Another General Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation.

[trenchfoot]

just wanted to add here that when in uniform, especially so at flag rank, publicly criticizing your superiors is a marvelous way to commit occupational suicide, particularly with the current administration.

from what i've seen and heard of bush and crew, they reward loyalty beyond common sense (rummy is a perfect example); otoh, bush and pals do not tolerate criticism of any kind no matter how constructive or sincere it may be. e.g.- shinseki.

imho, this behavior is a weakness and not a strength. it's indicative of how johm bolton was described as a kiss-up-kick-down kind of guy. ergo, brown-nosing is a highly regarded virtue in bush's world.

from what i've seen in the workplace, a boss who rewards sucka$$es probably got his job from being the same way.

don vito, if you're reading this - please correct me if i'm wrong - per ucmj, in certain situations it may be lawful to criticize or countermand, but there is the distinct possibility of being charged with insubordination or worse-(also apllies to secdef vs. uniformed personnel?) also, iirc, there is a large grey area in this regard, which makes the outcome of differing with your boss a crapshoot at best.

soldiers are trained to follow orders. it comes with the job. add to that, to openly criticize your superiors while in uniform violates protocols and code of conduct.

so, given this scenario, a soldier, especially a high-ranking one with a lot to lose is not going to openly criticize bush or rummy. however, methinks that once retired, these generals spoke up mainly out of concern and loyalty to the troops that were once under their command.

*edit*-spl

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
just wanted to add here that when in uniform, especially so at flag rank, publicly criticizing your superiors is a marvelous way to commit occupational suicide, particularly with the current administration.

from what i've seen and heard of bush and crew, they reward loyalty beyond common sense (rummy is a perfect example); otoh, bush and pals do not tolerate criticism of any kind no matter how constructive or sincere it may be. e.g.- shinseki.

imho, this behavior is a weakness and not a strength. it's indicative of how johm bolton was described as a kiss-up-kick-down kind of guy. ergo, brown-nosing is a highly regarded virtue in bush's world.

from what i've seen in the workplace, a boss who rewards sucka$$es probably got his job from being the same way.

don vito, if you're reading this - please correct me if i'm wrong - per ucmj, in certain situations it may be lawful to criticize or countermand, but there is the distinct possibility of being charged with insubordination or worse-(also apllies to secdef vs. uniformed personnel?) also, iirc, there is a large grey area in this regard, which makes the outcome of differing with your boss a crapshoot at best.

soldiers are trained to follow orders. it comes with the job. add to that, to openly criticize your superiors while in uniform violates protocols and code of conduct.

so, given this scenario, a soldier, especially a high-ranking one with a lot to lose is not going to openly criticize bush or rummy. however, methinks that once retired, these generals spoke up mainly out of concern and loyalty to the troops that were once under their command.

*edit*-spl

And yet the spin from the bush administration on all the "news" programs is "Why didn't they speak up when they were active duty?"

What nonsense. Ask Shinseki why they didn't.

And Piasabird, AFAIK, Americans still have the right to free speech. Or has bush rescinded that one too?

But your retaliatory behavior doesn't surprise me. It's how despotic regimes like the bush junta stay in power.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Doesn't this kind of make it look like the Whitehouse is NOT in control of (or at least not respected by) the military? Because it would easy to assume that if retired generals (that did not retire all that long ago) start speaking out about the problems and what should be done (Rumsfeld to resign) that many other active generals feel the same way but have not spoken about it to the press.

 

[martinez]

The lack of respect shown to Shinseki and his predictions of what would be necessary in Iraq, sums up the entire administration and their 6 years in office.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Doesn't this kind of make it look like the Whitehouse is NOT in control of (or at least not respected by) the military? Because it would easy to assume that if retired generals (that did not retire all that long ago) start speaking out about the problems and what should be done (Rumsfeld to resign) that many other active generals feel the same way but have not spoken about it to the press.

Technically I don't think the personal opinions of officers comes much into play in what those officers do. Most of the time they're gonna just grit their teeth and do what they're told no matter how stupid their superiors are.

It's probably for the best, no matter how pathetic the Bush admin is, a Military Coup would be even worse. In the Third World this would have already happened.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: martinez
The lack of respect shown to Shinseki and his predictions of what would be necessary in Iraq, sums up the entire administration and their 6 years in office.

I agree.

Imagine the arrogance, hubris and incompetence required to completely dismiss Shinseki's opinions. This hurbis has cost American lives. Just like in Vietnam the suits show little regard for the lives of the uniformed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is...nsequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

Some great quotes:
"Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year"

"At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort."

"In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo."

In regards to this last one... uhhhh.... wtf was Wolfowitz smoking? No history of ethnic strife in Iraq?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: martinez
The lack of respect shown to Shinseki and his predictions of what would be necessary in Iraq, sums up the entire administration and their 6 years in office.

I agree.

Imagine the arrogance, hubris and incompetence required to completely dismiss Shinseki's opinions. This hurbis has cost American lives. Just like in Vietnam the suits show little regard for the lives of the uniformed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is...nsequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

Some great quotes:
"Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year"

"At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort."

"In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo."

In regards to this last one... uhhhh.... wtf was Wolfowitz smoking? No history of ethnic strife in Iraq?

Does anyone remember what happened in Italy near the end of WWII to those who misled their nation this badly?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
just wanted to add here that when in uniform, especially so at flag rank, publicly criticizing your superiors is a marvelous way to commit occupational suicide, particularly with the current administration.

from what i've seen and heard of bush and crew, they reward loyalty beyond common sense (rummy is a perfect example); otoh, bush and pals do not tolerate criticism of any kind no matter how constructive or sincere it may be. e.g.- shinseki.

imho, this behavior is a weakness and not a strength. it's indicative of how johm bolton was described as a kiss-up-kick-down kind of guy. ergo, brown-nosing is a highly regarded virtue in bush's world.

from what i've seen in the workplace, a boss who rewards sucka$$es probably got his job from being the same way.

don vito, if you're reading this - please correct me if i'm wrong - per ucmj, in certain situations it may be lawful to criticize or countermand, but there is the distinct possibility of being charged with insubordination or worse-(also apllies to secdef vs. uniformed personnel?) also, iirc, there is a large grey area in this regard, which makes the outcome of differing with your boss a crapshoot at best.

soldiers are trained to follow orders. it comes with the job. add to that, to openly criticize your superiors while in uniform violates protocols and code of conduct.

so, given this scenario, a soldier, especially a high-ranking one with a lot to lose is not going to openly criticize bush or rummy. however, methinks that once retired, these generals spoke up mainly out of concern and loyalty to the troops that were once under their command.

*edit*-spl

It's actually a crime for uniformed officers to use "contemptuous words" about the President, SecDef, Congress, the Governor of the state in which they are stationed, and a host of other people, under Article 88, UCMJ. Actual prosecutions under this law are rare, but officers have received nonjudicial punishment that is effectively career-ending. This law applies only to officers, not enlisted members or civilian leadership.

 

[conjur]

Related to this topic:


"I will never trust any of them again." - Capt. Christopher H. Sheppard - USMC (two tours of duty in Iraq)

...I returned disillusioned by what I saw. I participated in the second battle of Fallujah in November 2004. We crushed the insurgents in the city, but we only ended up scattering them throughout the province. The dumb ones stayed and died. The smart ones left town before the battle, to garner more recruits and fight another day. We were simply the little Dutch boy with our finger in the dike. In retrospect, we never had enough troops to firmly control the region; we had just enough to maintain a tenuous equilibrium....

Hmm...isn't that what many people, myself included, have been saying for a couple of years now?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: conjur
for a couple of years now?

You, me and a lot of others, like Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki

On August 1, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld replaced General Shinseki as Army Chief of Staff with General Peter J. Schoomaker after Shineski "questioned the cakewalk scenario, and told Congress (that February) that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq to put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." By July 2003, "many experts say that the worst of the chaos in Iraq could have been contained if there had been enough troops on the ground from the beginning. There's a growing consensus that something close to what Shinseki suggested might be necessary to turn the situation around."

Gee! Maybe they should make Shinseki a general and put him in charge of something. Oh... Wait a minute... They already blew that one.

 

[colonel]

he is going to place in history like McNamara, he should step down now before is late.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: colonel
he is going to place in history like McNamara, he should step down now before is late.

It's too late for him to step down before it's too late. The damage is already done. The lives and the resources have already been squandered, and it was all for a war based on lies. :|

 

[sMiLeYz]

Can we have some competency from this administration? Please?

 

[Spamela]

uh-oh. Dear Leader has given him a "Rummy, you're doing a heckuva job"
endorsement.

linkie

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Spamela
uh-oh. Dear Leader has given him a "Rummy, you're doing a heckuva job"
endorsement.

linkie

The Bush administration needs a workshop to store all of the tools.

 

[Lemon law]

This current Iraq war was hatched by neocons, justified by neocons, and now that is failing badly, the last
thing the neocons need is any independent mind of reason examining the conduct of the war. Thee last trme they
permitted anything of the kind is when Colin Powell was Secretary of State--and Colin's efforts at the UN slowed
the neocons from starting the war by months---they are still smarting over this, its why Colin had to go, and any
that think the neocons will let go know now is likely to be sadly mistaken.--I just heard that GWB has now weighed in,
Rummy is saying.

The object lesson to be learned is that once you turn over control of anything to a neocon----they will drive policy and no
feedback from object reality will ever convince them they blew it---and they are like leeches--once they sink their bite in,
you almost have to kill them to force them to let go.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: techs
Hey, last I looked slavery was abolished in America.
If Rummy wants to quit Bush can't order him to stay on.
The whole "Rummy tried to resign" is just typical propaganda.

..that's right. The "action line"," General Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation."
is nothing more then synchronized drum beats by the "drive by media".

 

[trenchfoot]

like so many other so-called "leaders of men", bush's version of loyalty has more to do with people devoting themselves to him, rather than people devoting themselves to a higher common cause.

it seems to me that bush has devoted himself to himself, and seeks out others who will support him in his devotion. in turn, this cult-ture gets repeated all the way down the food chain, creating a self-admiring emperor at every level of bureaucracy.

imho, true leaders, especially those who have led troops into battle and have asked of themselves and the troops they command to commit to the ultimate sacrifice for the common cause ("the mission"), understand a different brand of loyalty; a loyalty that transcends self, a loyalty that is devoid of rank and mutually shared in every respect.

i don't believe bush,rumsfeld and others of their ilk could ever hope to understand what that brand of loyalty truly represents.

from this point of view, it's little wonder to me that these retired generals had such a hard time conducting effective warfare with the likes of nannies bush and rummy constantly revising their job descriptions.

*edit* - forgot to add to last paragraph - micromanagers do not understand the concept of "tell me what to do; just don't ever tell me how to do it".

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: piasabird
Even a retired general can be called back up for military service.

I am surprised they let retired military generals speak out like this. I wonder if there would be a legal option to cut off retirement for military people who talk out against their military leaders. It is like complaining about receiving a military retirement.

Unfortunately we have that darn pesky Constitution with that inconvenient free speech nonsense.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will say it doesn't apply to anyone who criticizes the Government.

No need for that; simply declare these traitors "enemy combatants" and it's off to fun camp at Gitmo.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: feralkid
No need for that; simply declare these traitors "enemy combatants" and it's off to fun camp at Gitmo.

That would be an appropriate way to deal with the entire Bushwhacko gang.

 

[da loser]

so where will more troops come from? if they are having trouble fielding 135k, how would they supply 500k?

everyone is looking at this as simply more were needed, but do we have more to supply?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: da loser
so where will more troops come from? if they are having trouble fielding 135k, how would they supply 500k?

everyone is looking at this as simply more were needed, but do we have more to supply?

So, if they had trouble fielding 135k, and Generals and policy experts are saying its going to take hundreds of thousands more troops, doesn't that make it even more irresponsible to go to war? If we don't have enough troops to do the job properly why the hell are we there?

Is this what a half-trillion dollar (more than the rest of the entire world combined) defense budget buys us? A military who struggles to field 135k troops and has failed to pacify Iraq after 3 years?

Bummer.

Imagine how bad this occupation would have went if we only spent a quarter- trillion a year on defense!

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Even a retired general can be called back up for military service.

I am surprised they let retired military generals speak out like this. I wonder if there would be a legal option to cut off retirement for military people who talk out against their military leaders. It is like complaining about receiving a military retirement.

Yeah! How dare they say ANYTHING bad about Crumsfeld....

It's a little thing we have in this country... It's called freedom of speech. Yeah, I know you would want boosh to take that away too...

I think we should cut anyone off of retirement if they are making X amount of dollars and we will start with the top two idiots ... Boosh and VP. Cut them off of free medical, gas whole nine yards no more freebee's....

I think rumsy should have been axed along time ago. But he is here to stay since he has a free ticket to do anything he wants and idiot boosh will stand up for him to keep it that way...

 

[WiseOldDude]

And these generals are receiving support from those currently on active duty, who don't dare end their career by going public.

Bush is an idiot, Rumsfield it grossly incompetent and has no leadership qualities.

 

[CessnaFlyer]

4 generals out of what, about 2000?