POLITICS: Military disgusted with Rumsfeld

It is almost unprecedented for the military to critiize its civilian bosses in this country, but its beginning. Generals who have retired (or been retired) have begun speaking out against the Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his arrogance, his personal incompetance and the way he has conducted the war in Iraq.

---

When MacArthur had the guts to criticize Truman, Truman rightfully removed him from his command as rightfully so as loose cannon, but before that, such events were rare. When grumblings up the chain of command began during Vietnam, it really was the beginning of the end. This however is totally different. There have been complaints about Rumsfeld since day one, but the rank of the officers doing it now (BTW retired officers above a certian rank always remain under the military legal code, so this is serious action) and the level of publicity that they are doing it at, either, depending how you look at it, is either treasonous or is a very healthy sign. When I read things like this, I have to relax a little...we will not attack Iran or start another war, at least under Rumsfeld. If its ordered we might very well see the military refuse the call.

Related News Links:
www.disinfo.com

[edit on 13-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

The vocal military criticism of this administrations handling of Iraq is rapidly growing, yet the faux patriots continue their support. Surely these military officers cannot be called left wing liberals hell bent on destroying the republican party.





How is it possible for anyone on the planet to have confidence in the bush administration?

Beats me...if uncurious george told me the sky was blue and the sun yellow...I'd look out the window and check for myself, but there are alot who come here that are blindly devoted to him...there is not a politican alive I would invest so much time and energy defending...but there are some, and the Bush cartel is one, that fill me with such disgust, that if I had the power, I would use it all to remove them from office.

Like I said though the grumblings in the military fill me with hope...not something I tend to associate with the military. I have wondered for some time now that if Bush makes the grab for sole power (like dismissing congress should the republicans lose their hold this Nov.) which side the military would come down on, the republic and the constitution, or the fear-mongers. After reading this article, and others like it, I have the feeling, the republic would win out...there is no one who hates war like a military man and there is no one who gets so excited by it than an arm chair chicken hawk like the ones in power now.

Interestingly enough a relative of mine had worked in the Pentagon as a high level civilian contractor (retired). I'm not exactly sure what he did (supposedly classified stuff), but apparently he was high level enough to have met Rumsfeld on a number of occasions (I'm a bit sketcy on what he did for the DoD). And supposedly Rumsfeld was quite a pain to work for. So this really isn't much of a suprise to me.

Although on the otherhand Rumsfeld had limited military expirience in his life, so it seems natural that his generals would know better than he would. The only thing that suprises me is how vocal some of the generals are about this. From what I understand they tend to know better than the Secratary of Defense, but usually you don't hear very much critisism from them.

Guess that says a lot about the current administration. Particuarly if the theory is true that it was the military that leaked the plans to use tactical nukes on Iran.

What really amazes me and really highlights the unraveling of this administration is the fact that these generals criticisms are all over the news...npr, pbs, time, the evening news etc. I really don't think there will be another large military operation during rumsfeld (or bushes) tenure now...if it happens I would be amazed. I mean this is the airing of some serious dirty luandry...something that doesn't happen in the military very often.

spelling: critiize --> criticize
grammar: "but it's beginning" its = belonging to it, it's = it is

Also, military personnel, in this case - flag level officers, are doing the criticisizing. Not the "military".



spelling: incompetance --> incompetence

grammar: when listing things, only one 'and' is usually necessary, at the end of the list.

All that said, this is a important story, but the writing is horrible. The dictionary is your friend.

its called being in a hurry, a touch of spelling disllexia and a sticky keyboard.

The same is said to apply to diplomats when it in any way concerned Israel and/or the Middle East:


This is old stuff, (April - July 2004) but interesting to view now that the hubris has calmed enough for the validity and effectiveness of the "mission" to be .. well... let's say... umm.... 'less hotly contested'?:


WAR: 52 Ex U.K Diplomats Slam Iraq Policy




POLITICS: 60 Ex U.S Diplomats Join Mid East Policy Attack

How about "Retired Generals disgusted with Rumsfeld"?
How about "Ex-Military Officers disgusted with Rumsfeld"?
How about "Former Commanders disgusted with Rumsfeld"?

The "Military" disgusted?
Umm no.
Misleading and incorrect.
This article does not concern the US military, it concerns retired and ex-military officers speaking out.

I wonder if they, as with some here, have read ex-military, ex-commander, retired general Tommy Franks autobiograpghy, American Soldier, where he comments on the the "Title Ten motherxxxxxxx," who by law have no command authority and, hence, should refrain from nitpicking the plans of 'warfighters' such as himself. Those who are vocalizing now are 6 of those "ten," where Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld told them to get screwed when they wanted to play military power politics on who would control Iraq--the JCS or Rumsfeld and Franks.



So imagine, 6 sour-graped and bitter ex-military, ex-commanders, and retired generals who are now heavily engaged in condemning Rumsfeld and calling for or supporting the notion of his removal---you know, like how Rumsfeld had removed them. Ho-hum. Nothing new here.






seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seekerof]

How long do you think the 'current' equivalent speaking out would last Seekerof?

A week?

As soon as the Press gets done using them as anti-Bush administration, anti-Rumsfeld pawns, kegs.
As soon as "the 'current' equivalent" get their use from the Press.





seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Seekerof are you a Captain of a boat by any chance? I think you should send your resume to the white house you would make a fine replacement for Rummy.

Everybody that read the article knows that the generals are retired and speaking as private citizens. When the facts cannot be refuted, you state the obvious then argue the semantics of your own words.


You are correct, it is about the bush administrations handling of the war in iraq in the view of the highest level military experts. And the experts say that the white house is doing a crummy job. You've been calling our men in the military heros in order to justify the iraq fiasco for years now, but when these heros tell you how it really is, you now represent them as nothing more than disguntled ex-employees. Unbelievable.

You can't have it both ways, so which is it? Are they war heros or disgruntled ex-employees? Im just dying to hear the faux patriot response. Try to do it in a manner that doesnt make you sound dishonest and duplicitous.

To think that retired generals sever all contact with active duty generals and don't discuss military stuff such as their discontent with Rumsfeld is just silly.

I think that the active duty brass are using the retired generals as their spokes persons as they are afraid to voice dissenting opinions while on active duty.

My prediction is that Rumsfeld will be toast by memorial day; maybe sooner as Colin Powell is beginning to voice his disaffection with the way the war has been run. I wonder what took him so long?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by whaaa]

df1

Really?
You must have seen that I was not the only one who commented on such, or as you have asserted, argued semantics?
And in the spirit of more semantics, your word usage of "everybody" is an absolute, meaning simply everyone, and I would hazard that everyone does not imply "everyone" in this applied case and topic.

Furthermore, you stated facts.
Can you point out those "facts," cause quite frankly, I countered the "facts" I deemed necessary to counter with my own counterfactuals, based upon Tommy Franks and what he asserted about those 6 ex-generals, ex-commanders, retired ex- officers from the varying military branches.



What is "unbelievable," exactly?
Accordingly and apparently, your math skills are quite lacking, as well, are they not?
Lets see how: There are two thousand or more generals between the Army and Marines and your claiming that 6 of them speak for the entire "military"? Just who the hell are those alleged "experts" you are referring to anyhow? What is your criteria in defining whomever as "experts"? Are you a military "expert"?

And they are nothing but "disgruntled" ex-military "employees" exercising their right to freedom of speech.



I certainly love hearing your faux patriot counter responses, as well. Bet.
Further, you might want to look up the definition of "hero," for in my opinion, they are not 'heroes.' I respect them for their service and dedication to their respective service branches, but other than that, I agree with Tommy Franks assessment of them. How about you tell us if they are heroes, df1.

Here's what you need to understand about my outlook on this:
I respect the opinion of generals when they resign in protest of policy, but when they stay until they retire, then begin flapping their jack while on CNN or MSNBC, or the like, they have no credibility and any respect for them becomes relative in nature. They convey nothing but an agenda and being that Rumsfeld squashed their petty little toes before they retired, it leaves little to the imagination as to why they are now seeking their 15 minutes of fame.





seekerof

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Seekerof]

All US military officers can retire after 20 years of service. So it's not like they stayed in until they were eligible for retirement. Resigning would take just as much time as it would to submit DD-214 paperwork to get out. Why throw away 20+ years of benefits and pay just to resign with no benifits and pay?

They did their job as Commanders. They carried out orders of the President. Now that they're out of the military they're just exercising their rights. They probably could have stayed in for longer but chose to retire due to their opinions on OIF I-II.

EDIT: I gave this a "NO" vote. Bad spelling and bias opening statement, imo.

[edit on 14/4/2006 by SportyMB]

These generals aren't retired at the end of their service, one, Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who is quoted in TIME, was at the top of the short list to become the next Marine Commandant, and he resigned in protest over the Iraq war in 2002. Others like Zinni and Gen. Eric Shinseki were forced out because they spoke out against the way Rumsfeld was conducting this war. While it could be written off as sour grapes by some, the fact remains that all the higher rank officer class, remain under the military code after retirement, and as such could be repriminded for speaking out, so it is a far more serious affair than some old codger venting his spleen. When will all of the apologists and coloabarators finally realze what a bloody mess, Rumsfeld, and the Bush Administration has made of this country? It will take decades to repair the damage these nihilists (for thats what they are, not conservatives) have done.

Personally, I'd call it sloppiness.

Perhaps your sloppiness/haste was derived from your vitriol against Rumsfeld - is that any way to make a decision? Or is it the same kind of decision making behavior that you are criticizing Rumsfeld for?

In any case, it would appear that the voters of ATSNN have a lot of tolerance for mediocrity. And that's just sad.

More and more average voters of the Republican and Democratic parties are finally seeing this Admin. for what it really is. Corporate/Political Raiders with nothing but personal wealth and agenda's on their minds. Hell they want the military to be Corporate as well. And many personel quietly are not pleased. Remember Soldiers are Citizens as well and suffer just the same as us Civilians from a cut all/raiding administration. I guarantee our military as a whole would not enforce any mass action on its own civilian people proposed in an earlier post.

While I don't have much to add to the thread, I do want to commend Seeker for being the master of sugar-coating turds.

THE MASTER.

We both disagree...immensly, matter of fact. But, I won't be dragged into this mess because everything he says is true. A handful of generals does not speak for them all. Rummy's a crook. I don't need his former employees to paint that picture. My cognitions work just fine. But Seeker is running circles around you folks. I don't need him making me look stupid too. I would give you a WATS, but methinks you are working for some other purpose on ATS aside from your own enrichment/entertainment.

Keep it up...its very entertaining to hear someone of intelligence arguing the counterpoint.