POL - Rummy

[Flasch186]

just wanted to snag this clip to bolster my earlier claims that the culpability for Abu Guraib did climb all the way to Rummy:

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."

Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders."



and now the rest of the story....cuz damn, it sure got hot on Rummy this week. I dont think the admin can dissparrage ALL these people, i mean, it was Zinni's reports that the admin used to rely on:

Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says

Thursday, April 13, 2006; Posted: 8:50 p.m. EDT (00:50 GMT)

story.swannack.file.cnn.jpg
Retired Gen. Charles Swannack says Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has "micromanaged the generals" in Iraq.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign. (Watch as more retired generals join chorus against Rumsfeld -- 1:29)

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold also have called for Rumsfeld to step down.

Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."

Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders.

"If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."

Swannack also criticized the way the war was being run before he retired.

In May 2004, while still on active duty, Swannack told the Washington Post that he thought the United States was losing strategically in Iraq.
General defends secretary

The White House has defended Rumsfeld, saying he is "doing a very fine job."

A former top aide to Gen. Tommy Franks, a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, also stepped forward Thursday to defend Rumsfeld.

"Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," retired Marine Gen. Mike DeLong told CNN's "American Morning" on Thursday.

"When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared, you've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."

DeLong was the deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command from 2000 to 2003 under Franks.
Calls for a fresh start

Batiste said this week that the United States needs "a fresh start" at the Pentagon.

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes," Batiste told "American Morning" on Wednesday.

"When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril." (Watch as the Iraq veteran criticizes the Pentagon's decision-making -- 1:30)

In addition to commanding the 1st Infantry in Iraq, Batiste also was a senior adviser to former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the U.S.-led invasion.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said.

Zinni, who also appeared Thursday on CNN, blamed Rumsfeld for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning."

Those plans "had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq," Zinni said.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said. "When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."
White House stands by Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld said earlier this week that he wasn't stunned by the criticism from former military leaders. He said there have been "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds" of generals during his latest tenure as defense secretary, and it wasn't unusual for "several" to have unflattering opinions.

"And there's nothing wrong with people having opinions," he said Tuesday at a Pentagon briefing. "And I think one ought to expect that. When you're involved in something that's controversial, as certainly this war is, one ought to expect that. It's historic, it's always been the case, and I see nothing really very new or surprising about it." (Watch Rumsfeld take on his critics -- 2:39 )

In February 2005, Rumsfeld told CNN that he had twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it.

In the White House briefing Thursday, spokesman Scott McClellan said Rumsfeld has the full support of the president.

"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," McClellan said.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, also defended Rumsfeld this week, telling reporters that "nobody works harder than he does."

"People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld," Pace said Tuesday. (Full story)

[st.cronin]

I've been calling for Rumsfeld to resign/be fired for a long time now, but I also think it's utterly disgraceful for these generals to wait til they retire to say stuff like this. To me, it really harms their credibility.

[Dutch]

I've been calling for Rumsfeld to resign/be fired for a long time now, but I also think it's utterly disgraceful for these generals to wait til they retire to say stuff like this. To me, it really harms their credibility.

I've listened to Rumsfeld quite a bit, especially during the build up to Afghanistan and during Afghanistan. The guy is a very brilliant man. But for the most part, nearly 100% of his decisions have been picked and pulled from a conglomorate of military commanders and their experiences and education and training are pooled together. That's how I've seen the military work, at least.

Now, with that, just like here at FOFC, you tend to get a wide range of opinions on things. Even differing opinions on things that opposition folks are both very knowledgeable about.

Trust me, in the military, lots of people hate lots of other people. It's human nature. General so-and-so probably hates General so-and-so. That's fine, but this isn't a school yard. You can't go around beating up on each other. In the military, you have to maintain a certain level of proffesionalism. That's why our military is so strong.

That doesn't mean you can't disagree, on the contrary, the US military is probably the most forgiving relevant military in the world as far as wanting to hear differing opinions. But a big no-no has always been to not take your disagreements public. That's unproffessional, undisciplines, childish, and counter-productive.

Job #1 in our armed services is the mission. Your personal opinion is not the top priority. And as such, you can't leave decision making to the committee and expect unanimous votes. The only way to get the military to move in the same direction is to leave the final decision to one guy. The decision making process is really more of a pyramid. That guy at the top of the pyramid is Donald Rumsfeld. Does he work and act alone? According to the media, yes. But the reality is that's not even close to an accurate account of the dealings of the Secretary of Defense. The guy generally works 14-16 hour days and discusses a multitude of issues with a multitude of commanders, foreign commanders, and civilian department heads.

However, when you retire, bitch away, you earned it!

[clintl]

I've been calling for Rumsfeld to resign/be fired for a long time now, but I also think it's utterly disgraceful for these generals to wait til they retire to say stuff like this. To me, it really harms their credibility.

Why? They can't really say it before they retire without ruining their careers.

[Flasch186]

from what many of their quotes seem to lead to is that many officers are not speaking up and out due to oyalty to their subordinates...meaning that they didnt want to damage morale, however many of them felt that in speaking out to their superiors it would have been tantamount to resigning since the push for war was going forward anyways.

[st.cronin]

Why? They can't really say it before they retire without ruining their careers.

That's exactly my point: If you really think this, put something on the line. To go along with these policies that you disagreed with, and then, when it costs you nothing, to speak out publicly ... well, to my mind, that's cowardly.

[clintl]

That's exactly my point: If you really think this, put something on the line. To go along with these policies that you disagreed with, and then, when it costs you nothing, to speak out publicly ... well, to my mind, that's cowardly.

How do you know that's not exactly what they did? That they put up with it as long as they could, and then retired because they no longer could justify being part of policies they disagreed with?

[John Galt]

That's exactly my point: If you really think this, put something on the line. To go along with these policies that you disagreed with, and then, when it costs you nothing, to speak out publicly ... well, to my mind, that's cowardly.

This just seems bizarre to me. Isn't it the height of disloyalty for an officer in the military to go public with complaints about their commanding officer's performance? It seems to me they should handle it behind closed doors. However, when they retire, they are civilians and should feel free to criticize military officers with their expertise. I'm really just baffled by this line of argument.

[GrantDawg]

Rummy should have been fired a long time ago.

[rexallllsc]

I've listened to Rumsfeld quite a bit, especially during the build up to Afghanistan and during Afghanistan. The guy is a very brilliant man.

You're doin' a helluva job Rummy!

[st.cronin]

How do you know that's not exactly what they did? That they put up with it as long as they could, and then retired because they no longer could justify being part of policies they disagreed with?

Well, that's not what they're saying, and I'm not aware of any general officer resigning his commision over conflict with the SecDef. THAT would be a powerful testimony - this is, as Dutch pointed out, just routine bitching and moaning.

My point is that this costs them absolutely nothing, so why give it any credence? There are tons of very good reasons to think Rumsfeld needs to go without listening to what these guys have to say.

[DanGarion]

Dammit I thought this was a thread about the game... :(

[GrantDawg]

Dammit I thought this was a thread about the game... :(


RUMMY ON THE BOARD!!!!

[flere-imsaho]

I've listened to Rumsfeld quite a bit, especially during the build up to Afghanistan and during Afghanistan. The guy is a very brilliant man.

You've got to be kidding me.


Ignored the advice of, amongst others, Colin Powell and General Shinseki, who said it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to have a chance in Iraq after the invasion.
Routinely over-represented the military's current capabilities to Bush, et. al, to the detriment of units on the gound.
Never properly addressed supply-chain issues that left units in the field without proper (or any) body armor and up-armored vehicles.
Ignored reports from commanders in the field (relayed up the chain of command) calling for more troops in certain hotspots of Iraq, to ensure security. Instead, he repeatedly cancelled deployments of additional units to some of these areas.


Rumsfeld is an incompetent and has been out of his depth since he took office.

[GrantDawg]

You've got to be kidding me.

Ignored the advice of, amongst others, Colin Powell and General Shinseki, who said it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to have a chance in Iraq after the invasion.
Routinely over-represented the military's current capabilities to Bush, et. al, to the detriment of units on the gound.
Never properly addressed supply-chain issues that left units in the field without proper (or any) body armor and up-armored vehicles.
Ignored reports from commanders in the field (relayed up the chain of command) calling for more troops in certain hotspots of Iraq, to ensure security. Instead, he repeatedly cancelled deployments of additional units to some of these areas.
Rumsfeld is an incompetent and has been out of his depth since he took office.


But defense contractors love him.

[Vegas Vic]

Rummy has been on the side of poor judgment for the better part of 25 years. What else is new?

"Whatever you need, pal. Choppers, nerve gas ..... just keep that oil flowing." (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv)

[chinaski]

I saw, er well, heard a clip from the "Nixon tapes" last night. Nixon, in reference to the young Rumsfeld said.. "That Rummy is tough, that Rumsfeld is one ruthless son of a bitch". If Nixon was calling you ruthless 30 years ago, just imagine what a souless piece of shit you are today.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Rummy is ... a souless piece of shit.

I reckon that about sums it up quite nicely.

[flere-imsaho]

Maj. General Batiste has been on the morning shows talking about this, apparently. Two things stand out (for me):

1. Apparently CENTCOM had worked on a plan for invading Iraq for 10 years (I understand the military routinely makes plans like this as contingencies, even if they're not likely to happen). According to Batiste, Rumsfeld completely ignored this plan.

2. He's reminding people that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki went before Congress and said they'd need 300,000 troops to ensure security in Iraq. Rumsfeld ignored this as well.


Rumsfeld's arrogance, the idea that he knows best and, critically, knows better than his Generals and other military men, has led directly to the United States not being prepared for war in either Afghanistan and Iraq. This has led to, amongst other things, high-value Al-Qaeda targets not being captured (including no less than OBL himself), Iraq turning into chaos due to insufficient security forces in the post-invasion period, and American troops dying because of inadequate equipment in the field.

Rumsfeld's mismanagement has also directly affected staffing and recruiting efforts. Just last week the Army released a report which showed that young officers are leaving the service at a very high rate. Then there's all the recruitment problems (in spite of record bonuses) that were highlighted last year. Plus the effective gutting of National Guard units.

But don't take my word for it:

Major General Paul D. Eaton - Army, commanded training of Iraqi security forces until 2004:

First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies, what he dismissively called 'old Europe' has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than many. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

General Anthony C. Zinni - Marines, former head of United States Central Command:


We are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. … Ten years worth of planning were thrown away; troop levels dismissed out of hand. … These were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here. Don't blame the troops

Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold - Marines, director of operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000 to 2002:

My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them.

Major General John Batiste - Army, former commander, First Infantry Division in Iraq:

I think he should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic. I think we need a fresh start. We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork.

Major General John Riggs - Army, former director, Objective Force Task Force:

They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign

Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr. - Army, former commander, 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq:


I agree it was right to go ahead and try to establish a stable government in Iraq. We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores. But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing war against Saddam in Iraq.

[MrBigglesworth]

Rumsfeld's arrogance, the idea that he knows best and, critically, knows better than his Generals and other military men, has led directly to the United States not being prepared for war in either Afghanistan and Iraq. This has led to, amongst other things, high-value Al-Qaeda targets not being captured (including no less than OBL himself), Iraq turning into chaos due to insufficient security forces in the post-invasion period, and American troops dying because of inadequate equipment in the field.

Rumsfeld's mismanagement has also directly affected staffing and recruiting efforts. Just last week the Army released a report which showed that young officers are leaving the service at a very high rate. Then there's all the recruitment problems (in spite of record bonuses) that were highlighted last year. Plus the effective gutting of National Guard units.
Incompetence in the Bush administration? Unheard of!

Don't forget the old contributions of former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who Tommy Franks reportedly called "the fvcking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."

[Dutch]

Six retired generals. Fair enough, I think I suggested that it's very possible to disagree with Rumsfeld. But out of how many? What are the Retired generals that approve of Rumsfeld saying? What is the %? Any ideas?

[flere-imsaho]

Six retired generals. Fair enough, I think I suggested that it's very possible to disagree with Rumsfeld.

So Rumsfeld's opinion on how to run the DoD is just as valid as that of six retired generals, all of whom have recent experience dealing with Iraq?

But out of how many? What are the Retired generals that approve of Rumsfeld saying? What is the %? Any ideas?

Let me know when you find one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch has a point, what about all the retired generals that are going around saying what a great success the Iraq war is?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

What's great is that all this time whenever people criticized Rumsfeld for not having enough troops and whatnot his defense was always that he was justing listening to his generals and doing what they told him. "It's not me, it's them." Now they're all coming out and saying he never listened to them...

[GrantDawg]

Dutch has a point, what about all the retired generals that are going around saying what a great success the Iraq war is?


Tommy Franks. That's the only one I've seen.

[Raiders Army]

Six retired generals. Fair enough, I think I suggested that it's very possible to disagree with Rumsfeld. But out of how many? What are the Retired generals that approve of Rumsfeld saying? What is the %? Any ideas?
FWIW, I take silence as consent so that also needs to be factored into whatever percentages are out there. I think six isn't too big of a number anyhow.

[Raiders Army]

This just seems bizarre to me. Isn't it the height of disloyalty for an officer in the military to go public with complaints about their commanding officer's performance? It seems to me they should handle it behind closed doors. However, when they retire, they are civilians and should feel free to criticize military officers with their expertise. I'm really just baffled by this line of argument.
Didn't want this to get lost.

I'll let st. cronin explain what he was trying to say, but from my perspective you're very right and somewhat wrong. You are absolutely right that it is disloyal for an officer in the military to go public with their complaints about a superior officer's performance. That officer (or NCO or soldier) should try to bring about change within the system instead; anything else is disloyal.

Countering that a little is when you can't bring about change and if that officer feels as if the superior officer is doing something that is immoral or illegal, then he may feel as if there is no other route to go except to go public. Now, this is always in the eye of the beholder, but I wouldn't fault someone for going public if they truly believed they were doing the right thing. We have a loyalty to the Constitution first, then chain of command. In that sense, this person would be loyal to the Constitution but not necessarily to the chain of command.

[st.cronin]

Note that I never said that these guys don't have a RIGHT to say what they're saying. But it's a bit like those guys at Enron testifying against other guys so they don't get prosecuted. That's pretty much exactly how I see them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Note that I never said that these guys don't have a RIGHT to say what they're saying. But it's a bit like those guys at Enron testifying against other guys so they don't get prosecuted. That's pretty much exactly how I see them.
Are you saying that they are lying about what they think?

[John Galt]

Didn't want this to get lost.

I'll let st. cronin explain what he was trying to say, but from my perspective you're very right and somewhat wrong. You are absolutely right that it is disloyal for an officer in the military to go public with their complaints about a superior officer's performance. That officer (or NCO or soldier) should try to bring about change within the system instead; anything else is disloyal.

Countering that a little is when you can't bring about change and if that officer feels as if the superior officer is doing something that is immoral or illegal, then he may feel as if there is no other route to go except to go public. Now, this is always in the eye of the beholder, but I wouldn't fault someone for going public if they truly believed they were doing the right thing. We have a loyalty to the Constitution first, then chain of command. In that sense, this person would be loyal to the Constitution but not necessarily to the chain of command.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I think in this case most of the complaints of the retired generals are of the strategy type (and thus shouldn't have been made when they were still serving). If, however, they had constitutional/legal type complaints, they should have made those known as soon as they became aware of them.

[st.cronin]

Are you saying that they are lying about what they think?

:confused: no

How in the world would you even think that?

[MrBigglesworth]

:confused: no

How in the world would you even think that?
Are you being facetious? You said that they have harmed credibility ("To me, it really harms their credibility."), insinuated that they really don't think this ("If you really think this, put something on the line."), and said that what they say shouldn't be given any credence ("My point is that this costs them absolutely nothing, so why give it any credence?"). Unless I am misunderstanding, if you think they have no credibility that means that you either think they are lying or are incompetent to the point that their opinions on military matters are of no importance. Being as they are retired generals in our own (IMO) pretty damn good military, I figured that you thought they were lying. Otherwise, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that other people might think they are lying?

[st.cronin]

Are you being facetious? You said that they have harmed credibility ("To me, it really harms their credibility."), insinuated that they really don't think this ("If you really think this, put something on the line."), and said that what they say shouldn't be given any credence ("My point is that this costs them absolutely nothing, so why give it any credence?"). Unless I am misunderstanding, if you think they have no credibility that means that you either think they are lying or are incompetent to the point that their opinions on military matters are of no importance. Being as they are retired generals in our own (IMO) pretty damn good military, I figured that you thought they were lying. Otherwise, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that other people might think they are lying?

Ok I see. There's a difference between lying and covering your ass. I assume people will realize they are doing the second. They are passing the buck - saying, "Hey, it's not my fault!" If I ran a company, I wouldn't hire any of them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ok I see. There's a difference between lying and covering your ass. I assume people will realize they are doing the second. They are passing the buck - saying, "Hey, it's not my fault!" If I ran a company, I wouldn't hire any of them.
Ok I understand a little better now. So you aren't saying they are wrong, you just don't like the way they went about it. I think their motivation lies more in the fact that they don't want to see the country head into Iran the way they headed into Iraq. I don't know if firing Rummy would help any of that though.

[Dutch]

In reference to me listening to Rumsfeld more than most...

You've got to be kidding me.

Dude, you really have got to be stuck in the middle of a foreign country working 12-hour shifts with AFN forcing Rumsfeld press briefing on you every day to really be in a situation where you have listened to Rumsfeld talk a lot. No willing person listens to that many DoD press briefings. :)

[Raiders Army]

I don't disagree with anything you said. I think in this case most of the complaints of the retired generals are of the strategy type (and thus shouldn't have been made when they were still serving). If, however, they had constitutional/legal type complaints, they should have made those known as soon as they became aware of them.
Agreed wholeheartedly.

[oykib]

I thought it was against was considered to be insubordination and an actionable offense to criticise a military superior. The could disagree in private meetings and testify to Congress, which many officers have done and been critical. But to criticise openly could have led to them getting court martialed is my understanding from the few episodes of JAG that I've seen.

[Raiders Army]

I thought it was against was considered to be insubordination and an actionable offense to criticise a military superior. The could disagree in private meetings and testify to Congress, which many officers have done and been critical. But to criticise openly could have led to them getting court martialed is my understanding from the few episodes of JAG that I've seen.
Bolding the important part.

Edit-Realized that could be a little snarky. I think the whole situation has to be considered before there are court-martial charges. FWIW, someone would probably get an Article 15 or something and then they could take it to a court-martial if they so desired.

[Axxon]

Bolding the important part.

Because, of course, correcting any error in his statement wouldn't assist the discussion anywhere near as much as being a wiseass. Gotcha. :D

Oh, and don't think I wasn't tempted to do the same thing but since I didn't know if he was wrong and didn't feel like googling I abstained. ;)

[edit]

No fair editing after I quoted but before I posted.

[Raiders Army]

Because, of course, correcting any error in his statement wouldn't assist the discussion anywhere near as much as being a wiseass. Gotcha. :D

Oh, and don't think I wasn't tempted to do the same thing but since I didn't know if he was wrong and didn't feel like googling I abstained. ;)
Edited while you posted. :)

One last edit-ass I am, wise maybe not.

[Axxon]

Edited while you posted. :)

We gotta stop typing this way. :)

[st.cronin]

I thought it was against was considered to be insubordination and an actionable offense to criticise a military superior. The could disagree in private meetings and testify to Congress, which many officers have done and been critical. But to criticise openly could have led to them getting court martialed is my understanding from the few episodes of JAG that I've seen.

It would be poor form and the ucmj could probably be interpreted so that it was illegal, but as long as the general was using his own p.r. department all he would be doing is bolloxing up his career. I think it would be a tough case, provided nothing sensitive was released. Now, I'm no lawyer, but if all it was was General Toughguy going on camera and saying "I think Rumsfeld should resign, he's been a disaster," I don't know that any type of punishment would be forthcoming. Other than, of course, assigning said general to Sri Lanka.