Revolt of the Generals — redux

April 14, 2006

The group of retired generals who want Donald Rumsfeld’s ouster has now reached six.

The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag]’s resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. [tag]Swannack[/tag] Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John [tag]Riggs[/tag], joined in the fray.

John Cole argued yesterday, “It important to look at what they are actually saying rather than just whooping it up that someone is gunning for Rumsfeld’s head.” It’s a fair point. Not all of the retired generals are making the same argument. Some want Rumsfeld to go based on his incompetence, others because of his inept management style, others because of his misplaced disregard for advice from military commanders, and still others because of the scandals that have erupted during his tenure. The bottom line, however, remains the same.

Of course, at this point, Rumsfeld’s boss is unconcerned.

The White House came to the aid of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday, rebuffing calls from several retired generals for his resignation and crediting him with leading the Pentagon through two wars and a transformation of the military.

“The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation’s history,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said at a briefing.

How long will the Bush gang maintain this position? We’ll see, but one retired Army general told the NYT that the “floodgates” may be opening.

April 14, 2006 at 9:53 am

Kind of typical for Bush. He listens to the generals, until they say what he doesn’t want to hear. The fact that 6(!!!!!) generals are calling for Rummy’s head should be a wake up call for any remaining Rummy supporters who not in a coma.

Support the troops! As long as it is politically convenient to do so

“…one retired Army general told the NYT that the “floodgates” may be opening.” – CB

In your dreams General. No one in the White House or the OSD civilians, chicken hawks all, cares the least what a general says, or even six. And you guys knew what Rumsfeld was like by 2004 and left the country thinking that Bush would be better for the Military than the Democrats.

It’s going to take years to rebuild the U.S. military capability after Iraq, Afghanistan and ? Iran ?. Sure, we will have lots of company and flag officers with combat experience, but the material deficits will be enormous, and we are putting tens of thousands of maimed veterans into the veterans health care system just at a time when WWII veterans were dying off in job lots and we had the opportunity for real consolidation of veterans hospitals. Now that is not going to happen. Which is essentially why I never listen to representatives of Veterans organizations claiming they hear only support for the war from U.S. troops.

Here are the “pros” and “cons” of Rumsfeld no longer being Defense Secretary from the Bush point of view.

PRO: Much of the Iraq mess would be offloaded from Bush to Rumsfeld, including the issues of too few troops, dismantling the Iraqi Army, post-invasion planning, Abu Ghraib–not to mention, the failure to catch Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora.

CON: Rumsfeld leaving would be an admission that the Iraq War and the U.S. military have been mismanaged–and Bush let it happen.

Oh, what will Georgie do?

On the one hand I would be surprised to see Rumsfeld last all the way to the end of Bush’s term simply because of his age, and the natural tendancy for things to turn over. On the other hand, I will be SHOCKED if Bush gets rid of Rumsfeld because of what anybody else says (excepting Big Dick).

Rumsfeld is the third stooge, and these guys are sticking together. I don’t care how many generals speak up.

General Swannack was my battalion commander (2/9 Infantry) at Fort Ord, and I would have charged into hell if he led the way. If he thinks Rummy needs to go, then Rummy NEEDS TO GO.

This admininstration is doing more to destroy the military, particularly the Army, than any of our enemies in the past would have dreamed of. If the situation doesn’t change, the “hollow army” of the 1970s will look like a well-oiled machine in comparison.

The critical undercurrent here is that Bush /Rummy/Cheney are toying with the idea using tactical nukes.. triggering a flood of surprising outspoken criticism from retired brass. When these guys are scared, we should be scared,
“:Wild speculation ” has enough substance to flush out a bevy of generals.

“The critical undercurrent here is that Bush /Rummy/Cheney are toying with the idea using tactical nukes.” – kali

Of course they are, chicken hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush know perfectly well that tactical nukes are to use and not to keep stored away as a terror weapon to keep our enemies (marginally) in line. No, no! A real American wants to see the red-white-blue mushroom clouds rising above the hills of Iran.

And we don’t need to worry too much about officers of the U.S. Military refusing to execute their orders. After all, the Air Force Academy is a baston of Evangelical Extremism, and certainly there is some strategic bomber squadron whose whole command structure are ready to bring about the End Times.

Worry America! Worry a lot.

2Manchu,

This admininstration is doing more to destroy the military, particularly the Army, than any of our enemies in the past would have dreamed of. If the situation doesn’t change, the “hollow army” of the 1970s will look like a well-oiled machine in comparison.

I agree and it seems like most reasonable people would also come to this conclusion. Given that, why does the military overwhelmingly support the GOP and Bush? I’ve never understood that and was hoping your experience might shed some light. Thanks in advance.

I’m certainly glad that – this time – it is actual generals rather than just Colonels (and damn few of them) like my old friend the late David Hackworth. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al may think they can sweep this under the rug, but – as 2Manchu’s comment makes clear – these guys are outstanding officers, and over their 25-30 year careers, lots of guys like 2Manchu served under them, and know that. And they can make comments everywhere like 2Manchu did here. That’s going to count with a lot of people, when someone they know says “I knew that guy, and I would have charged into hell if he led the way.”

I recall 20 years ago doing an interview with my former commanding officer, who afterwards rose to command Task Force 77 – all the Navy forces in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war – a man who has been called by those who knew him “the finest naval officer of his generation.” When I talked to him about Vietnam (and he’d been involved in everything from Tonkin Gulf onwards), he said his regret was that he had not resigned his commission as Rear Admiral in 1968 and spoken out against what he saw happening, rather than staying in and, as he put it, “playing maitre ‘d on the Titanic.”

Today’s generation of generals are the young officers who grew up hearing such sentiments from outstanding leaders like my old CO, and who were all ordered 10 years ago to read McMaster’s book “Dereliction of Duty.” Those of them who aren’t “Courtney Massengale” officers, who are the kind of guys folks like me and 2Manchu would “follow into hell if they led,” aren’t going to stand by and make the mistakes their forebears did. And they have influence.

This is very important. Don’t be concerned about the specifics of why they speak up, just be damn glad they do. It makes the Perfumed Princes of Versailles-on-the-Potomac” (Hackworth’s perfect term) like Peter Pace look like the drop-’em-and-spread-’em Massengales they are.

From the beginning I’ve never understood why anyone in the Pentagon gave a crap what Bush — this National Guard AWOL, spoiled brat of a notorious crime family, and all-around failure — had to say about anything. But then I never understood the Democratic flip side either — why Clinton ever bent over for Sam Nunn’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” reaming.

Do you get the idea that every military engagement since Korea (which was, at least, in accord with the “Containment Policy” of the time) has been of no real security value to the United States? Where “the enemy” was no real threat to us? They all seem to have been prompted by the overblown ego (or self-serving political machinations) of whomever was “serving” as President, along with an increasingly compliant corps of flag officers and with a press corps which was increasingly ignorant … and willingly so.

Strictly spoken, Rumsfeld already should have been gone ages ago. When so many scandals take place under your responsibility, then you should just leave. The one point that I’m concerned about, however, is who might replace him if he throws in the towel. Who can ensure that Team Bush doesn’t appoint an even bigger nut for these last two years?

Anyone got any ideas about potential candidates? Not that I believe that he actually wíll go, but that’s a whole different matter.

I seem to be the only guy on the planet that is horrified by the spectacle of four generals on the front page of the New York Times expressing political opinions. This is a calamatous day for what is left of democracy. And, no, this is not an endorsement of Rumsfeld or the current administration.

Buce,

I seem to be the only guy on the planet that is horrified by the spectacle of four generals on the front page of the New York Times expressing political opinions.

they are retired. Are they not allowed to express political opinions even in retirement?

I decided to thumb thru my dog eared copy of Anton Myrer’s Once An Eagle. I remembered one seemingly innocuous question that one character asked:
“supposing the hoosier giving the commands is giving the wrong ones?”

Civillian control of the military is the key to any democracy. But it all depends on the quality of the people in control. If you have a bunch of bootlicking perfumed princelings (“yes sir yes sir three bags full”) who view soldiers/saliors as mere toys and trinkets of power leading the military and you have a craven greedy ignorant power hungry jackal (and in many case cowardly) civillians, you have the perfect storm for disaster.

“I seem to be the only guy on the planet that is horrified by the spectacle of four generals on the front page of the New York Times expressing political opinions. This is a calamatous day for what is left of democracy.”

True. Generals should avoid making comments on political policy-Seven Days In May and all that. Active duty generals that is. From my understanding of the upper ranks of US military leadership these men are usually dyed in the wool Republicans and no fans of Liberals. But these generals know their history and realized what a considerable number of German senior officers realized some 60 years ago, that their civillian “leadership” was taking them down. Ultimately, these men finally had to make a choice as described by a dying Damon.

“If it comes to a choice between being a good soldier and a good human being–try to be a good human being.”

Buce – does it help your thinking that they waited until they had resigned.

I’m wondering if that’s why they kept quiet while still on active duty – where, if active, you don’t publicly criticize the civilian authorities.

“Generals should avoid making comments on political policy-Seven Days In May and all that.” – Dan

In the movie, the General shoots himself after his plot is defeated.

In the book, the General plans to run for President!

I suppose the movie producers were looking for a tighter ending.

One last thing. After I read the book several years ago, I spent some time on the net trying to find any references/reviews. Unfortunately, I found a lot, but mostly on right wing sites. Several right wing bloggers called out Wesley Clark as a Courtney Massengale type during his presidential campaign while describing Sam Damon basically as a Republican.

Case in point from Nationa Review Online
December 14, 2003, 12:02 p.m.
So Much for a “Quagmire”
Honor and competence catches Iraq’s rat.
By Mackubin Thomas Owens (who claims to have read the book)

“Wesley Clark is Courtney Massengale. Fortunately for the republic, most American officers adhere more closely to the Sam Damon school of leadership than to that of Courtney Massengale. That’s why our soldiers caught Saddam and that’s why we will prevail in Iraq.”

Too bad the guy didn’t read the book all that closely. Sam didn’t fight for glory or power or money, he fought for the little guy. He defended people who didn’t have anywhere else to turn to. I don’t want to spoil the book for any of you, but he was in favor integration of blacks and whites in the Army and defended an American Indian in a court martial. These are not typical actions of those in the Republican Camp.

Also Anton mentions the use of torture in his fictionalize Vietnam and Damon’s personal revulsion to the practice. If things were as Owens says they were then what brought about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?

I wonder sometimes about a lot of right winger’s (in particular Owens) reading comprehension.

Buce,

In addition to the generals being retired (I’ve heard a couple of them on the radio saying it’s appropriate that active-duty generals are not saying the same thing), there’s another point worth making. You’re worried about “four generals … expressing political opinions.” I don’t really see it as political opinions though. If they were critiquing the administration’s stand on this or that policy, that would be political. In this case, they all seem to be offering negative evaluations of Rumsfeld’s operational capabilities. Not political, but performance-based judgments offered from a perspective that political operatives almost by definition do not have.

As for this: Not all of the retired generals are making the same argument… incompetence… inept management style… misplaced disregard for advice from military commanders… the scandals that have erupted during his tenure.

All in all, I have to say that is the same argument: each of these boils down to the first, incompetence, an inability to perform the job of Secretary of Defense.

And let’s face it: it indicates something that six retired generals feel that they should speak out about their irritations over Rumsfelds handling of the Iraq war. Besides, their opinions throw in some weight. I’m inclined to believe a retired general a bit sooner than average Joe saying it’s all f***ed up. Those generals know what they are talking about, they’ve been there, done that, seen things, experienced things and decided for themselves: as soon as I am off duty, I’m gonna try and make an end to this mess. If I were an American, I’d be thankful to these guys. I am anyhow, even as a Dutchman.

Tom,
You said it all, I really can’t add anything else. And thanks for the props.

Edo,
I don’t know why a lot of military votes GOP. I think the tipping point occurred sometime during the 1970s, when the Pentagon was trying to clean up after Vietnam. LBJ and McNamara had left a pretty deep scar for many of the officers and senior enlisted over the handling of the war, and McNamara’s bungling of the military bureaucary and procurement process. By the time of the Carter administration, when Defense spending was at an all time low for the Cold War, many hardliners were spreading the neo-con belief that the Soviets were on the verge of surpassing the US in the arms race (totaly false), and the Democrats, the party in power, were getting most of the blame.
Then two nearly back-to-back events, the embassy takeover in Tehran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, cemented what many in the military saw as a weakening a US resolve. Reagan played upon this, and promised to dramatically increase defense spending. When Reagan kept his promise after winning the election, the military was sold. From then on, the GOP became the party of national defense and strength.

That’s just my take on the reason, so I don’t know how true it is. But Colin Powell’s autobiography, I think, provides a good example of the military’s mentality during the 1970s and early 80s.

If the White House (or at least one faction there) sees a silver-lining in this 15-star cloud, it’s a chance to nail McCain (inside the Pentagon).

“If the White House (or at least one faction there) sees a silver-lining in this 15-star cloud, it’s a chance to nail McCain (inside the Pentagon).” – Paul Woodward

I’m not sure I buy that. While being a military officer might be considered some executive experience, giving McCain a whole department to run for three years would be a solid resume bullet.

Fascinating, how many Republicanites express concern about McCain winning their party’s nomination. Might it be fear that he will turn around and indict them? 😉

It seems to me that all the reasons cited by CB for the disenting generals desire for Rumsfeld’s resignation boil down to incompetence.

It does trouble me that (retired) generals feel the necessity to criticize the civilian leadership of the military – but perhaps for a different reason than Buce. It’s both maddening and saddening that a war at our discretion has squandered so many things that I felt had real value. No one feels good that generals feel they must speak out. I would be much happier if there was no need for such criticism for those quarter. My conclusion (held long before they began to speak out) is that things must be really hosed to have them take such harsh positions publically. Can only be dismayed by that.

Alas, the Bush presidency has been like the universal wrecking ball, and while Bush may be content to leave to history the judgement of his performance, citizens who think the verdict is not only in but clear and damning must speak out. Every day I am discouraged because my friends and family refuse to express their growing displeasure with the policies and execution of policy of Bush and company. I want them to speak out, and I want military experts – who are no longer active – to speak their minds. I do not recall criticism of those who speak in support of Bush, and I would not criticize such individuals for speaking out.

Whatever the generals’ reasons for calling for Rumsfeld to step down, I am not encouraged that (a) he will or (b) if he were to leave office that anything would change unless the change was perceived to bring political advantage to Republicans. Slip kid no more’s analysis captures the essence of the depraved motivations of the crowd in power. Finally, these days I find myself always taking the “Be careful what you wish for” approach to change in the Bush administration. I was glad to see John Ashcroft go, but Alberto Gonzales sickens me. Sometimes the change is not necessarily an improvement. Bush seems to take glee in sticking it to his critics.

Bluntly, this administration seems to be intentionally weakening the credibility of its ground forces. In the Rumsfeld Eye, and the maniacal machinations of Tricky Dick 2, all that’s needed for “final victory” are the SSBN contingent, and the bombers. That way, they can fling their high-yield goodies at whomever they want to “liberate,” and not have a smoking gun with an exhaust trail leading back to an empty, somewhat-scorched, land-based silo in Middle Amerika. Getting rid of Rum-Pot could be even more dangerous, considering that this administration wouldn’t blink twice about putting one of their evangelical buddies in charge. It wouldn’t be beyond these jackelopes to pack the JCS and senior command structure with fundies, all bent on taking us to their biblically-promised apocalyptic reward….

2Manchu,

That’s just my take on the reason, so I don’t know how true it is.

Thanks for providing your insight. Frankly its the most concise take I’ve ever seen. I don’t know if its true either, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Thanks again.

The ‘Revolt of the Generals’ is indeed a significant turning point in the future of our current administration’s seeming stranglehold on Iraq policy — or at least it should be.

It will be increasingly difficult for the Bush administration to pass off antiwar and antioccupation sentiments as merely those of the liberal press or extreme left-wingers. His own, and more importantly, Rumsfeld’s own henchmen, are finally crying wolf, perhaps as a result of an unspoken agreement to come forth in the face of impending disaster in Iraq policy, future Iran policy, and, perhaps more significantly, our entire American foreign policy (or the shreds of what’s left of it). Rumsfeld’s reign of power mongering terror is being revealed for what it was and is. As even David Brooks pointed out on The Jim Lehr Show tonight, Rumsfeld’s credibility, even among the neocons, appears to be shot. He has breached every self-appointed ‘leadership rule’ he so proudly bellowed about now years ago — one must be ready to resign when a clear majority of the people no longer believe one can lead effectively in such a position….The honorable move would be to resign, but once again, the Bush cronies are rallying bull headishly around their boys club. All’s fair in love and big business, it seems. I honestly believe, however, that the breadth and pedigree of the generals coming forward cannot be swept under the carpet this time..This concerted voice seems to confirm what likely occurred with Powell in his infamous ‘possibility of weapons’ speech. My personal belief is that his life, or those of his family members, were threatened by the neocons, thus allowing the only plausible explanation a military diplomat of his stature, would bend over for a pack of unjust, ultra Emperialist and ‘Christian v. Musltim’ spun pack of lies! Well, you get my point. I’m curious to know what others think Rumsfeld’s next move will be…Thanks…

Comments are closed.