More flak for Rumsfeld from ex-general

[oldsam]

Source: United Press International
More flak for Rumsfeld from ex-general

Date: Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:55:07 AM EST

WASHINGTON, April 13 (UPI) -- Calls for U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down have come from a fourth general who retired after declining a promotion.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste told CNN U.S. forces were suffering under Rumsfeld's direction.

"We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork," Batiste said.

Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, but refused a promotion offered on condition he return.

Batiste said he believes the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort.

The Washington Post said Batiste's criticism follows similar attacks recently by senior officers who felt obliged to retire: Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton and Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni.

[Mulhollanddose]

No mention of opposing viewpoints from other retired generals or leadership. No bias there, on the contrary, the UPI's bias is decidedly to the left.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by oldsam
WASHINGTON, April 13 (UPI) -- Calls for U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down...

...The Washington Post said...

I love it when a leftist news organ substantiates itself with a leftist news organ.

[Rodeo]

Let me get this straight, Nul ... you are attacking the UP because they printed the critical comments from a recently retired General. I guess they would not be "leftist" if they simply ignored the chorus of retired military that have called for Rumsfeld to resign.

We really need to reign in this media from reporting anything critical of this administration. In the meantime:

Batiste said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle -- ensuring there are enough forces -- helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.

His comments follow similar recent high-profile attacks on Rumsfeld by three other retired flag officers, amid indications that many of their peers feel the same way.

"We won't get fooled again," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in an essay in Time magazine this week. Listing a series of mistakes such as "McNamara-like micromanagement," a reference to the Vietnam War-era secretary of defense, Newbold called for "replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach."

Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."

Also, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld and the administration's handling of the Iraq war, has been more vocal lately as he publicizes a new book, "The Battle for Peace."

"The problem is that we've wasted three years" in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he "absolutely" thinks Rumsfeld should resign.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I guess they would not be "leftist" if they simply ignored the chorus of retired military that have called for Rumsfeld to resign.

Simple objectivity would suffice. This piece is not objective, it is propaganda. This is not new from what we call the mainstream, or establishment, media. The reason the polls are against Bush and the war (if the polls are to be trusted--questionable) is because the incessant drumbeat of biased negativity from those who pretend objectivity in the leftist activist press...This UPI article supports this conclusion...As opposed to finishing the article with the other side of the picture, demonstrating objectivity, they reference a leftist propaganda article from the Washington Post, as if that lends credibility and objectivity to their overt prejudice.

[Rodeo]

Why are all four recently-retired flag officers also against this administration? Did you read what they said? They been brainwashed by the media too?

Good thing you're the only one smart enough to see through the leftist media -- even smarter than the Generals on the ground.

[Mulhollanddose]

Are you suggesting that there are no generals who support the operation and the way it has been conducted?...It seems there are quite a few that get ignored because they do not tow the leftist line...This UPI article demonstrates this and seals that conclusion with their citation of another liberal news rag for their ruse of objectivity; as if the UPI was saying "see, even WashingtonPost agrees with us and these good generals."

[Rodeo]

Care to comment on what the four recently retired Generals have said? Have they been brainwashed too? Are they "lefties?" Are you in a better position to comment on the prosecution of the war than they? Do you have comments from retired Generals that disagree with their comments?

Time to address the message.

Otherwise, bring up Sandy Berger, slam the media, stay the course, and call it a day.

[VenezianBlau 87]

Perhaps the good General preferred the more results-oriented Clinton administration that "clearly respected the military" and "understood teamwork".

A good leader either solves problems or resigns on the spot.
Not by running out the retirement clock and then getting mouthy.

[Rodeo]

If you'd have bothered to read anything at all on this subject, you would know that he turned down three stars and got out of the military because of his convictions.

But nice uninformed attack. Would play well to an ignorant audience. Rove has taught you well.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Otherwise, bring up Sandy Berger, slam the media, stay the course, and call it a day.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Sandy Burglar, but since you insist...where is that hard hitting expose on the Clinton/Burglar felonious obstruction of the 9-11 investigative process?...If you watched the news you would think Cheney accidentally shotting a friend was more important than an orchestrated coverup of what led to 9-11-01.

[Rodeo]

Didn't think you'd get anywhere near the substance of what these four recently retired flag officers had to say about the criminal incompetency of the Pentagon's civilian leadership.

Facts are liberal. Stay the Course, but stay away from the truth.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Facts are liberal. Stay the Course, but stay away from the truth.

Democrat-speak for "Lies are liberal. Stay the Course, conceal and/or ignore the truth."

[Rodeo]

Thanks for yet another substantive post.

Generals Batiste, Newbold, Eaton and Zinni appreciate your insightful critique of their commentary on Rumsfeld’s incompetency.

The unnamed former Generals whom you claim support Secretary Rumsfeld appreciate … well nothing. Since you didn’t name any.

[Jim Richards]

from CNN:

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong calls Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "effective."

I have my opinions on Rummy, but posted this to torpedo mul-berry's reactionary and formulaic media bashing.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
The unnamed former Generals whom you claim support Secretary Rumsfeld appreciate … well nothing. Since you didn’t name any.

Just because the media ignores them, or seemingly doesn't have the inspiration to amass them for propaganda purposes, does not mean they do not exist...For some reason the motivation to highlight them isn't as great...The new media subtextual mantra is "if it makes Bush bleed it leads."

I won't hold my breath waiting for the collective mea culpa from the media for falsely charging that Bush lied to get us into war, or Michael Brown was responsible for Katrina.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
from CNN:

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong calls Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "effective."

I have my opinions on Rummy, but posted this to torpedo mul-berry's reactionary and formulaic media bashing.

Yea, I knew DeLong has been mildly supportive. Wanted to see if Nul had actually done any research before spouting off again. Of course he did not.

DeLong's book was a bit of a flop. You can buy it used on Amazon for $3.89.

[Rick Lee]

I read Gen. Newbold's essay in Time Mag. the other day and that coupled with Gen Batiste's criticism makes me wonder why they didn't speak up when they still had regular face time with Rumsfeld. They knew they were retiring anyway and it wasn't like pissing off Rumsfeld was gonna hurt their careers. If they think Rumsfeld is so bad, why didn't they do something about it BEFORE they retired? It sure is easy to write essays and appear on tv with the (Ret.) next to your name.

[Mulhollanddose]

[oldsam]

For some thoughts on generals not speaking up while on active duty, here is a good read

The Revolt Against Rumsfeld
The officer corps is getting restless.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 6:07 PM ET

Article

The patron saint, but also the object lesson, of the many officers who are mulling their options—whether to heed Newbold's rallying cry or keep their heads down and shoes polished—is Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff who spoke truth to power and got slammed for his troubles. Shortly before the invasion, Shinseki told the Senate armed services committee that "a few hundred thousand" troops would be needed to impose order after the war was over. Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, upbraided him in public the next day; Rumsfeld named Shinseki's successor a year in advance of his scheduled retirement, thus undercutting his authority for the rest of his term. In his Times op-ed, Gen. Eaton wrote of Shinseki's punishment, "The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since."

Zinni, Eaton, and Newbold are explicitly trying to supplant the lesson of Shinseki with an earlier lesson—one that was propagated throughout the U.S. armed forces in the late 1990s but laid aside once the war in Iraq got under way. It came from a book called Dereliction of Duty, by H.R. McMaster, then an Army major, now a colonel. Based on extensive research into declassified files, the book concluded that during the 1960s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff betrayed their constitutional duties by failing to provide their honest military judgment to President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as they plunged into the quagmire of Vietnam. When McMaster's book was published in 1997, during the Clinton administration, Gen. Hugh Shelton, then the JCS chairman, ordered all his service chiefs and commanders to read it and follow its lessons to the letter—to express disagreements to their superiors, even at the risk of getting yelled at. William Cohen, Clinton's secretary of defense, echoed the sentiment. Ever since, Dereliction of Duty has been a must-read for all senior officers.

At a small, on-the-record press lunch last week with Gen. Zinni (who was promoting his new book, The Battle for Peace), I asked him what would have happened had even two other active-duty generals appeared before Congress—or resigned and called a press conference—to support Shinseki's testimony. Gen. Zinni said he thought President Bush would have had a harder time rallying political support for the invasion. I also asked him why, in the three years since the war's start, not a single active-duty general has mustered the courage (or recklessness, disloyalty, call it what you will) to follow Shinseki's example—or, to put it another way, to follow the lesson in Dereliction of Duty.

Gen. Zinni referred to another book, a favorite of officers for nearly four decades now—Anton Myrer's 1968 novel, Once an Eagle. It's about two Army officers, friends from childhood, and their rise through the ranks: Sam Damon, a straight-arrow field commander, and Courtney Massengale, a scheming Pentagon careerist. Gen. Zinni said the two characters are widely seen in his profession as symbols for the two types of military officer—and the two paths of military promotion. He stopped short of saying so explicitly, but he suggested that the Pentagon's upper ranks contain too many Courtney Massengales and not enough Sam Damons.