Revolt Of The Generals............!

[Gimpy]

Originally published on April 13, 2006

Another general joins anti-Rummy brigade

BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


The extraordinary "Revolt of the Generals" continued yesterday with a fourth high-ranking senior military leader calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's head.

Retired two-star Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Big Red One - the Army's 1st Infantry Division - in Iraq until November, said Rumsfeld must go for ignoring and intimidating career officers.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste told CNN.

"I believe we need a fresh start in the Pentagon. We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation," said Batiste, a West Point graduate who also served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and is now president of Klein Steel Service in upstate Rochester.

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning - then we're bound to make mistakes ," he said.

The unusual drumbeat of criticism from top generals continues to show how deep the feelings are within the ranks of high ranking officers.

Batiste was adding his voice to a chorus already made up of retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who oversaw training of Iraqi forces, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumsfeld shrugged off the criticism earlier this week as not "new or surprising."

###END###

Just like he 'shrugged off' Shinsheki & Zinni's recommendations and plans on how this thing should have been 'handled' from the git-go!

This m----er-f---er is WORSE than Robert McNamara could have EVER hoped to be!

[Gimpy]

there's more today!................


####START####


Generals want Rumsfeld to resign


By Steve Holland Fri Apr 14, 8:40 AM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two more retired U.S. generals called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign on Thursday, claiming the chief architect of the Iraq war and subsequent American occupation should be held accountable for the chaos there.


As the high-ranking officers accused Rumsfeld of arrogance and ignoring his field commanders, the White House was forced to defend a man who has been a lightning rod for criticism over a war that has helped drive President George W. Bush's public approval ratings to new lows.


Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni told CNN Rumsfeld should be held responsible for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."


The spreading challenge to the Pentagon's civilian leadership included criticism from some recently retired senior officers directly involved in the Iraq war and its planning.


Six retired generals have now called for Rumsfeld to step down, including two who spoke out on Thursday.


"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," said retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq.


"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces," he told CNN.


Retired Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership.


"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign," Riggs said.


Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq before his retirement, urged Rumsfeld on Wednesday to resign.


Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton have also spoken out against Rumsfeld.


Critics have accused Rumsfeld of bullying senior military officers and disregarding their views. They often cite how Rumsfeld dismissed then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's opinion a month before the 2003 invasion that occupying Iraq could require "several hundred thousand troops," not the smaller force Rumsfeld would send.


####END####

[Jerry D]

All Officers (Active or Retired) unless they have resigned their Commissions and don't use their Military Title while speaking to the press especially Generals! Who are supposed to be the Elite of the Officer Corp are subject to the following Articles of the UCMJ:

Section 888. ART. 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.

Section 892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Section 894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, 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 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.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Just some sections of the UCMJ these Generals (addressing the press as such) should read up on before making public statements as Generals and not Joe Private Citizen. Whether they are making their opinion right or wrong they still are supposed to set the standards set forth by the UCMJ in order to maintain proper Military discipline and order. Check it out at your nearest Judge Advocate most will say the same thing.

[SuperScout]

If these general officers are now complaining, one has to wonder if they clicked their little heels together when they got the orders that they now so whiningly object to, and obey them, knowing that they might be sending their men into battle under flawed circumstances? Or did they have the moral courage to resign their commissions then in protest? If I was a commander, and I knew I had bad orders, I wouldn't subject my men to that flawed planning process.

We are living another sad legacy of the Vietnam era, when we were burdened with incompetent generals who didn't have the moral spine of a jellyfish when they knew that LBJ was screwing up the war effort, and didn't resign in protest. If the planning in the Iraq war was a problem, where were these military genius' voices then? Too timid to speak up, for fear of losing their precious commands, ruffles and flourishes, and retirement bennies? And what about the many other generals who outnumber these whiners - when do we get to hear from them? And do these whiners bother to think about the negative impact on the morale of our warriors that their complaining might have, or are they so self-centered that they just don't care about our troops? I strongly suspect it's the former.

[SuperScout]

Try this on your picollo


Generals defend Rumsfeld
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Several retired generals who worked with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, yesterday decried calls for the secretary's resignation from other retired officers.
President Bush repeated his support for his point man in the war against terrorists.
"I think what we see happening with retired general officers is bad for the military, bad for civil-military relations and bad for the country," retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Mr. Bush, said in an interview with The Washington Times. He said he would elaborate his views in an op-ed essay.
"I'm hurt," said retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael P. DeLong, who was deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and briefed Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.
"When we have an administration that is currently at war, with a secretary of defense that has the confidence of the president and basically has done well -- no matter what grade you put on there, he has done well -- to call for his resignation right now is not good for the country," he said.
The White House this week expressed continued support for Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Bush, responding to the continued resignation calls, reiterated his support.
"I have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions," Mr. Bush said in a three-paragraph statement yesterday. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."
The president, who has previously declined Mr. Rumsfeld's offers to step down over the Abu Ghraib prison episode, said he had spoken with Mr. Rumsfeld earlier in the day and "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."
In an interview taped Thursday for the Arab-language Al Arabiya TV station, Mr. Rumsfeld said he has no plans to resign.
"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," he said, "but obviously out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed, we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round around here."
Six former generals have, one at a time, called on Mr. Rumsfeld to resign. The generals, two of the Marine Corps and four of the Army, cited "poor war planning" for Iraq after Saddam Hussein was deposed, insufficient ground troops and failure to anticipate the infiltration of Iraq by al Qaeda fighters that set off a fierce pro-Saddam insurgency. They accused Mr. Rumsfeld of intimidating senior officers and "meddling" in war planning.
"I believe we need a fresh start in the Pentagon," retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told CNN cable network. "We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation. You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out."
Mr. Rumsfeld's staff scoffed at the accusations of intimidation and meddling. Several retired senior officers also say the calls from the six generals were inspired by Mr. Rumsfeld's far-reaching transformation of their services and his refusal to increase active forces by a large number.
The officers defending Mr. Rumsfeld say the complaints are an institutional battle between the generals, who think Mr. Rumsfeld is damaging the Army, and the defense secretary, who thinks he is better organizing it for post-Cold War 21st-century threats.
Mr. Bush referred to that friction when he said, "I asked Don to transform the largest department in our government. That kind of change is hard."
Officers also say general officers have a choice while on active duty: They can follows orders or resign in protests. But they say it is a troubling precedent when retired generals attempt to dictate who should be the military's civilian leader.
Retired Gen. John Keane, former Army vice chief of staff under Mr. Rumsfeld, said the secretary involved himself in war planning "just like other strong secretaries of defense."
"Generals bring forward their campaign plans, and the civilian leaders apply their judgments," he said. "As a result of that, those plans are changed. The secretary has done the same thing as pertains to our plans for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. In my view, this is healthy and in my view this collaboration-making is healthy and it serves the nation well."
Gen. DeLong said Mr. Rumsfeld often deferred to Gen. Tommy Franks on war planning issues.
"He would go with Franks' call even though he may not have been wholly on board because Franks was the guy with the experience," he said.
Gen. DeLong acknowledged that he, his commander, Gen. Franks, Mr. Rumsfeld and others made mistakes in anticipating what would happen in Iraq. They should not have disbanded all Ba'ath Party members loyal to Saddam, for example.
"This after-the-fact stuff is really easy to do," he said. "We made some mistakes. Everybody had a part of that. Rumsfeld helped fix it."

[Gimpy]

The "Washignton Times"???

Surely you could find a more 'credible' source than this bastion of rightwing fanaticism and hate mongering nonsense run and owned by that most wonderful example of criminal corruption and extreme ultraconservative himself, the Reverend Sun Moon Yung.

This so-called 'news'paper is nothing more than an extension of, or propaganda 'tool' for Karl Rove and his minions of lies, deception and misinformation designed simply to further the 'agenda' of this corrupt and criminal administration.....no more.

Waytago there Super.............your 'true' ultra-right-wing CONservative colors are showing once again.


Anyway you want to cut it, six (6) prominent retired generals say that Rummy discounted the dangers in Iraq and managed with an intimidating style that left commanders feeling jammed into submission. He promoted sycophants and 'yes men' like Richard Myers and Peter Pace, while slapping down truth-tellers like Eric Shinseki. These facts are undeniable!

Hell, Rummy was so convinced Iraq was all but won early in the war that he prodded Tommy Franks to cancel the final Army division in the war plan, the First Cavalry Division.

"Rumsfeld just ground Franks down," Tom White, the former Army secretary, told Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor for "Cobra II," their Iraq war history. "The nature of Rumsfeld is that you just get tired of arguing with him."

Anyone who challenged the administration was painted as traitorous, so why not respected military leaders?

So then, a few Rummy apple-polishers and ass kissers raced forth yesterday to accuse theses candid generals of undermining the military and the country. BULL$HIT!.......It's fitting that the military is attempting a coup of the civilian leadership, since the Iraq war followed the civilian leadership's coup of the military.

[SuperScout]

Whoopeefriggin'doo! Six out of how many?

And just because a story doesn't come from your tired and warped mainstream media doesn't make it less credible, it's just a source you haven't read. If you want to continue to get your news from such cesspools of journalism as represented by the MSM, help yourself. They have been losing readership/viewership for years, a dying dinosaur looking for the proverbial tar pit to fall into.

Yes, and Rumsfeld brought back out of retirement a general officer who truly understands the nature of the ongoing threat, hence the metamorphoses to smaller units that are tailored to the threat, not some stale "armor only" or "infantry only" or "Marines only" type of mission. You want to call him an apple-polisher or ass-kisser? Guess you want to be as disrespectful as a few prima dona generals. And maybe it never dawned on you, or these prima donas that just because they have a differing opinion than the SecDef that their opinion has to prevail. In the real world, it's "thank you for sharing," now sit down and work the plan that was worked out by a committee of experts. And, BTW, general, if you don't like the way things are done here, I'll accept your letter of resignation on my desk by tomorrow morning.

For the final time, Shinseki was not slapped down. He had served his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, a position not commonly noted for producing specific area specialists like counter-terrorist expertise, for example, and had reached his MRD, mandatory retirement date. Only on rare occasions are officers, including generls, allowed to serve beyond their MRD. He had served his time. He retired. Period. Get over it.

Guess you always worked for people who agreed with every suggestions you ever made to them, assuming you ever had any suggestions to make in the first place. Or did everybody who disagreed with you and your suggestions automatically become an apple polisher or ass kisser? What a warped little world you must have lived in or continue to live in.

[Gimpy]

Super, I'll give you that. Shinseki DID retire at "full term"...............But, only "officially"............operationally, he was "retired" 14 months BEFORE that "official" date!

As the Washington Post reported in 2003, "Shinseki and others made it clear that the decision to announce his successor more than a year before his planned retirement undercut his authority and reflected the sharp disagreements between his and Donald Rumsfeld's vision of the Defense Department - disagreements which were not limited to specific troop projections for the Iraq War. Selecting a successor for the current chief so far in advance is highly unusual." [1] In the event, Shinseki's successor was not Keane, but Peter Schoomaker. However, it was seen by many as undercutting Shinseki's authority within the Army."---end quote.

The Washington Post also reported in 2003, "The relationship, never close, hit the rocks when Rumsfeld let it be known in April that he had decided to name Gen. John Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff, as its next chief, 15 months before its current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was scheduled to retire. This immediately made Shinseki a lame duck and undercut his ambitious 'transformation' agenda, which he had set forth in late 1999." [7]----end quote.

And Army secretary Thomas White was fired in April 2003 after expressing his agreement with Shinseki's assessment of needed troop levels in Iraq. According to USA Today, "Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki."----end quote. [8] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ite-usat_x.htm) In an interview after leaving the Pentagon, White said that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq, adding, "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term." [9] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-resigns_x.htm)

Shinseki had been taking hits for months before his Senate testimony. Unhappy with Shinseki's support of the Crusader artillery system, Rumsfeld had taken the unprecedented step of naming the person who would be his replacement a full 14 months before the end of his term. And by the way, it was Shinseki (NOT that guy Rumsfeld "brought back out of retirement" ) who was intent on getting as far as he could in his attempt to make the Army a more flexible, speedier force. Shinseki wasn't just bucking the higher-ups in the Pentagon. In working to create an Army that would emphasize smaller, lighter forces, the career armor officer was taking on his some of his own people in heavy armour --

Only General Shinseki among active duty officers had the courage to publicly challenge the downsizing plans for the Iraq War. So Rumsfeld retaliated by naming Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since. Until now that is.

Rumsfeld has failed miserably in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what was called Phase III of the war by military commanders, ground combat against uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like General Anthony Zinni, Shinseki and others who predicted that the Iraqi forces might melt away and later lead to chaos.

It is all too clear that Shinseki was right: Several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, and later as security, infrastructure and reconstruction became the primary objective. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.

We should not have to expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. As it should be. But in this case Rumsfeld himself should be held responsible and accountable for the "errors in judgement" that Dubya and now even Condie Rice have admitted that have taken place these past 3 plus years. Hell, even L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has gone on record saying "we needed MORE TROOPS"!

I find it difficult to comprehend that a former "commander" such as yourself can't see the 'facts' as they have unfolded?

[rotorwash]

There are thousands of star rank officers, retired and active (including my father-in-law). this makes the number of critics a moot point only important to the media. Baptiste was in on the planning (deputy to Wolfowitz) for the whole deal, so either he was wrong then or wrong now, which is it?

I'm truly impressed that these guys, so courageous in uniform, now suddenly have criticisms after they are sure their pensions are inplace.

I researched the "not enough troops" argument and found some interesting stuff. It was put together by a PhD whiz kid using facts and figures from Malaya and Viet Nam. Then he went back through history trying to bend other insurgencies to fit his paradigm.

His argument makes a certain amount of sense, in that the number of troops to civilian population ratio sounds valid- valid if you are trying to sell a war game. But his ideas were not accepted across the board, many officers felt they were simplistically wrong and hearkened back to the McNamara days of "battalion combat days versus enemy killed" types of calculations. It was just too sterile to fit realistic conditions.

Another argument the critics bought up was that it would require that national troops, not coalition, must make up the largest part of the forces involved. This part has proven true.

An interesting part of the argument is the ratio of casualties to troops involved. Supporters of the argument were mum on the subject leaving this extrapolation to the media. There can not be a convincing argument made that if we had committed more troops in the beginning casualties would be less. In fact, proponents suggest that the ratio of casualties to troops deployed would remain constant, therefore, we would have more casualties then we have now.

The reference to "Cobra II" misses one point, the authors credit the effectiveness and innovation of the invasion to Rumsfeld. (their words)

As to the arguments of Zinni and Newbold, et. al., this is simply a recitation of the old Arabist arguments that long ago failed to hold water, the idea that there is nothing wrong in the Middle East that can't be fixed by putting pressure on Israel.

As for Rummy grinding down Franks, Franks was not the least bit interested in planning for the post war event - the insurgency.

It is also interesting that while the accusations of mis-handling Iraq are flying fast and furious, there has been nothing brought forward that can be proven to be a better plan then the one actually used. Talking heads are proficient in only one thing-second guessing people who have actually done something whether it was right or wrong.

RW

[SuperScout]

As ususal, your assessment is right on target. All the boo-hooers have failed to add to their comments just how many more casualties we probably would have incurred, had we had more boots ont he ground. More troops, more targets of opportunity, more casualities. The math is simple enough that even a liberal might be able to comprehend it. Nahhh..........

And let me add a few comments about Shinseki. His proposed replacement was named in the standard lead-time scripting that has preceded other changes in the CoS position, so the "under-cutting argument" is bunk. One of most egregious missteps was his continued support of a weapon system that the Redlegs didn't want. He supported the Crusader artillery system that no self-respecting lanyard yanker thought was worthy of being painted red. And White, the SecArmy, who had a hugh financial gain to be realized was also pushing the same bad artillery system, and shazamm, his goose was cooked.

Before I continue, why the insult by adding quotation marks around the word commander, when referring to me? Are you trying to impugn my service? Just say so, and you will incur a war like you have never seen, cannot win, and are destined to lose. You are nearing the same type of insult like your alter-ego James, when he rendered a similar insult about my conduct as a commander.