It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Military disgusted with Rumsfeld

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
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.
 



www.slate.com
It's an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence. Not that an actual coup is pending; still less is one desirable. But we are witnessing the rumblings of an officers' revolt, and things could get ugly if it were to take hold and roar.
The revolt is a reluctant one, aimed specifically at the personage of Donald Rumsfeld and the way he is conducting the war in Iraq.
It is startling to hear, in private conversations, how widely and deeply the U.S. officer corps despises this secretary of defense. The joke in some Pentagon circles is that if Rumsfeld were meeting with the service chiefs and commanders and a group of terrorists barged into the room and kidnapped him, not a single general would lift a finger to help him.
Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


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]



df1

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
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.


The Mercury News:
The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called Wednesday for Donald Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the secretary of defense's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

``I think we need a fresh start'' at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, said in an interview. ``We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork.''



LA Times
A recent surge in public criticism of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by retired military leaders is the culmination of months of intense but largely private debate among active duty officers about how best to voice dissent over Bush administration policies, according to officers involved in the discussions.

A number of officers have been critical of Iraq policy — mostly anonymously — since the administration's early days. But the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation are an unusual step for members of the military, who are acutely sensitive to the appearance of challenging civilian leadership of the armed forces.


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



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

It is almost unprecedented for the military to critiize its civilian bosses in this country, but its beginning.


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".


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.


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.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
its called being in a hurry, a touch of spelling disllexia and a sticky keyboard.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

It is almost unprecedented for the military to critiize its civilian bosses in this country


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


We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States.



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


The former US diplomats complained that President Bush's policy is losing the US credibility, prestige and friends.

They criticised what they say is Washington's unabashed support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
They cite Mr. Sharon's policy of extra-judicial assassinations and what the diplomats describe as Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier.

The American diplomats say they were deeply concerned by Mr Bush's endorsement last month of Mr Sharon's plan to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza.

One former diplomat, who is still considering whether or not to sign the letter, said that as a result of the policy, "We're not the good guys any more."



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
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.



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.
Source


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]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
How long do you think the 'current' equivalent speaking out would last Seekerof?

A week?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
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]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
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.


df1

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

SeekerOf
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.

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.



This article does not concern the US military...

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.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
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]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
df1


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.

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.




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.

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.




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.

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]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   


I respect the opinion of generals when they resign in protest of policy, but when they stay until they retire, then began flapping their jack while on CNN or MSNBC, or the like, they have no credibility or respect.


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]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
its called being in a hurry, a touch of spelling disllexia and a sticky keyboard.


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.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
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.


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.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join