Rummy's Trouble

[Sisyphus]

What do you guys think of all the criticism and calls for resignation Donald Rumsfeld has been getting recently from retired generals and the like? Should he resign?

[Jim]

What do you guys think of all the criticism and calls for resignation Donald Rumsfeld has been getting recently from retired generals and the like? Should he resign?

 

I'm going to have to know more before forming an opinion.

 

You have to hunt but you can find opposing views of generals in the MSM:

 

Calls from a growing number of retired US generals for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign over his handling of the Iraq war are inappropriate, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said on Saturday.

 

Rumsfeld dismissed the resignation calls in an interview with Al Arabiya television aired on Friday. "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," he said.

 

Myers, who retired last year, said he never heard the complaints being expressed against Rumsfeld during the four years he spent as America's highest-ranking military officer.

 

"What I'm hearing now I never heard as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Myers said.

 

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/04152006/news/97900.htm

 

[Maj. Gen. John] Blair said he did not feel as though the men were offering "much substance" in why they would call for his removal. Blair said he felt confident in Rumsfeld’s performance with the war in Iraq because things are getting better on the ground; Iraqi forces are being trained; and the troops have been given the supplies they need.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/16/wus16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/16/ixworld.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/16/wus16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/16/ixworld.html

 

Two of America's most experienced generals have backed Donald Rumsfeld, the embattled defence secretary, in the escalating row over his handling of the Iraq war.

 

Gen Richard Myers, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George W Bush, and Gen Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq, both spoke out after six other retired generals urged Mr Rumsfeld to step down. That call prompted Mr Bush to interrupt his Easter break and express full support for Mr Rumsfeld, a move interpreted as a sign that the criticism had hit home.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200604130743.asp

 

Apart from the ethical questions involved in promoting a book or showcasing a media appearance during a time of war by offering an "inside" view unknown to others of the supposedly culpable administration of the military, what is striking is the empty nature of these controversies rehashed ad nauseam.

 

Imagine that, as we crossed the Rhine, retired World War II officers were still harping, in March, 1945, about who was responsible months during Operation Cobra for the accidental B-17 bombing, killing, and wounding of hundreds of American soldiers and the death of Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair; or, in the midst of Matthew Ridgeway's Korean counteroffensives, we were still bickering over MacArthur's disastrous intelligence lapses about Chinese intervention that caused thousands of casualties. Did the opponents of daylight bombing over Europe in 1943 still damn the theories of old Billy Mitchell, or press on to find a way to hit Nazi Germany hard by late 1944?

 

All the same, this is a concerning development. I'd like to hear the detailed specifics of the complaints, not just that they thought Rummy was arrogant.

[Pangloss]

It's legit, and it's got legs, IMO. The administration is spinning this as a rare thing amongst "thousands of generals and admirals" (as I believe Rumsfeld put it in an Al-Arabya interview on Friday). They certainly have a point there about dissent -- one would expect SOME number of generals to typically disagree with decisions that are made. But I think common sense tells us that that is really beside the point.

 

Six of these generals in particular were directly involved in the planning of the Iraq war, and/or lead troops in Iraq. To say these men have first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground is an understatement in the extreme. These aren't random enlistment officers and training personnel. They're people who know what they're talking about, and they have every reason to believe that what they're saying is true. They're not "drama queens", either -- these are long-term service men, dedicated to what they do (or were doing). It is possible that SOME of this is based on loss of power or some other petty grievance. But so far we have no real indication that that's the case.

 

I think there's also a valid story here in the fact that they're speaking out at all during what clearly everyone in the military considers to be "a time of war". The statement yesterday by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other officials denouncing these anti-Rumsfeld statements is a sign of just how much of an earth-trembler we've got here. We're in uncharted territory in some ways. Historically it reminds me of the transition from Eisenhower to Kennedy, and the questionable actions of Curtis LeMay and others, though the situation here is very different (almost the opposite in some ways, with perhaps the civilian leadership exerting too much control over the military rather than not enough, but perhaps I'm putting too fine a point on it).

 

That having been said, it's going to be very difficult to separate the legitimate concerns from the stuff that they should have gotten behind because it worked or might have worked had they done so. This is a bit like being friends with a divorced couple and being asked to take sides. We'll never really be able to dig to the bottom of all the disputes and parse 'em out.

 

But I think that ultimately, with the full hindsight of history, we'll have a pretty fair notion about most of it. We'll be able to determine more or less what happened during the run-up to war, including a reasonable understanding of how and why warnings from men like CJCS Shinseki (who said we'd need a lot more troops for the occupation) were downplayed/ignored.

 

Probably my single biggest concern here is that too many people will pawn this off as just another thing to blame on Bush. Much of what's happened with regard to Iraq and the Department of Defense would have happened anyway regardless of who was in charge. It all goes back to stuff that got underway during the Clinton administration, regarding force reduction, restructuring, streamlining and so forth. SOME number of the complainers will ultimately, I believe, be revealed to be upset mainly because their own power was taken away by legitimate cost-cutting measures. That's something that we need to pay attention to, and not pawn off in a partisan manner. We WANT to get rid of those guys.

 

Or at least I do, since I'm paying the bill tomorrow at the Post Office. (grin)

[Pangloss]

Another analogy that might be useful here is the situation with Lincoln and McClellan. It probably won't come up in the media because it was played out with regard to the Wesley Clark campaign, and the media hates to repeat an analogy (plus it doesn't match up with the disestablishment agenda), but there's an interesting comparison there.

 

I'm not suggesting that any of these retired generals are planning to run for President, mind you. But the dispute itself is a valid basis for comparison. McClellan thought Lincoln was a doddering fool and a complete imbecile. But in fact Lincoln had a much better grasp on the big picture than McClellan did. McClellan (in spite of the judgement of history) was no idiot either -- he was a marvel at training and leading men, which was something Lincoln had absolutely no knowledge of. What could have been a very productive meeting of the minds turned out to be a total log jam, mainly because McClellan just couldn't get over his preconceptions about Lincoln, and his stubborn pride about being ordered to do something he didn't want to do.

 

But here's an interesting counter-point to the above: I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that every single general in the military knows that story like the back of their hand, and that it's absolutely front and center in the minds of every single one of the retirees who complained. They can't NOT know of it. It's just not even remotely conceivable, given their background and the way the military culture dwells on its own history. These are men who will inherently understand, as surely as you or I know our route to work every morning, the mistake that McClellan made, why he made it, and how he could have avoided it.

 

That being the case, surely all of those men have thought about that comparison, and taken every step they possibly could along the way to ensure that they weren't making that mistake. That simple fact alone lends more credence to their claim than any MSM news piece.

[Jim]

That being the case, surely all of those men have thought about that comparison, and taken every step they possibly could along the way to ensure that they weren't making that mistake. That simple fact alone lends more credence to their claim than any MSM news piece.

 

Excellent points. I'm not sure how unprecedented this development is in a historical time frame. Look at this section from one of my new favorite books, V. Hanson's, Carnage & Culture, p. 443:

 

While the manner of civilian audit, dissent and self-critique during the Vietnam war was different from Western past practice, it was nevertheless hardly new in spirit Pericles ("Squill-Head") was ridiculed on the Athenian stage in the same manner that General Westmoreland ("Waste-More-Land") was pilloried on American campuses. Pericles, not Westmoreland, branded the foreheads of his captives and was attacked by Athenian critics for doing so. Jane Fonda dallied with her nation's enemies, precisely as did Athenian rightists who fawned over Sparta in the closing months of the Peloponnesian War. Plato, remember, in a near treasonous outburst, called the great victory at Salamis a mistake that had made the Athenians worse as a people.

 

P.435: Throughout the ordeal of Vietnam, the Congress and president were at odds over the conduct of the war, as various generals were paraded before Congress to testify . . . But unlike Roman republicans, few American generals had their own separate military commands. American senators were rarely interfering on the field of battle. Squabbling and running to the press in Vietnam paled before the confrontations between the consuls the night before Cannae. L. Aemilius Paulus and the reckless C. Terentius Varro, elected officials both, despised each other, so their plans for their shared army worked at cross-purposes. Fabius Maximus, whose strategy finally turned the tide of the Second Punic War, for a time was the most unpopular man in Rome, dubbed a coward for his tactics of delay.

Hanson continues to give several historical examples of even successful military leaders being pilloried (and in one case executed) by critics in Western cultures. He ultimately concludes that such dissent and self-critique is on balance a strength from a purely military POV.

 

While we are accustomed to civilian audit and critique of the military, I am not immediately aware of a precedent for a retired US general making devastating comments on civilian leadership in the midst of a war. (I suspect I would find some of a soon-to-be retired MacARthur re Truman if I had googled deeply enough.)

 

Still, we did not hear if Patton thought Eisenhower a fool for letting Montgomery run with Operation Market Garden. If Patton had been canned for slapping the soldier, it is unimaginable that he would have gone to the press while the war was still being fought.

 

I have to wonder what reception would have been accorded a general who retired and went to the press in 1944 to decry the infamous footbags which sheered off so many paratroopers' legs leaving them without weapons the night before D-Day. Even the most brilliant generals (e.g. Robert Lee) have their detractors in the service (e.g. George Pickett).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but your point seems to be that military men know this kind of history and probably would not come forward while the war was still being fought unless Rumsfeld was creating problems of almost historic proportions. Perhaps so. I'll wait to judge this issue until I see the specifics of the charges being made by these Generals.

[swansont]

Still' date=' we did not hear if Patton thought Eisenhower a fool for letting Montgomery run with Operation Market Garden. If Patton had been canned for slapping the soldier, it is unimaginable that he would have gone to the press while the war was still being fought.

[/quote']

 

I don't know if the viewpoint is so much going to press while the war is being fought, or going to press while you are still on active duty. Myers' comment about not hearing complaints while chairman of the Joint Chiefs may merely mean that nobody wanted to end their active-duty career, considering that article 88 of the UCMJ states:

"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" (emphasis added)

[Jim]

I don't know if the viewpoint is so much going to press while the war is being fought' date=' or going to press while you are still on active duty. Myers' comment about not hearing complaints while chairman of the Joint Chiefs may merely mean that nobody wanted to end their active-duty career, considering that article 88 of the UCMJ states:

[i']"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"[/i] (emphasis added)

 

 

It was certainly possible to raise concerns without using "contemptuous words."

[pcs]

What do you guys think of all the criticism and calls for resignation Donald Rumsfeld has been getting recently from retired generals and the like?

 

I think we haven't seen nearly as much criticism as we saw from a larger group of retired brass in 2004 for the entire Administration; criticism that explicitly manifested itself in an endorsement of John Kerry.

 

Should he resign?

 

President Bush survived a heavier onslaught. Secretary Rumsfeld and the American people should take solace in the fact that the vast majority of the officer corps stands with the Republican Party and that Mr. Rumsfeld himself is worthy of praise from Generals Peter Pace, Richard Myers and Tommy Franks.

[Sisyphus]

It was certainly possible to raise concerns without using "contemptuous words."

 

How about if you combine that with the fact that one of the main complaints is that the Administration values loyalty far above any other consideration?

[pcs]

How about if you combine that with the fact that one of the main complaints is that the Administration values loyalty far above any other consideration?

 

Then I'd say your model of civil-military relations is unreasonably complex as well as being unjustified by anything in the literature.

[swansont]

It was certainly possible to raise concerns without using "contemptuous words."

 

And I suspect they did, and they were not listened to. And even if they went public without being contemptuous (which is a subjective description) they would kill any hopes they had for further advancement.

[pcs]

And I suspect they did, and they were not listened to.

 

And what do you suspect they said, because according to the Secretary and several other retired and active brass, these broad criticisms were never raised by their present issuers during the planning and execution phase.

 

And even if they went public without being contemptuous (which is a subjective description) they would kill any hopes they had for further advancement.

 

That's called moral courage. My guess is that the officers criticizing Rumsfeld are honorable men, unlike Richard Clarke, and have in retrospect arrived at a different assessment of OIF's operational tier. I'd also point out that Swannack and Batiste were divisional commanders, and while they are undoubtedly as qualified to comment on the state of affairs as any civilian analyst or even their commanders, I find it funny how people like yourself will generously presume their experience has no effect on their analysis and yet never extend the same courtesy to OSD or the senior USCENTCOM leadership. Speaks volumes of how seriously you take this subject that you have to impose a narrative one could only find in an episode of the West Wing or some other corny Hollywood political-military thriller.

[Jim]

How about if you combine that with the fact that one of the main complaints is that the Administration values loyalty far above any other consideration?

 

If these men put their personal careers over the lives of the soldiers when they were in the service, I do not know why I should listen to them now.

[Jim]

And I suspect they did, and they were not listened to. And even if they went public without being contemptuous (which is a subjective description) they would kill any hopes they had for further advancement.

 

I don't know what to believe. Myers was pretty credible this morning on the point.

 

What I'd like to see are the specifics. For example, it is far too easy to claim "micromanagement" especially if there is an ego clash. I'd like to hear at least one specific example where Rumsfeld "micromanaged" an operation to the detriment of the troops.

[Pangloss]

If these men put their personal careers over the lives of the soldiers when they were in the service, I do not know why I should listen to them now.

 

Okay. Now how do we determine whether or not they've done that?

[john5746]

If these men put their personal careers over the lives of the soldiers when they were in the service, I do not know why I should listen to them now.

 

Yes, the military, where everyone is free to express themselves and go thier own way! How about those soldiers over there who are fighting in a war they don't agree with or who disagree with the management? Why are they still there? Is it purely for individual advancement?

 

There is a thing called the chain of command and you follow it, unless there is some very serious moral reason to break it. Even then, some do not. Like it or not, the military is far more effective with a dictator approach, not a democratic one. This is why the politicians and people should voice their opinions, pro or con.

 

Oh, to answer the OP, Rumsfeld offered his resignation to Bush, so it is Bush who has decided to keep him. I think Bush should have replaced him after the military victory, when the operation became more of a Marshall law operation.

[Sisyphus]

Rummy offered his resignation during the Abu Ghraib stuff, but he hasn't recently.

 

If these men put their personal careers over the lives of the soldiers when they were in the service, I do not know why I should listen to them now.

 

I certainly hope that's sarcasm. Even if that were true (which it doesn't appear to be), then should we just screw the troops because you dislike the person giving advice?

[Jim]

Yes' date=' the military, where everyone is free to express themselves and go thier own way! How about those soldiers over there who are fighting in a war they don't agree with or who disagree with the management? Why are they still there? Is it purely for individual advancement?

 

There is a thing called the chain of command and you follow it, unless there is some very serious moral reason to break it. Even then, some do not. Like it or not, the military is far more effective with a dictator approach, not a democratic one. This is why the politicians and people should voice their opinions, pro or con.

 

Oh, to answer the OP, Rumsfeld offered his resignation to Bush, so it is Bush who has decided to keep him. I think Bush should have replaced him after the military victory, when the operation became more of a Marshall law operation.[/quote']

 

You are mixing two issues - obeying a decision and whether there is discussion and debate about strategic questions at the highest levels.

 

I hate to keep quoting the Hanson book like I'm some kind of military authority. Hanson makes the persuasive poitns that one of the strengths of western military operations in the past has been the willinness of citizen soldiers to offer opinions to the commanders unlike, say, a Xerxes who would likely decapitate anyone offering a contrary opinion. He argues this is a defining difference in western armies throughout history. of course, once a decision is made it has to be obeyed.

 

 

The idea that these generals with stars on their chest were "intimidated" by Rummy is a little far fetched. If they were, shame on them.

[Jim]

I certainly hope that's sarcasm. Even if that were true (which it doesn't appear to be), then should we just screw the troops because you dislike the person giving advice?

 

 

Of course we should do what is in the national interest and do everything possible to protect the troops. What did I say to the contrary?

[Jim]

Okay. Now how do we determine whether or not they've done that?

 

No idea. The details are probably going to be hashed out in closed congressional hearings.

[pcs]

Okay. Now how do we determine whether or not they've done that?

 

We can be pretty sure that they haven't. In General John M. Riggs case there is definitely a personal axe to grind, although the circumstances are still unclear (and currently presented solely from his point of view). Neither General Zinni or Clark were involved in any substantial way in the 2001-3 planning update for OIF. That leaves us with the two division commanders, neither of which actively collaborated with the guidance and planning process between OSD and the unified commander.

 

So where does this leave us? This is essentially an argument pitting OSD and the senior uniformed leadership at the Pentagon and USCENTCOM against two former subordinate commanders who were not principals in the planning process and their supporters already in retirement. I think the latter group comes by their views honestly--Generals Batiste and Swannack were the shooters for OIF's major combat operations phase--but in the end the only ones who can genuinely say whether Secretary Rumsfeld was a micromanager are the unified commanders and their staff and the Joint Chiefs. Generals Batiste and Swannack, therefore, can only offer their outside interpretation of the JOPES process above their paygrade, and a distant one at that.

[john5746]

The idea that these generals with stars on their chest were "intimidated" by Rummy is a little far fetched. If they were, shame on them.

 

I agree. Hopefully, they asked for what they thought they really needed and complained to him when they didn't get it. But, that's about all you can expect.

 

Also, they may be looking back in retrospect and seeing the bigger picture now, versus thier sphere of influence at the time. Maybe at the time within their viewpoint, they thought he was an OK bast*rd.

[Dolphin]

Excellent points. I'm not sure how unprecedented this development is in a historical time frame. Look at this section from one of my new favorite books' date=' V. Hanson's, Carnage & Culture, p. 443:

 

 

Hanson continues to give several historical examples of even successful military leaders being pilloried (and in one case executed) by critics in Western cultures. He ultimately concludes that such dissent and self-critique is on balance a strength from a purely military POV.

 

While we are accustomed to civilian audit and critique of the military, I am not immediately aware of a precedent for a retired US general making devastating comments on civilian leadership in the midst of a war. (I suspect I would find some of a soon-to-be retired MacARthur re Truman if I had googled deeply enough.)

 

Still, we did not hear if Patton thought Eisenhower a fool for letting Montgomery run with Operation Market Garden. If Patton had been canned for slapping the soldier, it is unimaginable that he would have gone to the press while the war was still being fought.

 

I have to wonder what reception would have been accorded a general who retired and went to the press in 1944 to decry the infamous footbags which sheered off so many paratroopers' legs leaving them without weapons the night before D-Day. Even the most brilliant generals (e.g. Robert Lee) have their detractors in the service (e.g. George Pickett).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but your point seems to be that military men know this kind of history and probably would not come forward while the war was still being fought unless Rumsfeld was creating problems of almost historic proportions. Perhaps so. I'll wait to judge this issue until I see the specifics of the charges being made by these Generals.[/quote']

 

Blah blah blah. How can you view this except as a disaster? Even if the Generals are rats jumping ship, that still tells us something.

[Jim]

Blah blah blah. How can you view this except as a disaster? Even if the Generals are rats jumping ship, that still tells us something.

 

Did I say it was good news?

[entwined]

Well, for what you might think it is worth, here is a guy who says that Zinni, for one, talks out of both sides of his mouth.......

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5415