Why America's Generals Are Out For Revenge

[fintstone]

I found this to be an interesting article...especially from a London paper.

London Times
April 18, 2006

Why America's Generals Are Out For Revenge

The US top brass are ducking their responsibilities - and beleaguered Donald Rumsfeld is just doing his job

By Dean Godson

Who will be the Admiral Byng of the Iraq conflict — the symbolic victim executed for the alleged failures of the war? That is what the current “revolt of the generals” against Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, is about. It is the ruthless Washingtonian version of “pass the parcel”.

Much of the military brass feels that it carried the can for the civilian leadership’s errors in Vietnam and is determined never to do so again. General Anthony Zinni — the former US commander in the Middle East and perhaps the most voluble of Mr Rumsfeld’s critics — was particularly taken with a study written by a youngish Army officer, H.R. McMaster, criticising the US Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Robert McNamara era for not speaking up more loudly against a war they knew could not be won.

The generals’ criticisms will certainly strike a chord among critics of the war in Iraq, who contend that neoconservative ideologues at the Pentagon rode roughshod over professional military advice. They particularly alight on the supposed insufficiency of troop numbers sent to Iraq for post-conflict operations and the failure to plan for the insurgency.

What of these charges? Mr Rumsfeld was right in believing that the war itself could be won with a much smaller force than was used in the first Gulf War of 1991, not least because the Iraqi army had halved in size. He was right effectively to send Tommy Franks away with a flea in his ear when the then US commander presented the original war plans, as General Franks has conceded. Pace George Galloway, there was no Stalingrad by the Tigris.

This was no McNamara-style micromanagement of targeting when Pentagon “whiz-kids” constantly encroached upon professional military prerogatives. Rather, Mr Rumsfeld’s big picture approach is exactly what civilian control of the military is supposed to be all about: in other words, asking what would be the price in blood and treasure of a particular plan? Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, did much the same as Defence Secretary in 1990 when he asked Norman Schwarzkopf to revise his plans for a costly frontal assault on the Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

What about the postwar period? General Jack Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff during this critical period, told me that it was just as much the military’s responsibility to anticipate the insurgency, if not more so. “We had no plans for that”, he said. “It was our fault, not Donald Rumsfeld’s.”

The point was inadvertently underscored in Franks’s autobiography when he told Pentagon civilians that he would not involve himself in the detailed work on Phase 4 or “stability” operations — that is, after major combat was over. “I’ll do the day of and you’ll do the day after,” he snorted. He also refused to work alongside “Free Iraqis” ready to take up postwar security tasks. All of this cost the US dearly when the looting began in Baghdad. Yet Rumsfeld et al acquiesced.

The real issue in postwar Iraq was less that of numbers than of the mix of forces. The Americans did not need many more GIs who cannot speak Arabic patrolling the streets in heavy body armour; rather, they could have done it with the existing size of force, but with more military policemen, intelligence officers and civil affairs specialists.

Curiously, Mr Rumsfeld’s position does indeed resemble that of his predecessors in the Vietnam era — but the analogy is with the hopeful period of the early 1960s rather than the tragic finale. John F. Kennedy fought a tremendous bureaucratic battle with the US Army brass to reconfigure the forces for more British-style counter-insurgency operations in the Third World: the Green Berets were the best known expression of that aspiration.

But JFK’s more ambitious plans were seen off by the US Army Chief of Staff, George Decker — who was concerned about the diversion of resources from US conventional forces facing the Soviet divisions on the Central European plain. The incomplete nature of those reforms cost the American forces dearly later on.

Mr Rumsfeld, by contrast, has had far more success than Kennedy in shaking up the US Army. Until September 11 it was still too much of a garrison force, geared up for Cold War contingencies. Or, in the quip of one of Rumsfeld’s intimates, it was full of “Fulda Gap warriors”, rather than the kind of expeditionary forces required for the War on Terror.

The Defence Secretary has trod on toes in this process. He has insisted on interviewing every appointment to four and three-star rank — something that was more of a pro forma process under his predecessors. He appointed a retired Special Forces general, Peter Schoomaker, as US Army Chief of Staff, thus passing over stacks of serving officers. And with his greater emphasis on high-tech “jointery”, he has forced both the Army and the Marines to depend more on Air Force and Navy supporting fire.

The real criticism of Mr Rumsfeld is not that he “kicked to much butt”, but that he kicked too little. At George Bush’s behest, he sent the US armed forces into a war that they weren’t yet fully ready to fight: they are much more prepared now, but the insurgency genie is out of the bottle. He was part of the Republican consensus that was contemptuous of Clinton-era peacekeeping operations, believing that real soldiers don’t do social workerish stuff. Like so many reformers, his problem is that his changes discomfit existing interest groups before the benefits become fully visible.

[M.D. Holloway]

I always thought that the ones banging on Rummy had political ties to the dems - looking for cushy slots in 08 as lobbiests or worse.

Then again, maybe they are looking to get in bed with Blackwater and turn it into a pay-for-performance-war and get real rich once the troops get pulled out prematurely. You can bet that none of these rascles are going to Triple Canopy!

[livi]

The possibility of a bunch of American generals pursuing an agenda for altruistic purposes is out of the question then ?

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by livi
The possibility of a bunch of American generals pursuing an agenda for altruistic purposes is out of the question then ?

Absolutely NOT out of the question...but there IS more to the story here that begs thoughtful review.

[livi]

My question was kind of rhetoric. Being a Darwinist, I believe the concept of altruism is a misguided scape goat for extended, humbly concealed, egoism anyway.

[cool_chick]

Don't you all know it's only because they "hate" Bush.

And don't forget to put the "liberal" media in there somewhere in the excuse.


Bwaaaaaaaa

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by livi
My question was kind of rhetoric. Being a Darwinist, I believe the concept of altruism is a misguided scape goat for extended, humbly concealed, egoism anyway.

I don't know if I could agree with that. What about people llike Mother Theresa?

[fastpat]

A more realistic picture.

Should Retired Generals Speak Out Against Rumsfeld?
by Ivan Eland

Pro-administration pundits are trying to stifle a group of retired generals who are calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. These pundits argue that such criticism undermines the principle of civilian control over the military. In fact, the republic benefits from such outspoken behavior.

Civilian control of the military is crucial to the preservation of a free republic. Powerful militaries that become politicized have a long history of wrecking democracies. Even in the United States, where the military has stayed, thankfully, fairly nonpolitical, President Truman properly fired the cocky Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination during the Korean War. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had previously declared MacArthur to be the single most dangerous man in America.

More recently, both Gen. Richard Myers and Gen. Peter Pace acted as cheerleaders for U.S. policy in Iraq, in their consecutive roles as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the nation's most senior military advisors, they are moving from giving advice on military matters into the dangerous political realm of publicly advocating policy. Of course, Gen. Pace is unlikely to get fired over his recent comments that the Iraq intervention was going swimmingly. Putting the obvious question of credibility aside, the real question is whether Gen. Pace should be a shill for the policies of any administration. The answer should be a resounding "no."

Some may argue that as a critic of the war, I am adopting a double standard - welcoming the retired generals' advocacy of sacking Rumsfeld, yet deeming improper the "rah-rah" support of the war by generals on active duty. But just as I believe Gen. Pace should resign for his comments, I would argue that any active duty general who has the audacity to speak out against the war should also be sacked. The difference is that retired generals are, well, retired and should be allowed to express political opinions just like any other civilian citizen. The public debate benefits from their prior military expertise, whether they are for or against the continuation of the war. For example, to rebut the accusations of the critical retired generals, the now-retired Gen. Myers recently made the self-serving assertion that Rumsfeld never intimidated members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during planning for the Iraq War. Myers's comments are perfectly permissible, even if his credibility is suspect. When active generals publicly praise or criticize the policy of any presidential administration (it's OK to provide private military advice), it may also enhance public debate, but such benefit is overshadowed by the politicization of the military. That politicization undermines civilian control over the armed forces.

If active generals oppose the policy of any administration so much that they are beside themselves, they should resist going public until after they resign. As private citizens, they are no longer in the chain of military command and should be able to say anything they want.

But what if, as many believe, the retired generals are acting as a mouthpiece for the widespread dissatisfaction among active officers under Rumsfeld, because of his domineering management style and his incompetent handling of Iraq? This outcome is optimal for the republic because it alerts the public that many active military experts are critical of the administration's performance, but does not undermine civilian control over the armed forces by having active military officers publicly criticizing their civilian leadership. Active officers have no hold over the views and statements of retirees, but may very well be in agreement with them.

Perhaps one could ask why many of these retired generals have not taken a principled stand sooner. But better late than never. Maybe they should even call for their former colleague, Gen. Pace, to join Donald Rumsfeld in the unemployment line.
http://antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=8867

[Seahawk]

Eland's article is well written and makes some excellent points; however, it highlights a single point of view. My suggestion, based on my personal knowledge of two of these fine general's motivations, is that there is more to the story...that at least one has political asperations at a high level.

And believe me, the hubris at the three and four star level is something to behold.

[livi]

Mother Theresa did what she did because it made her feel good doing it. Doing altruistic deeds fed her ego.

[Mulhollanddose]

The fact that they have been packaged by the media and the DNC, like so many other attempts to undermine the war effort, only raises my suspicion as to these misguided generals' motivations...Like Patsy, they are tools. They, like Patsy, cant even keep their stories straight or accurate. They offer nothing more than opinion in the way of proof. Negativism and doubt is their only offering, but that is all they need to offer, isn't it?

[Rodeo]

Tom Friedman, on why this debate directly impacts our Iran policy. I think he's one of the smartest guys in America:


Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon's helm?

I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran.

While I know the right thing is to keep all our options open, I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks.

As someone who believed — and still believes — in the importance of getting Iraq right, the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran.

I look at the Bush national security officials much the way I look at drunken drivers. I just want to take away their foreign policy driver's licenses for the next three years. Sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now — or take a taxi. Dial 1-800-NATO-CHARGE-A-RIDE. You will not be driving alone. Not with my car.

If ours were a parliamentary democracy, the entire Bush team would be out of office by now, and deservedly so. In Iraq, the president was supposed to lead, manage and hold subordinates accountable, and he did not. Condoleezza Rice was supposed to coordinate, and she did not. Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to listen, and he did not. But ours is not a parliamentary system, and while some may feel as if this administration's over, it isn't. So what to do? We can't just take a foreign policy timeout.

At a minimum, a change must be made at the Pentagon. Mr. Rumsfeld paints himself as a concerned secretary, ready to give our generals in Iraq whatever troops they ask for, but they just haven't asked. This is hogwash, but even if the generals didn't ask, the relevant question, Mr. Rumsfeld, is: What did you ask them?

What did you ask them when you saw the looting, when you saw Saddam's ammo dumps unguarded, when you saw that no one had control of the Iraq-Syria border and when you saw that Iraq was so insecure that militias were sprouting everywhere? What did you ask the generals? You didn't ask and you didn't tell, because you never wanted to send more troops. You actually thought we could just smash Saddam's regime and leave. Insane.

So if our choice is another Rummy-led operation on Iran or Iran's going nuclear and our deterring it through classic means, I prefer deterrence. A short diplomatic note to Iran's mullahs will suffice: "Gentlemen, should you ever use a nuclear device, or dispense one to terrorists, we will destroy every one of your nuclear sites with tactical nuclear weapons. If there is any part of this sentence you don't understand, please contact us. Thank you."

Do I wish there was a third way? Yes. But the only meaningful third way would be to challenge Iran to face-to-face negotiations about all the issues that divide us: Iraq, sanctions, nukes. Such diplomacy, though, would require two things.

First, the Bush team would have to make up its mind on something that has divided it for five years: Does it want a change of regime in Iran or a change of behavior? If it will settle only for regime change, then diplomacy has no chance. The Iranians will never negotiate, and our allies will be wary of working with us.

Second, if the Bush team is ready to live with a change in Iran's behavior, diplomacy has a chance — but only if it has allies and a credible threat of force to make the Iranians negotiate seriously. The only way Iran will strike a grand bargain with the U.S. is if it thinks America has the support at home and abroad for a military option (or really severe sanctions.)

The main reason Mr. Rumsfeld should leave now is because we can't have a credible diplomatic or military option vis-ŕ-vis Iran when so many people feel, as I do, that in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation and just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter.

It may be that learning to live with a nuclear Iran is the wisest thing under any circumstances. But it would be nice to have a choice. It would be nice to have the option of a diplomatic deal to end Iran's nuclear program — but that will come only with a credible threat of force. Yet we will not have the support at home or abroad for that threat as long as Don Rumsfeld leads the Pentagon. No one in their right mind would follow this man into another confrontation — and that is a real strategic liability.

[M.D. Holloway]

As far as I can see there are only a few things that motivate people on a high level - greed, ego and power. Take your pick. For the rest of us all that comes into play but add in family, guilt and maybe just maybe a little bit of morality but that is a stretch.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by livi
Mother Theresa did what she did because it made her feel good doing it. Doing altruistic deeds fed her ego.

An expansion of the "Man is inherently bad" theory. Now it's "man is inherently selfish, even in good deeds."

Yea, I can get behind that action.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
As far as I can see there are only a few things that motivate people on a high level - greed, ego and power. Take your pick. For the rest of us all that comes into play but add in family, guilt and maybe just maybe a little bit of morality but that is a stretch.

I have to wonder about this. I mean, Rumsfeld is probably the richest guy in the administration. He's worth well into the nine figures, he's in his mid-70's, he's got quite a resume and yet he still does this thankless job umpteen hours per day, living in a fishbowl and surrounded by security. Who needs it? If anyone here were past retirement age and won $100 million jackpot lotto, would you go looking for a job as intense as SecDef?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
I have to wonder about this. I mean, Rumsfeld is probably the richest guy in the administration. He's worth well into the nine figures, he's in his mid-70's, he's got quite a resume and yet he still does this thankless job umpteen hours per day, living in a fishbowl and surrounded by security. Who needs it? If anyone here were past retirement age and won $100 million jackpot lotto, would you go looking for a job as intense as SecDef?

In a particular workplace with which I'm familiar, the president of the company, employed by a conglomerate, and all of the management in between, makes less than the employees do. Further, the president and all of the management types are drawn from the ranks of employees without exception. Yet, there was no shortage of those wishing to go into management in that workplace.

[Moneyguy1]

If "feeling good" is the primary reason for doing something selfless or socially uplifting, that is good enough for me.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by livi
Mother Theresa did what she did because it made her feel good doing it. Doing altruistic deeds fed her ego.

Sorry. Can't buy that. Some people do things "out of the goodness of their heart" as my mom used to say. People of religious bent feel a pang of guilt if they don't do what God has said to do, "love thy neighbor" . So yes, it might make them feel better about being right with God, but it is not an ego thing. They don't expect others who have not heard God's voice to do the same nor do they scribe their actions on a tally sheet for their ego to look at.

[tabs]

So WHATs New, I've said OVER and OVER again that their was a conflict between Rummy and the Generals...

Why the FK do U think Westley Clark ran for Prez....he was a LONG SHOT at VERY best. He ran simply to get the Military point of view across. Also it was to get Bushs attention, that Bush might not get the Military support for his reelection.

The Dems are largely on the side lines of this one, but that is not to say that won't take advantage of any opportunity given to them.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
If "feeling good" is the primary reason for doing something selfless or socially uplifting, that is good enough for me.

The hell of the inner city is paved with those "feel good" intentions.

edit: I am in no way suggesting that the motivations of Zinni&Co are selfless and/or socially uplifting, on the contrary.