"I listen to the commanders on the ground"...right.

I remeber GEN Shinseki and Secretary of the Army White saying that 150,000 wasnt enough they were fired.

Some of the Generals I listed in a previous post had already complained while still in uniform. What the writer doesnt get is that you can object, but once the order is given its three bags full sir and you execute your mission. If asked by a press person they would probably get that answer. In uniform you dont air your dirty laundry in public.

Its easy to write a few paragrpahs about whiny Generals when you are sitting in a comfy chair at Rutgers University.
 
Let's get one thing straight: Shinseki was and still is a putz. (Not sure if "putz" is verboten 'round here. We'll see if the naughty-language filters give it the axe.)

Shinseki, the future Democrat candidate for the US Senate from Hawaii, was so enamored of cheese-richard "peace-keeping" missions he wanted entire brigades modeled on euro-weenie wheeled armored vehicles. He also thought you could lift morale by passing out black berets, so every soldier could feel "special." Kinda like those toddler soccer games where nobody actually keeps score. They're all winners!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701261.html
Washington Post said:
The president's signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary -- and troubling -- eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. A couple of those who have spoken out, including retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, opposed the war all along, but three others served in top positions in Iraq. Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime. If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?

In our view Mr. Rumsfeld's failures should have led to his departure long ago. But he should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, retired or not.
Click to expand...

As for Zinni:
Brit Hume said:
Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni ? the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ? now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."

But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."
Click to expand...

Before the advent of the 'net, you could get away with just this sort of...convenient memory.
 
Look for the quotes on how much the war would cost and how we were going to be greated as liberators by Cheney and Company. Rumsfeld is just part of the total inept package.

On NPR today, some general made it clear that by criticizing Rummy, the nasty generals were saying that Bush was just as culpable.

So be it.
 
It was apparent to me since this story broke that the complainers were likely political partisans.

I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop.:cool:
 
Wow. What a coincidence that five or six generals would get enough courage to publicly tell everyone they were right from the start. The same week.

By the way, when did generals not have any responsibility as to how a war turns out?

Nope. If anyone thinks this is just an airing of concerns by some now-retired generals with a burden on their shoulders, they are mistaken.

The same week or so? The same exact issues?

Toss rocks and the guy at the top if you like, but this is a little too convienent.
 
Okay, let's deal with the subject of General Eric (black berets for everybody!) Shinseki being fired.

This particular canard is courtesy of John Kerry by way of the first presidential debate, and I quote:
"They avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, said you?re going to need several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him."
Click to expand...

In classic liberal fashion, Kerry didn't bother to check his facts before shooting off his mouth.

If he had checked those facts, he would have discovered that Gen. Shinseki served his full term of duty and retired on schedule.

Check those facts, people!

LawDog
 
It was apparent to me since this story broke that the complainers were likely political partisans.
Click to expand...


There was only one non Republican General in the bunch...All the Generals except that one were Republicans.

"In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

Law Dog Shinseki served his full term for the record...... However, Rumsfeld leaked his sucessors name over a year before the end of his term. Which made Shinseki a lame duck more or less. If your boss came in one day and told everone he was going to replace you in 14 months with Mr. X..he hasnt fired you but its a pretty strong hint that you need to look for something. Shinseki didnt fold though. Shinseki had been challenging Rumsfeld's troop estimates way before the war started and had been butting heads with him for a while over weapons system.

In effect Shinseki was politically nuetered
 
What we have here is a finger-pointing exchange between Donald Rumsfeld and 6 retired generals over the proper way to conduct a war.

I know which side I believe.
 
I heard a quote from GEN Zinni back in 2000 that was seriously at odds with the drivel he is spouting now

At that time he was convinced that Iraq either had WMD or could get them within weeks.

I think DR's biggest problem is that he has tried to "modernize" the military

With all of our new technology and weapons we were still using 20 year old battle plans

The way I hear it...he is very prone to asking "can you do it with less"...and if the answer is no he wants to know why

Nothing wrong with that
 
OBIWAN makes a good point. Rummy does ask the hard questions in his drive to raise the efficiency of the military.

So lemme ask a simpleminded question. How come it is only the military is on a jihad to increase efficiency. How come we don't see the same intensity in overhauling, oh say, DHS or HHS or <insert bureaucracy of choice>. Why is it only the military has target reduction written into law yet every other money furnace in the federal government continues to burn merrily.
 
In Good Company

If you think that Rumsfeld should be booted you have some politicians that agree with you and the retired generals. One of them is Senator Feinstein, the pro-military, warhawk senator from California. Heck, if you live in the Golden State, you could show your support by voting her next time around.
 
Rummy Says:

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." ?on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that"
 
I read an interesting quote today, just thought i'd share it with the rest of you...

*ahem*

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from
which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been
tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad
communiqu?s are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far
worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and
inefficient than the public knows ... We are today not far from a
disaster."-- T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia), The Sunday
Times, August 1920

Until I read who said it I thought that it entirely pertained to this century. Seems we puny humans never learn, I seriously wonder about our government's intent to doom us to forgetting.

The more I read the more I believe we're losing control of iraq. What we'll do in defiant revenge, well I'm flatly scared to think. Horror. Sheer horror. And our commander in chief will NEVER KNOW...That's the real tragedy. You can't express in a presidential daily briefing the kinds of things that are going on. God help us, but more than that, god help them.
 
honesty?

I don't, in honesty think it is fair to say that the SecDef is incompetent.
Misguided, ok. Wrong, ok. In error, ok....but obviously he is not incompetent, wrong choice of words.

As far as any of these guys says, "What, you expect honesty from a politician? What will you expect next, charity from a banker?"

Whine all you want, until Bush is unhappy with him, he stays.

As far as Iraq is concerned, nothing screws up a good plan like victory.

everything we do ticks somebody off. Everyone on the outside is saying those in power are doing it wrong, but I don't hear any of them coming up with any answers. Except, get out. Personally, when it comes to military action, I think we should practice birth control, not abortion.
 
Those not in too much of a hurry to pile on with the latest administration criticism might notice that what some generals advocate would likely have required a draft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top