It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.''
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.
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.
It is almost unprecedented for the military to critiize its civilian bosses in this country
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.
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."
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.
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?
Misleading and incorrect.
This article does not concern the US military...
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.
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.
Originally posted by grover
its called being in a hurry, a touch of spelling disllexia and a sticky keyboard.
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.