‘Rumsfeld must go’

November 4, 2006

It’s owned and operated by civilians, but the Army Times is a semi-official extension of the Pentagon. It exists to offer Army personnel news and analysis about military careers, benefits, and “issues impacting [troops’] professional advancement.” It also emphasizes “community information and active lifestyle features of interest to Army personnel and their families.”

And yet, the Army Times has been consistently and surprisingly critical of the Bush administration and Republicans on many recent occasions, in every instance from a pro-military perspective. On Monday, however, the publication will break new ground.

Just days after President Bush publicly affirmed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s job security through the end of his term, a family of publications catering to the military will publish an editorial calling for the defense secretary’s removal.

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, “It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.”

The editorial will appear just one day before the midterm election, in which GOP candidates have been losing ground, according to recent polls.

“This is not about the midterm elections,” continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. “Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go.”

Indeed, the paper really doesn’t hold back. “Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large,” the editorial explains. “His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.”

In other words, you can stand with the military or you can stand with Bush’s Defense Secretary.

Obviously, as a political matter, having this published literally the day before the elections is a fairly big deal. In close contests, I can only hope that Dems will put Republican candidates on the spot and ask them to either endorse the Army Times’ perspective or endorse Donald Rumsfeld.

For what it’s worth, and I think it’s worth quite a bit, I think it’s also worth keeping in mind that despite the GOP myth about which party is “pro-military,” the Army Times has been getting the broader story right for years.

In May 2004, for example, under the headline, “A failure of leadership at the highest levels,” the Army Times rejected the Rumsfeld analysis of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and suggested it may be time for the Defense Secretary to step down. The Times even suggests the Pentagon’s current leadership is made up of “morons.”

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world. If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush. He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

For that matter, it was also the Army Times that hammered Republicans in March 2004 for failing to stand up for military families while congressional Democrats were trying to improve troops’ living standards.

The [Republican majority on the] House Budget Committee was determined March 17 to just say no when Democrats offered a slew of ways to improve military pay and benefits by cutting tax breaks for the wealthy.

And in July 2003 it was the same Army Times that condemned the Bush administration for not backing up its “lip service” on troop support.

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately. […]

Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”

Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.

On Monday, the Army Times will tell its readers, “So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.” Kudos to the paper and its editors for having the courage to do so.

Road sign in north Georgia (courtesy AJC):

Wake up! Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

  • The alienation of the military is a reality which the Republicans will eventually have to face. In other countries, they would have already faced the music. The only reason that Rumsfeld is still in power is the long tradition of deference of the military to civilian leadership.

    But the limits of those barriers are being torn asunder, and by the civilian leadership themselves. Bush essentially calling the Generals liars-by saying that nobody has asked for more troups- when they clearly have been ordered to make do with what they have- “You go to war with the Army you have…”- is only the start.

    I have been praying for a revolt among the military, because that is clearly the only insitution which can effect real change right now. And, in the form of a very clever Active Duty protest, making use of an obscure UCMJ Article which protects communications between a Soldier and their Representative in Congress, this may be finally happening. Maybe, when enough letters start arriving in the mail, the Republicans will put aside partisanship to start listening to their constituents.

    The statements of Bush that he supports Rumsfeld, and intends for him to remain until the end of Bush’s reign, are hopefully the final catalyst which can propel a real message of change.

    And, that change may not be merely ‘withdraw the troops’. It certainly isn’t ‘stay the course’, but the answer is probably somewhere in between. But whatever the answer is, Rumsfeld isn’t a part of it.

  • Rumsfeld will probably go down in history as one of the worst ever wartime Sec Defense of any nation in history. It is quite an accomplishment considering the following:

    Alcibiades-the Athenian arrogant idiot who started the downfall of Athens by pushing the infamous Syracuse Invasion. Who later joined their enemy Sparta.

    McNamara-who loved operationa analysis so much that he underestimated the intelligence of the enemy (people of the smart/cunning varietty are not predictable systems!)

    Falkenhayen-the German Chief of General Staff who tried a Bled White strategy with no objectives other than to kill Frenchmen and reduced the number of units available for the opening stages of the Battle of Verdun in WW1. Instead of a swift easy campaign, it became one of the bloodiest longest and messiest battles in history.

    Finally Herman Goering who loved airpower so much that he insisted that his Luftwaffe could destroy the British Army at Dunkirk and could save the 6th Army at Stalingrad and who could obsfucate and delay the introduction of needed weapons systems because he didn’t like the way folks looked at him.

    Ah, if only Rummy was found out to be a heroin using cross dresser!

  • Thinking of what reckless international schemes our besieged lame duck president might hatch in his last delusional years of power, I take great comfort from the emerging independent voice of our military.

  • Rummy’s so-called transformation of the military is actually reverting to a Vietnam era policy of gradual escalation. The concept of over-whelming force came as a reaction to Vietnam and it was adopted not only by the military, but by police departments and even mental health facilities (If a patient gets out of control everyone is tasked to swarm him.) Unfortunately it was often used on protestors as well. But Rummy–small flexible forces-Rumsfield believed in doing it the Republican way–The Cheap Way. The cheap way has been expensive.

    Open letter to news media. If you’re sitting on a story release it now instead of after we’ve voted.

  • Dale- It would be nice if Rumsfuck would do a policy of escalation- at least then we might end up with enough troops on the ground to accomplish something more than merely waiting to be hit by an i.e.d.

    The sad reality is that there is no escalation which can be done- we are maxed out on troops and equipment. We don’t have the necessary reserves to be able to call up- they are already in Iraq.

    Couple that with the fact that Rumsfuck has severely resisted any expansion of the military (and, therefore, any capability to put larger amounts of troops and equipment on the ground), and we are looking at a strategic fuck-up which makes Vietnam look like chump change.

    And, lest you think that is extremist, check back on the mortality rates. The only reason that this war hasn’t been more deadly than Vietnam is that our Medical folks have a hell of a lot better tools in hand than they did back then. We are saving so many troops that, in previous wars, would have died. And, when you run those numbers, Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

  • This lot of Republicans has never been pro-military, they have been pro-war, pro-war profiteer to be specific: Haliburton, Raytheon etc. War allows their buddies to spend the greatest amount of money in the least amount of time with even less oversight than usual. By the time any serious hearings begin about the $50,000 monkey wrenches that money is safe and sound in an off-shore account.

    Back to Donald Duck Responsibility (who is plannng to drop bombs on No Ko as I type): I know America is still a relatively civil place because this slick bastard spends his days surrounded by people who could take him out quite easily and yet he’s still alive. Or at least un-dead.

    But now the clock starts ticking: How long until some ReThuglican hack accuses the Army Times of being un-American? Bullets may fly sooner than later.

  • “In close contests, I can only hope that Dems will put Republican candidates on the spot and ask them to either endorse the Army Times’ perspective or endorse Donald Rumsfeld’

    I hope Claire McCaskill is listening.

  • I’m suprised you didn’t mention the inevitable: that the right-wing smear machine will turn on the military. There’s going to be a nasty, nasty backlash and the Democrats will do well to make sure the nastiness of it is exposed to the Republicans’ detriment.

  • Rian raises a good point. Consider not only a smear campaign, but an ideological purge of the military—with the gaps filled by uber-loyal “BushMenschen.”

    It may well be that, with the sitting of the new Congress, the current American Citizenry shall rediscover their Colonial forebearers’ inherent—and critical—need to “keep the powder dry….”

  • Obviously, as a political matter, having this published literally the day before the elections is a fairly big deal. — CB

    Not as big a deal as it would have been had it appeared a week earlier. Things like that need to simmer a bit before they come to a full boil — before everyone who needs to has heard about it. As it is, with only 24hrs before the Elections… I’m not sure that even all the military will have read the article in time, never mind the general population. And, anyway, don’t the military vote by absentee ballots, in which case, those ballots would be already on their way, long before they read the paper and, perhaps, re-thought their vote?

    IOW, their “This is not about the midterm elections,” is exactly right. Bad timing from our point of view but, from the POV of the army, probably very good, being mostly a-political, I suppose…

  • Consider not only a smear campaign, but an ideological purge of the military—with the gaps filled by uber-loyal “BushMenschen.”

    Steve, I like this idea. Bear with me a moment:

    ShrubCo replaces the “unsound” members of the military with “people” like Rumswill. As a result, no one in charge has any combat experience, can’t listen to people who do have military experience and can’t admit they’re wrong. The American military complex is buggered beyond repair in a matter of months. Canada decides it wants to stretch its borders a bit. Our soldiers, already pissed off at the cretins in charge join up with the Canadian forces.

    I’d give it a year, tops before the maple leaf flies over the White House, we’ve got national healthcare and nifty accents.

    O, Canada! You’re quite welcome to this land….

  • ***I’d give it a year, tops before the maple leaf flies over the White House, we’ve got national healthcare and nifty accents.***
    ——————————————————————————-tAiO

    Well—it just so happens that I have a Maple Leaf hanging over my drawing table. Pretty good—eh?

    Now, I’ll have a terrible time getting to sleep—what with visions of Bush and his minions being chased into the Potomac by “ex-US-Marine” Mounties on horseback, waving bullwhips and cavalry sabers over their heads, and screaming “Semper Fi THIS, Georgie!!!”

  • It’s going to be a curious thing on Monday when the Army Times newspaper vending machines on military bases are all empty…

    … at Rumsfeld’s order.

    This editorial should have been printed weeks ago. Most servicemen vote absentee, and their (doubtlessly Republican’t leaning) votes are already in the mail.

    Makes you wonder what the challenges will be like come Wednesday.

  • It’s not just the Army Times…

    Four US military newspapers catering to all the branches of the US armed forces will reportedly publish an editorial on the eve of the November 7 congressional election, demanding the resignation of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    An advance copy of the article titled “Time for Rumsfeld to Go” was obtained by the television network and posed on its website late Friday. It is scheduled for simultaneous publication Monday by the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, NBC News said.

    • Comments are closed.