Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld

[TacticalPeek]

Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: April 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 22 — The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.

snip

The discussions often flare with anger, particularly among many midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of additional tours of duty.

"This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly," said one Army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation does better someday."

An Army major who is an intelligence specialist said: "The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.' They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might otherwise have stayed in uniform for more years.

snip

"The Army, however, went gently into that good night of Iraq without saying a word," he added. "For that reason, most of us know that we have to share the burden of responsibility for this tragedy. And at the end of the day, it wasn't Rumsfeld who sent us to war, it was the president. Officers know better than anyone else that the buck stops at the top. I think we are too deep into this for Rumsfeld's resignation to mean much.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23military.html?hp&ex=1145764800&en=d9c90a77b877dfd6&ei=5094&partner=homepage


When you have an AWOL, coke-addled President . . .

[Kagemusha]

1. There'll be a lot of gnashing of teeth over this one.

Public criticism of the political leadership by commissioned officers is a felony under the military justice system. That there is even private criticism of the generals and the civilian leadership they serve (note: I am avoiding saying they serve the junior officers or the enlisted men for good reason) will be cited as proof that these retired generals should shut the ---- up because they are undermining military morale.

That said, there's a problem with this concept of "we've won every tactical engagement". Put really bluntly, just because you kill 5x as many of the enemy as you have in killed and wounded combined, doesn't mean you've "won". That's the whole point about assymetrical warfare. In other situations an IED will explode killing 1 and wounding 4 US soldiers and not a single insurgent will be killed. Is that a tactical engagement? To the US Army, no, because it didn't shoot at anyone. To the enemy it certainly was a successful tactical engagement. It's silly and wrong to define tactical victory as if guerillas without tanks or aircraft should be considered the equal of a force with tanks and aircraft, and that each time the guerillas lose against tanks and aircraft, it is a success equal to dispatching a Warsaw Pact armored force. Sure, go ahead, convince yourself that's "victory" and that victory should surprise us, that it should surprise us that we "win" every engagement we decide is worthy of being CALLED an engagement.

Ever heard the expression "nickel and dimed to death"? Strategy isn't going to be a cure-all for the problem. The only possible foolproof defense against IED's that has anything to do with strategy is the old Karate Kid motto: The best block is not to be there.

That is, if you're not in Iraq, the Iraqis can't IED you to death.

Duh.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. I don't see any names being mentioned in the article, do you?...

...Can't prosecute anyone if you don't know their names.

And no, the genie is out of the bottle, and nobody is going to be told to shut up. IMHO, it's more likely that the revolt will spread throughout the ranks because they KNOW they've been lied to.

[Kagemusha]

12. Nobody is going to be told to shut up...!?!?!?!?! Um, no.

Look, the Army has long told enlisted people to shut up even though Congress has guaranteed their right to speak out. I remember the DU threads about it a few years ago. Officers actually can be court marshalled and given hard prison time for speaking out against the civilian leadership. It comes with the bars.

My point is more that Rush Limbaugh etc. are going to ramp up their whining about the retired generals (who no one should tell to shut up, they have the RIGHT to speak out, a right we are continually told the military fights to defend) undermining the armed forces with their treacherous unpatriotic speech.

But there is no WAY that they will not seek to remind officers that it is against the law to be heard criticizing the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, etc etc. Against the LAW, law passed by Congress.

[TomClash]

16. There's another problem with "We won every battle"

It's not true. Read Cobra II.

[Rex]

2. Hear that Colon Blow? They're talking about traitors like you.

nt

[sandnsea]

5. What were they saying then??

About General Shinseki and others? I bet they were calling the ones who dissented lily-livered cowards. The ones I knew were insistent that this wasn't another Vietnam and howled when anybody uttered the word. Did they join the Swift Boaters? I bet they did. These Generals blamed the hippies then, just like the officers in this story probably ridiculed the dissenters in 2002. If some of these officers don't start telling the truth about their own complicity, we'll be back down this road again. What are they saying about Iran? I bet they support the President and can't even see the disconnect between their own complaints about Iraq and support for bombing Iran. This article is just bullshit. There were dissenting Generals, these assholes thought they knew better and don't want to admit it, and that's why they'll get bamboozled by another group of lying politicians when it's their turn to advise on military strategy too.

[Rex]

10. Same thing as now. I guess it is basic illogical reasoning

that somehow a long-haired, pot smoking peacnik could in some way shape the events; the actual trajectory and amount of bullets fired by the 'enemy', thousands of miles away - if only by voicing the simple dissent our country has demanded from Americans throughout history. It is as if 'corporate' generals cannot grasp how it was their DECISIONS to involve America in another immoral war that caused Vietnam and pretty much every 'conflict' we've been in from Korea up to Iraq.

Ya know, flag officers, it is okay to DISAGREE with the C&C and at times healthy for a democracy to have our military experts give their advice (no matter how negative) on if the AMERICAN PEOPLE really should get involved in another conflict or not. So far I still see American soldiers dying daily in Iraq, so there is no debate about if soldiers are doing what their BOSS, George Bush tells em to. It is not the JOB that is in question, but the ORDERS to go and do the job.

I guess what we need to do is divide up how many flag officers actually give a rats ass about their troops and how many have or will work for companies like Exxon or the Carlyle Group, because IMO those fellas are 'corporate' generals and a danger to our Armed Forces.

[theHandpuppet]

13. Exactly my thought as well

Some of those barbs were aimed right at the ultimate traitor-in-uniform.

[sandnsea]

3. They STILL don't get it

The Generals they're talking about believed it was the hippie's fault we lost Vietnam. The Generals who knew better were called unpatriotic jelly-balls who ate French fries and drank French wine; probably by these exact same officers who are complaining now.

[chaumont58]

4. If the war had gone good, there wouldn't be this problem

Even if the War had gone bad and there was a real reason, there wouldn't be this problem.

The war has gone bad and the fuckin' reasons were bogus. Kennedy had a saying after the Bay of Pigs. Victory has a thousands father, defeat is an orphan. Dumb fuckin' Rumsfield has torn off a lot of skin in his time as Defense Secratary. Its coming back to haunt him, as it should. Good man and women are dead. Rumsfield and his bosses can not escape an accounting for their actions. The right wing can piss and moan about civilian control of the military. These general officers are retired. They break no laws by telling the truth about bullshit leadership.

[fishnfla]

6. Yeah, why blame Rummy, the chimp is in charge

Pretty clever tactic though....if you think about it. The longer the chimp sticks up for Sect'y clusterfuck, they both look bad

[Rose Siding]

7. This is going to cause a firestorm

Hiatt at the Post must be feeling faint.

[rodeodance]

20. maybe. I hope so

[acmavm]

8. Everybody needs to QUIT ASSIGNING BLAME AND JUST ADMIT

to themselves that THEY LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

9. "Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush"

Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush— in contrast to the situation in the 1960's, when both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (Mr. McNamara, like Mr. Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military itself.)

The fault lies entirely with their Commander-in-Chief for he, and he alone, had the authority to order them into a war of aggression in Iraq, just as he will order them into another war of aggression in Iran.

The buck stops at the Oval Office!

[lthuedk]

14. On Rumsfeld - a political image

The neocon has no credibility and no honor. With a backdrop of pain and fear he caused, al Rumsfeld dares to instruct us on fear's effect on the news.

Stephen Pitt

[Mr.Green93]

15. How long till the coup?

It may be needed to bring this regime to justice and restore our Democracy.

[Trajan]

17. These voices stand in alliance with the retired generals ....

THIS is the voice of the middle officer range, speaking FOR dissent, when reality and honor demands it ....

This is NOT helpful to Rumsfeld .. or His boss, the alleged CiC ....

[Stinky The Clown]

18. THIS is what I both wished for and feared

The best and brightest are the first to 'get it'.

The best and brightest are our future and the future of the military.

The best and brightest are now about to leave.

And what will be left behind?

[rodeodance]

19. says most do not place blame on Bush (conrast with 60's)

......One Army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, and 75 percent believed that he should remain. But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and "show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be," the colonel said.

Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush — in contrast to the situation in the 1960's, when both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (Mr. McNamara, like Mr. Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military itself.)