's Felafel" restaurant, which was targeted in a Jan. 19 attack that wounded 20 people. The restaurant is in the bustling Neve Shaanan neighborhood near Tel Aviv's central bus station, which was crowded with holiday travelers.

Police said the restaurant hired a security guard after the earlier bombing, and that guard apparently was injured in Monday's blast.

A witness, Moussa al Zidat, said the guard asked the apparent bomber to open his bag.

"I saw a young man starting to open his bag. The guard begins opening the bag, and then I heard a boom."

Witness Israel Yaakov said the blast killed a woman standing near her husband and children.

"The father was traumatized. He went into shock. He ran to the children to gather them up and the children were screaming, 'Mom! Mom!' and she wasn't answering, she was dead already ... it's a shocking scene," Yaakov said.

Another witness, 62-year-old Sonya Levy, said she had just finished shopping when the blast occurred.

"I was about to get into my car, and boom! There was an explosion. A bit of human flesh landed on my car and I started to scream," she said.

Her car was 50 yards from the explosion and its windshield was smeared with blood.

Olmert said the blast came as no surprise.

"It's not something that we didn't fear would happen, we know the terrorist organizations groups continue at every moment to look for opportunities to carry out attacks inside Israel," he said. "The security forces are deployed in every corner, every place, but we also know that there is no way we can always prevent such attacks, under all circumstances, in every case."

Police said nine people, including the bomber, were killed. Medics said nine of the injured were in serious condition.

The wounded were treated on sidewalks. One man was lying on his side, his shirt pushed up and his back covered by bandages. A bleeding woman was wheeled away on a stretcher. A dazed-looking man walked near the site, his white T-shirt splattered with blood.

The blast shattered the windshields of cars, and blew out the windows of nearby buildings. The ground was covered with glass shards and blood. The sign of the restaurant's building was blown away. Bottles and other debris were scattered up to 25 yards from the site of the blast.

While rescue crews tended to the wounded, a helicopter hovered overhead and a marksman took position on the roof of the targeted building.

Later, Israeli police stopped a car carrying three Palestinians suspected of aiding the bomber, officials said. The car, identified by witnesses at the scene of the attack, was stopped at a checkpoint on a highway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, police said.

Authorities suspected the vehicle was "directly connected" to the attack, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. The car's three occupants were detained for questioning, and a bomb squad was examining the vehicle.

It was the second major Passover bombing in four years. In 2002, a Palestinian bomber blew himself up at a hotel in the coastal town of Netanya, killing 29 people. That attack triggered a major Israeli military offensive.

Palestinian militants have carried out nine suicide attacks in Israel and the West Bank since a Feb. 8, 2005, truce declaration. All but one attack have been carried out by Islamic Jihad.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir said Israel held Hamas ultimately responsible for such attacks because it is "giving support to all the other terrorist organizations."

"From our point of view it doesn't matter if it comes from Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad or Hamas. They all come out of the same school of terrorism led by Hamas," he said.

 

[Annie]

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

 

[5stringJeff]

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?

 

[Annie]

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?

NATO thinks they are correct, I find them more along the lines of the WSJ editorial today-most have book deals. As I said, I see nothing outside of continuing the Iraq war, that leads me to believe Bush will not cave on Rumsfeld, in effect bringing an end to the possibility of prosecuting the war successfully, due to loss of confidence.

 

[Annie]

Another I agree with. Same Thomas Lipscomb from American Thinker blog:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref17.html

Other Views
If Rumsfeld's so bad, why didn't generals resign?

April 17, 2006

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB
Advertisement


There is a great furor over whether the opinions of a number of retired high-ranking officers should tip the balance in the ongoing debate over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

But the question really isn't whether Rumsfeld should resign. He has already resigned several times and had President Bush tear up his letters of resignation. He clearly is taking responsibility for his actions on a continuing basis.

But now that a galaxy of flag officers are raining down on Rumsfeld demanding his resignation, no one seems to have bothered to ask which, if any, of these generals had ever submitted his own resignation in protest against the conduct of the Iraq war, or the bumpy transition we are locked in now. The demands for Rumsfeld's resignation began with Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Differences in policy between the Pentagon brass and its civilian leadership are nothing new. At the end of the Clinton administration there was a dinner at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in honor of the Joint Chiefs off Staff that illustrates this well. Over the years the Council has morphed from a small but influential voice in international policy issues to a glorified Rotary Club for Park Avenue investment bankers and lawyers. The once acerbic off-the-record questioning that rattled many of its guests of honor has degenerated into a love fest hosted largely for star-struck millionaires.

After listening to subtle and not so subtle digs at national defense policy by the guests of honor and appreciative sniggers from the audience, I jotted a question down on the back of a card and passed it to former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, who was at my table. ''If you have so many significant disagreements with national defense policy, what have you done about it?'' Lehman wrote back that if I asked that question, he'd buy me lunch, and passed it back to me with a smile. So I asked it.

''What do you expect us to do?'' a senior Marine general replied. ''Resign,'' I said. ''Cyrus Vance did. And he was [President Jimmy] Carter's secretary of state.'' ''You are questioning my cojones, and I am a Marine!'' the general shot back as the millionaire fan club gasped at my disrespect.

He was right. I was. I still am, his and any general officers who apparently decided discretion was the better part of a nice retirement parade with a medal or two and a couple of offers of board positions. At least Wesley Clark got himself fired and summarily retired as NATO commander in comparative disgrace for submarining the Balkans policies of his Oxford classmate President Bill Clinton and his defense secretary, William Cohen. Gen. Billy Mitchell is regarded by many as having saved American military aviation by accepting a court-martial and resigning from the service he loved because of his differences in policy with the federal government.

Retired military and civil servants are receiving ongoing retirement pay from American taxpayers. If they want to give the public the benefit of their experience in consideration of current policies, we are fortunate to get it. But policy differences are one matter and calls for a specific resignation are quite something else. As a book publishing executive for many years, I have always welcomed the opportunity to make a buck by publishing ''now it can be told revelations'' from those formerly in power. And timing those ''revelations'' to promote a forthcoming book is one of the oldest tricks in the trade.

But if Generals Gregory Newbold, John Batiste, Zinni and others have believed Rumsfeld's policies have been so dire that they are calling for his resignation, their opinions would have carried far more weight if they had stated them at some personal cost to themselves while on active service by resigning in protest. That action might have also carried some evidence of the courage Americans expect of the highest ranking officers of its uniformed services.

Thomas Lipscomb is senior fellow of the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future. He founded Times Books. [email protected]

 

[CSM]

Another I agree with. Same Thomas Lipscomb from American Thinker blog:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref17.html

I firmly beleive these generals have an axe to grind and it isn't the war they are so concerned about.

 

[Annie]

Last post on Hamas I'll put here, for the time being. Here's why the US was correct to cut off funding:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3D27E17D-01B4-4CAD-9F6C-EB3538B5D411.htm

Palestinians split over Tel Aviv blast

Monday 17 April 2006, 18:25 Makka Time, 15:25 GMT

Hamas said the blast was a response to Israeli aggression
Related:
Tel Aviv blast kills nine

Palestinian groups have given divided reaction to Monday's suicide bombing at a restaurant in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and leader of the Fatah movement, condemned the attack as an act of terrorism.

In a statement he said: "This operation does not go in line with the Palestinian national consensus and the ... interests of the Palestinian people."

However, spokesmen for Hamas, which recently took over the Palestinian government, defended the bombing as a response to what they called Israeli aggression.

Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas's official spokesman, said the attack was an act of "self-defence" which he said was a reaction to "the continued Israeli crimes against our people".

"The Israeli occupation bears responsibility for the continuation of its aggression. Our people are in a state of self-defence and they have every right to use all means to defend themselves," he said.

Hamas interior ministry spokesman Khaled Abu Helal also said the bombing was a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression".

"This operation ... is a direct result of the policy of the occupation and the brutal aggression and siege committed against our people," he said.

Meanwhile, Moussa abu Marzouk, a Hamas leader in Syria, told Al Jazeera that "the Israeli side must feel what the Palestinian feels".

"The Palestinian defends himself as much as he can," he said.

pics via Michelle Malkin:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005004.htm

 

[Annie]

I firmly beleive these generals have an axe to grind and it isn't the war they are so concerned about.

On a bit of a humorous note. Links at site, which follows:

How many generals oppose Rumsfeld?

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, relishes the controversy over a few retired generals who have called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. Joining the media dogpile, Vanden Heuvel asks:

Batiste. Eaton. Newbold. Riggs. Zinni... Is there a retired general left in the States who hasn't called on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fall on his sword? While The Nation suggested he resign in April, 2003, an unanticipated and unprecedented cast of characters has joined the growing chorus.

So far something like six of these guys have sounded off. Heck, I'll be generous. Let's say a full dozen are out there talking to the mainstream media and urging Rumsfeld's ouster. Where does that leave us? Right here, Katrina...:

Go to site:

http://www.brainshavings.com/mt/archives/001948.html

 

[Annie]

Another article I read and wondered about. Blankley I think is bringing up some valid points:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/seven_days_in_april_generals_p.html

April 18, 2006
Seven Days in April -- Generals Prepare to 'Revolt' Against Rumsfeld
By Tony Blankley

Consider two hypothetical situations. In the first, a United States Army general officer in a theater of war decides by himself that he strongly disagrees with the orders of the secretary of defense. He resigns his commission, returns to private life and speaks out vigorously against both the policy and the secretary of defense.

In example two, the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree amongst themselves to retire and speak out -- each one day after the other.

In example one, above, unambiguously, the general has behaved lawfully. In example two, an arguable case could be made that something in the nature of a mutinous sedition has occurred in violation of Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice procedure. When does an expanded version of the simple honesty and legality of the first example cross over into grounds for a court martial?

More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?

This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday's Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled "Behind the Military Revolt." In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: "If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld."

Mr. Holbrooke is at the least very well-informed -- if he is not himself part of this military cabal intended to "consume ... Donald Rumsfeld." Mr. Holbrooke sets the historic tone of his article in his first sentence when he says this event is "the most serious public confrontation between the military and administration since . . . Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur."

He takes that model one step further later in his article when he compares the current campaign against Rumsfeld with the MacArthur event and with Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln and Gen. John Singlaub against Carter, writing: "But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt."

A "revolt" of several American generals against the secretary of defense (and by implication against the president)? Admittedly, if each general first retires and then speaks out, there would appear to be no violation of law.

But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events, they may be illegally conspiring together to do that which would be legal if done without agreement. And Ambassador Holbrooke's article is -- if it is not a fiction (which I doubt it is) -- strong evidence of such an agreement. Of course, a conspiracy is merely an agreement against public policy.

The upcoming, unprecedented generals' "revolt" described by Mr. Holbrooke, if it is not against the law, certainly comes dangerously close to violating three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

"Article 94 -- Mutiny and sedition
(a) "Any person subject to this chapter who --
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition."

"Article 88 -- Contempt toward officials
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

"Article 134. General Article. Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
​

Certainly, generals and admirals are traditionally given more leeway to publicly assess war policies than is given to those in lower ranks. But with that broader, though limited, discretion comes the responsibility not to be seen to in any way contradict the absolute rule of civilians over the military in our constitutional republic.

The president has his authority granted to him by the people in the election of 2004. Where exactly do the generals in "revolt" think their authority comes from?

 

[Annie]

This is what I've been saying, though I doubt Bush won't cave:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/67123.htm

RUMSFELD'S JOB SECURITY

By JOHN PODHORETZ

April 18, 2006 -- WHAT'S the dumbest thing George W. Bush could possibly do right at this moment - the action that would, more than any other, suggest his presidency was and is all but finished?

The answer: Fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Either a forced resignation or a dismissal would effectively bring the Bush presidency to an end.

This is something that Bush's out-and-out foes and opponents of the war in Iraq surely understand, otherwise they wouldn't be salivating over the prospect and doing everything they can to put pressure on the president to make it happen.

But some supporters of the president's efforts in Iraq also seem anxious to see Rummy replaced. These thoughtful people have had problems with the war plan from the start and have been insisting for several years that only with another Defense Secretary can the war plan's mistakes be corrected and the conflict brought to a positive conclusion.

Yet such a move would be an unmitigated disaster for the effort in Iraq.

Imagine the aftermath of a Rumsfeld firing: The presumption in the press and from gleeful Democrats would be that Bush was effectively acknowledging that the military campaign in Iraq would be doomed to failure with Rummy at the helm.

It would be a time for endless recapitulations of the supposed errors in judgment made by Rumsfeld and his people before, during and after the war - all spun to support the contention (from the retired generals who are now on the offensive against Rumsfeld and the State Department types who never liked the whole business) that the war was misconceived and has been badly waged.

Days and days of those retrospectives would accelerate the sense of depression and futility among the American people about the prospects for victory in Iraq.

In this hothouse atmosphere, Bush would then nominate a successor for Rumsfeld. That nominee, whoever he might be, would have to appear before the Senate in confirmation hearings that probably couldn't start until June.

And those hearings would be a total and complete zoo. The committee's Democrats would turn them into a referendum on the Iraq war, demanding that the nominee enumerate all the failings of the current military strategy and the ways in which he planned to make it better.

They'd place the nominee in an impossible position. Were he to defend the president and the war-fighting plan, he'd be derided as a know-nothing yes man. Were he to separate himself from the plan, the matter would not end there. Why wasn't he more supportive of it? Did he believe we could achieve victory in Iraq? And by when?

And the Republicans on the committee, looking at the president's poll numbers and the war's unpopularity, would either chime in with Democrats when they thought the occasion warranted or run for the high grass.

Other witnesses would be called to testify, ones who'd use the occasion to barnstorm for a quick conclusion to the American presence in Iraq. Once again, Republicans would stand all but mute before them, terrified of saying something that might bring down the wrath of the e-mailers.

At the end of this destructive process, the new Secretary of Defense would take the oath of office in the midst of a general meltdown. The American people, hearing no confidence coming from the war's own leaders about the coming victory, would be throwing up their hands in even greater numbers.

And the 150,000 brave men and women of our armed forces who are in Iraq attempting to do something great, could not but realize that their countrymen and their leaders were really and truly washing their hands of the effort. At which point they would rightly lose heart, and they too would begin to lobby for a getaway.

If you are among those who now basically think we might as well declare defeat even before we go home, then by all means, shout "Fire Rummy" at the top of your lungs.

But if you are among those who believe the war in Iraq must be won and that we can win it, it is madness to join the "Fire Rummy" crew. Even if you think Rumsfeld doesn't deserve to keep the job, he must. There's no other way.

[email protected]

 

[Stephanie]

I just don't belive it would be a good decision at this stage in the fight on the WOT. It will make us look weak, which is what the Dems and lame stream media want, it seems.
I personally like Rumsfelds. Tough as nails.

 

[NATO AIR]

Regarding Hamas, my point is that you cannot preach democracy to the Arab people and tell them America will support them, then turn around and NOT support them after they hold a democratic election. That's hypocritical in the worst way. Typical of the incompetence of the foreign policy here, the shortsightedness. Instead of co-opting Hamas, or even restraining them, we push away from them and give ourselves no control or even say in the situation of them or the Palestinian people. Way to go USA!

In regards to Rumsfeld resigning or being fired, despite the fact he should have been fired two years over Abu Gharib, I've actually come to the conclusion that firing or making him resign now would be bad because it is doubtful anyone worth a shit would replace him. We don't need a caretaker DOD head. We need a leader, Rumsfeld is neither a caretaker or a leader anymore, more like a sad, pathetic broken old man whose dream of transformation has died at the hands of his enemies and whose misadventure in Iraq will forever eclipse his brilliance and wit in the Afghanistan invasion.

We're stuck with this administration, for not much better and a whole lot worse, until Jan. 2009. I hope to God a Republican like Brownback or Romney wins that seat, but with the Bush Administration already effectively in cruise mode until they leave, the Republicans may be too damaged to triumph in 2008.

 

[Annie]

Regarding Ha*as, my point is that you cannot preach democracy to the Arab people and tell them America will support them, then turn around and NOT support them after they hold a democratic election. That's hypocritical in the worst way. Typical of the incompetence of the foreign policy here, the shortsightedness. Instead of co-opting Ha*as, or even restraining them, we push away from them and give ourselves no control or even say in the situation of them or the Palestinian people. Way to go USA!

In regards to Rumsfeld resigning or being fired, despite the fact he should have been fired two years over Abu Ghari*, I've actually come to the conclusion that firing or making him resign now would be bad because it is doubtful anyone worth a shi* would replace him. We don't need a caretaker DOD head. We need a leader, Rumsfeld is neither a caretaker or a leader anymore, more like a sad, pathetic broken old man whose dream of transformation has died at the hands of his enemies and whose misadventure in Iraq will forever eclipse his brilliance and wit in the Afghanistan invasion.

We're stuck with this administration, for not much better and a whole lot worse, until Jan. 2009. I hope to Go* a Republican like Brownback or Romney wins that seat, but with the Bush Administration already effectively in cruise mode until they leave, the Republicans may be too damaged to triumph in 2008.

I understand what you are saying regarding Ha*as. I disagree that is what was done. The attempt to restrain them was made, they rejected, which is certainly their right as elected leaders. Then again, they must pay the price of those decisions. That is being treated as lawful leaders, not children.