Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

generals challenging Rumsfeld regret not speaking up while on active duty

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:26 PM
Original message
generals challenging Rumsfeld regret not speaking up while on active duty
NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16assess.html?ex=1302840000&en=01302211ba197684&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As Policy Decisions Loom, a Code of Silence Is Broken

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: April 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 15 — The call by some retired generals for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is more than an effort to assign blame for the problems that the United States has encountered in Iraq. It also reflects concern that military voices are not being given sufficient weight in the Bush administration's deliberations, as well as unease about the important decisions that lie ahead.

In going public with their criticism, the generals have broken an informal code of silence among officers that is rooted in the longstanding reluctance of the military to openly challenge the civilian leadership of the Defense Department. That tradition has been questioned since the Vietnam War, a conflict in which generals who doubted Pentagon leaders did not oppose decisions that they thought were ill-advised.

Some of the generals challenging Mr. Rumsfeld have said they regret not speaking up while they were on active duty.

In defending Mr. Rumsfeld, President Bush has asserted that the defense secretary relies on his commanders in the field. And yet the retired generals include two former commanders of Army divisions in Iraq and an officer who trained the Iraqi military — generals who argue that the military's assessments have been discounted or ignored.

The retired generals, in effect, have declared Mr. Rumsfeld unfit to lead the nation's military forces as the United States faces crucial decisions on how to extricate itself from Iraq and what to do about Iran's nuclear program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Shinseki spoke up. It didn't do any good and it got him fired. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. At first I thought
this was just them letting loose now that their Commander in Chief had been re-elected but I heard at least one of these guys on the radio and there was genuine regret in his voice. Rumsfeld had his own ideas and the meetings seemed to be pro-forma (sp?). I heard a reporter just before the weekend explain that they'd come with their reports and never get to lay them out fully because of Rumsfeld's interruptions. From the beginning he was leading them in his direction.

According to Time magazine officers are now being trained to disagree in the field. There's supposed to be an assigned devil's advocate of sorts to challenge higher officers. There should be someone like that between Rummy and the Generals. And, seriously, considering how effed up things are in Afghanistan and Iraq, wouldn't a person of conscience have resigned voluntarily by now? The president can't ask him (publicly) to step down so it's up to Rummy to bow out on his own and he's not gonna.

I noticed Casey's body language in the photo when I was reading the paper today - is he leaning away or am I projecting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3.  "wouldn't a person of conscience have resigned voluntarily by now?"
YES!! but look who we're dealing with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. LOL!
Duh, what was I thinkin' when I asked that?? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Problem is, we are thinking...
like normal people. we have to start thinking like them, if it's possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Hmmm,
I don't know if I can turn off empathy and my conscience for quite that long...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I can't either n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. generals who speak against the whitehouse during a war
are usually fired. dougie found out about that when he pissed off harry by challenging him and worse making harry wait for him. patton found out the same thing when he challenged those above him. well he wasn`t fired just put on ice for awhile
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well, look at it this way --
if they had spoken up in 2003, they probably would have lost their jobs ...AND their benefits. They would have been out in the cold for sure, because no one would have paid any attention to them.

And in fact, I've read several articles about how they have been complaining, all along.

The war in Iraq is going badly. Everyone is looking for a culprit. The generals speak up. All eyes narrow and turn to.....

This is more effective, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I guess you could say...
live to fight another day. my problem is that many lives could have been saved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC