‘Revolt of the Generals’

April 13, 2006

Over the weekend, Lt. Gen. Gregory [tag]Newbold[/tag], the military’s former top operations officer, became the third retired [tag]general[/tag] to disparage Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and call for his dismissal. Newbold followed retired Army Major General Paul D. [tag]Eaton[/tag], the military official in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, and retired Gen. Anthony [tag]Zinni[/tag], the former head of U.S. Central Command.

Yesterday, a fourth general came forward with similar concerns.

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary’s authoritarian style for making the military’s job more difficult.

“I think we need a fresh start” at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. “We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork.”

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. “It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense,” he said earlier yesterday on CNN.

Indeed, it does. Batiste was offered the chance to become a three-star general and become the No. 2 U.S. military officer in Iraq, but he declined — because he just didn’t want to work with [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag].

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

Bush has said on multiple occasions that he is careful to heed the advice of his generals. Now might be a good time to prove it.

Slate’s Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, before Batiste’s comments, that a common joke in Pentagon circles is that “if Rumsfeld were meeting with the service chiefs and commanders and a group of terrorists barged into the room and kidnapped him, not a single general would lift a finger to help him.” It prompted Kaplan to conclude, “It’s an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence.”

“A military coup right now would probably have a moderating influence.”

Seven Days in May, anyone?

  • Bush has said on multiple occasions that he is careful to heed the advice of his generals. Now might be a good time to prove it.

    Sounds like the makings of a great press corps question session.

  • Below is the official “Oath of Enlistment for all armed forces personnel, excluding Guard units (both Army and Air):

    I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

    Note that, in today’s situation, a conflict arises within that Oath, as there seems to be a showdown brewing between “The Constitution” and “The President of the United States.” But the President also takes an Oath to the Constitution—so the choice should be pretty much moot—and the Constitution, therefore, trumps the White House.

    Therein lies the next question that “a wreckless journalist” should pose to Stonewall: “Does the President recognize that his authority is trumped by the Constitution of the United States?” Follow this up with a second “point,” relating to military personnel swearing their allegiance to the Constitution first, and the President only second—and sit back while Scottie spins like a dervish….

  • “It’s an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence.” – Fred Kaplan

    We do not want to become like Turkey, where the Military is considered responsible to protect us from the extremism of the elected government.

    As for Rummy, he just thinks these generals are pissed at him for his transformation efforts. Rummy once quoted the number of flag officers (Generals and Admirals) in the U.S. Military. Only a person who thinks there are too many flag officers can quote that number.

    Last I heard, there were 840 😉

  • So much for the Republikan stranglehold on support for (and from) the military. Let’s not forget to mention General Wes Clark while we are at it. Colin Powell is hardly an outspoken critic but it seems clear he is not a big fan.

    The dark side of my brain thinks that once all these rational and reasonable general leave W and Rummy will be left with a core of generals who owe them their early promotions (since the administration ran them out early) and will not think of biting the hand that feeds them.

    Is it not true that Rummy has offered his resignation several times and W refuses to accept it? I will be interested to see what happens in November with the military vote. I suppose they cannot determine how the soldiers and sailors vote. Hmmm…

  • “Bush has said on multiple occasions that he is careful to heed the advice of his generals. Now might be a good time to prove it.”

    To be clear, that’s the advice of HIS generals. That is, the generals that are HIS. In his pocket, for example. These other guys are with the terrorrists, as you are well aware.

  • If Rummy wasn’t doing exactly what Bushco wanted, he would of been replaced a long time ago. If he is replaced now, he will be replaced with a clone that keeps the stupidity going. The Bush Administration is the real problem. It needs to be reined in.

    If we had a Congress, it could cut off the funds for this fiasco, like the Congress did in 1975 for the Vietnam War, and that would be the end of it. But alas, we have no Congress.

  • “It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense”

    Yes, it certainly does. These generals finally speak out against the astounding incompetence and brutal stupidity of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld not when it matters — like before the war or while they were conducting operations — but well after their pensions and retirement benefits were secure and they are safely ensconced in their stateside homes.

    Exactly where does their loyalty lie? Country or self? This isn’t patriotic dissent. It’s a few generals belatedly covering their asses.

  • “I swear to thee, George W. Bush…..”

    MNProgressive called it. The JCS and the unified command headquarters are going to be run by starry-eyed evangelicals who owe their fealty to Rumsfeld and the White House first and foremost. I’m sure they’ll have to kiss Rummy’s ring when they get promoted.

  • “Exactly where does their loyalty lie? Country or self?”

    This is a really, really scary question. I do not like a world where generals sit around deciding whether they have a duty higher than country,.

  • One recalls the moment in September 1938 when the German Generals – who knew that the German Army couldn’t stand up against the Czech Army in its Sudeten fortifications alone, not even consdiering the Red Army, the French Army and a British Expeditionary Force if Hitler’s bluff was called during the Munich Crisis – considered the possibility of arresting him for endangering the country. Unfortunately, in 1935, he had changed the Officer’s Oath from one to the German Constitution to an oath of fealty to him personally, which many officers saw as precluding them now taking any action. And of course, when that spineless scumball Neville Chamberlain decided not to worry about “people who live far away (600 miles) about whom we know nothing” and gave Hitler everything, the Officer’s revolt died. When it was finally revived in 1944 it was far too late.

    I have to say that the worst idiot wearing an officer’s uniform I ever met in the Navy would be better than Bush and his cabal of morons – hell, that drunken Admiral I worked for who screwed the pooch at Tonkin Gulf would be better!

    I sure never thought I would agree with a statement that a military coup would be a “moderating influence,” but then again, I never thought I would see the Far Right take over here as they did.

  • Didn’t MacArthur give the speech at West Point on “Duty, Honor, and Country”?

    You’ll notice that “country” comes last and the “Constitution” is nowhere to be seen.

  • After Viet Nam, especially in light of the Mei Lai massacre, weren’t soldiers told that they had a moral and even a legal duty to disobey an order that they knew to be illegal, immoral and would get people shot up real bad?

    Seems to me like there was something like that floating around for a while. It would be nice if the generals of today would reflect on that bit of historical context a little bit.

    • Comments are closed.