Army Times Calls For Rumsfeld To Resign

Dr Dave · November-6th-2006, 05:30 PM

Excerpt:

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

Link to complete editorial.

Scott Dolan · November-6th-2006, 05:46 PM

Finch is a busy man today.

Gary Sisco · November-7th-2006, 08:00 AM

What you're seeing here is public dissent within the military that's unprecedented. There was plenty during Vietnam but not in the Army Times.

Grunts have been openly petitioning for an end to the war, as well.

lynn · November-7th-2006, 08:09 AM

What happens if the military turns on their Comander in Chief?

Dr Dave · November-7th-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynn

What happens if the military turns on their Comander in Chief?

Well, in the olden days it was called a "Coup d'Etat."

Gary Sisco · November-7th-2006, 10:06 AM

It's called a mutiny but it won't ever happen.

You can bet there's some shivering going on in the Pentagon, though. This kind of thing simply doesn't happen publicly in the military.

My best friend, who broke zero regulations and had served a tour in Vietnam, combat, Mekong Delta, class of '68, honorably, was cashiered upon return with a general discharge instead of an honorable -- for publishing an antiwar newspaper, off base, on his own time, totally legally under UCMJ (military law).

It was until now inconceivable that Army Times would take a position like this. What's next? *Stars And Stripes*?

Cashiered just the same.

Dr Dave · November-7th-2006, 11:10 AM

From a story in today's Slate by Fred Kaplan:

"The key fact for American citizens is not that Rumsfeld has terrible judgment—we can't do anything about that—but rather that Bush says he has terrific judgment. Since the United States doesn't have a parliamentary system of government, we can't do anything about this directly. The one thing we can do indirectly, but dramatically, is to hold Bush's party accountable."

Army Times: Rummy Must Go

groover · November-7th-2006, 11:15 AM

Can Congress force Bush to replace him?

Scott Dolan · November-7th-2006, 11:47 AM

Nope.

Gentle Giant · November-7th-2006, 12:22 PM

I'm surprised Rove hasn't deployed the Swift Boat Liars For Truth to go after these dissenters.

Dr Dave · November-7th-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

I'm surprised Rove hasn't deployed the Swift Boat Liars For Truth to go after these dissenters.

Nah, not good use of available resources. Rummy's not running for office.

Congress can't actually dislodge Rumsfeld, but each house could pass the equivalent of a no-confidence vote. One presumes that even our Nation's Hardest Head responds to pressure when sufficiently applied.

Then again, maybe not. After standing before the cameras and saying he was not satisfied with the situation in Iraq, he has spent the last few days on the campaign trial saying "We're winning in Iraq, absolutely."

Gary Sisco · November-7th-2006, 02:32 PM

McNamara lied even in his apologia, so what can we expect of this muleheaded twit?

Asking the question, Winning what? always seems to stop the conversation. Whenever I ask it, I get the blank stare I've been calling the fish-eye stare for more than 30 years.

lynn · November-7th-2006, 03:51 PM

I'm going to use that line. Let these people define what they mean by winning.

Ron Thorne · November-7th-2006, 05:01 PM

This call for Rumsfeld to depart goes beyond the Army Times.

Titled "Time for Rumfeld to Go," the editorial was published in this week's editions of the Army Times, Air Force Times, Marine Times and the Navy Times. The newspapers belong to the Military Times Media Group, which is owned by Gannett, and focus exclusively on military issues. They have wide credibility among their military readership.

Full story here.

Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; 5:14 PM

Three retired military officers who served in Iraq called today for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, telling a Democratic "oversight hearing" on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon chief bungled planning for the U.S. invasion, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment.

The testimony by the three --two retired Army major generals and a former Marine colonel -- came a day after disclosure of a classified intelligence assessment that concluded the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists, helping to create a new generation of potential terrorists around the world and worsening the U.S. position.

In testimony before the Democratic Policy Committee today, retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 and served as a senior military assistant to former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, charged that Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration "did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq."

He told the committee, "If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."

Joining his call for Rumsfeld to resign were retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraq's military and police in 2003 and 2004, and retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes, who served in Iraq in 2004 and helped establish bases for the reconstituted Iraqi armed forces.
Rumsfeld, appearing at a news briefing with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, rejected the demands for his resignation. Asked about the Capitol Hill hearing and whether he was considering stepping down, Rumsfeld shook his head slightly and mouthed the word "no" before calling for the next question.

Democrats today sought to make the most of the National Intelligence Assessment and of the retired officers' remarks at the hearing, which Democratic leaders said they had to hold by themselves outside the regular congressional process because of the Republican leadership's persistent "neglect" of oversight.

"On the heels of the disclosure that America's intelligence community has concluded that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist threat, today's hearing deals a fatal blow to any claim that staying the current course is an acceptable strategy for success in Iraq," said a statement issued by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Batiste charged in his testimony that Rumsfeld "is not a competent wartime leader" and surrounded himself with "compliant" subordinates.
"Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build 'his plan,' which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq up for self-reliance," Batiste said.

In addition, Rumsfeld "refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency," the retired general said. "At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan," Batiste added.

"Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq," Batiste said. "He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency."

Eaton told the panel, "We went in with a bad plan," adding that "stay the course is not a strategy."

Hammes said removing the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "introduced major instability not just in Iraq, but in the greater Middle East." And while the Bush administration has repeatedly said the war in Iraq is critical to U.S. security, "it has asked nothing of the majority of U.S. citizens," he said.

"While asking major sacrifices, to include the ultimate sacrifice, from those Americans who are serving in Iraq, we are not even asking our fellow citizens to pay for the war," Hammes complained. "Instead we are charging it to our children and grandchildren."

Responding to critics who have charged that the National Intelligence Assessment shows the failure of Bush's Iraq war policy, the White House today sought to put the best face on the document, which was completed in April and disclosed in the news media Sunday.

"One thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

The National Intelligence Assessment "is not limited to Iraq," he told a news briefing. "The false impression has been created that the NIE focuses solely on Iraq and terrorism. This NIE examines global terrorism in its totality, the morphing of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and other jihadist movements. It assesses that a variety of factors, in addition to Iraq, fuel the spread of jihadism, including longstanding social grievances, slowness of the pace of reform and the use of the Internet. And it also notes that should jihadists be perceived to have failed in Iraq, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight."

All these points already have been stated publicly by Bush, Snow asserted.
"Obviously, we're not going to go into what the classified report does say, but what we did see in the newspapers yesterday, the substance, is precisely what the president has been saying," he told reporters.

Separately, Vice President Cheney today accused Democrats of advancing a "strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies."
In a speech at a Republican fundraiser in Milwaukee, Cheney indicated that he was not backing away from national security issues despite Democrats' criticism that the administration has mishandled the war in Iraq.

"As we make our case to the voters in this election season, it's vital to keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda," Cheney told Wisconsin Republicans, Reuters news agency reported. He specifically criticized Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, as well as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Reid replied in a statement, "When the U.S. intelligence community confirmed that America is losing the war on terror because of Bush failures in Iraq, this White House lost all credibility on matters of national security. With Iraq in a civil war, Afghanistan moving backwards and our own borders unsecured, it's clear George Bush and Dick Cheney are desperate to hide their record and distort the truth."

_____________________

And, closer to home . . .

Alaska military families call for Rumsfeld's resignation
STRYKER: Relatives feel defense secretary duped them during visit.

The Associated Press

(Published: September 20, 2006) FAIRBANKS -- Six family members of soldiers assigned to Alaska have called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claiming he misled them during a trip to the state last month.

The six wrote to U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asking her to call for the resignation. A spokesman said she had no plans to do so.

The six are part of the Alaska chapter of Military Families Speak Out. According to its Web site, it's an organization of people opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones in the military. It was formed in 2002 and has a membership of more than 3,000.

In late July, just as the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team was beginning its return after a one-year deployment in northern Iraq, Rumsfeld approved a request from generals to extend its deployment by up to four months and relocate it to Baghdad.

Rumsfeld in August met with Fort Wainwright families to answer questions about the extension. Several family members afterward joined Military Families Speak Out.

In their letter to Murkowski, family members said Rumsfeld did not answer the written questions and concerns given to him.

They also take issue with the reported number of civilian deaths from Iraq. The letter said Rumsfeld told families in August that the 172nd's arrival in Baghdad had contributed to a 40 percent to 50 percent decrease of civilian deaths there.

"We felt proud of our spouses' and children's contribution to the reputation of the unit and that their courage and dedication was so immediately contributing to saving lives of innocent civilians," the letter said.

Since then, news reports have questioned the military's accounts. The letter cites a Washington Post article that said morgues in Baghdad reported that the death toll nearly tripled in August and that deaths from car bombings and mortar attacks are not included in the military's count.
Rumsfeld was "wrongfully deceptive" in his August remarks about civilian casualties, according to the letter to Murkowski.

"We urge you to stand up for the truth and immediately call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation and an end to this war," the letter said.

Murkowski spokesman Kevin Sweeney said Monday the senator has questioned the extension.

"But it's not Congress' role to now get into passing out judgment on military leaders carrying out the policies of the administration," Sweeney said. "Even replacing Rumsfeld at this time is not going to end the war or end the debate. At this particular moment, (Murkowski) sees no need to remove Rumsfeld or set a timetable for removal of troops."

Sweeney said Murkowski is confident that there will not be another extension.

"We still have a strong enough commitment that the troops will return by the 120-day extension. That said, she believes that any extension (beyond 120 days) is unacceptable."

If a second extension is ordered, "You'll find a much more angry senator," Sweeney said.

Rich Moniak, one of the authors of the letter and father of a soldier in the brigade, said he was frustrated when he discovered some of Rumsfeld's more comforting comments were in question. He said the brigade's role in reducing civilian deaths made the reason for an extension easier to accept.
"I trusted what he said and felt good from the perspective, especially, that maybe this is something they had to do," he said.

Moniak said he feels duped.

"I took it personally when I think he lied to me and I'm sitting there in that meeting," he said.

Moniak said copies were not sent to U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens or Rep. Don Young because family members have developed a line of communication with Murkowski.

Copyright © 2006 The Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com)

Sandi22 · November-7th-2006, 06:29 PM

Rumsfeld is one of the men who chose and approved of GW Bush being put in the race for president, and knowing GW's proclivity for error they made sure of his election with intimidation at the polls, moving polling centers without notification, traffic stops by state police, and then there was Diebold. They probably didn't even dream that the Supreme Court would be needed due to all they had done, but it was, and so the Republican packed court went to work for them. Too bad they didnt' take into account the popular vote.

I remember Schultz talking to Bush and just becoming beside himself when he realized they'd found their man to be their tool in GW.

Bush then did the best acting job in his short political life. He said he thought it would be good to call in Dick Cheney and take advantage of his expertise in going over the short list of who would best as a running mate. No surprise there for me, as lo and behold, he'd been rubbing elbows with him for days and days and so it was light bulb moment according to his canned revelation. Dick Cheney was the man. Did anyone ever believe that act?

Rumsfeld and Cheney are running the country, so how can GW dump them? Dump them for real? It doesn't seem like it can honestly happen. I believe if they were both to go, Rumsfeld and Cheney, nothing would change; the strings being pulled will still be pulled by the same masters. I believe GW is a front man for the Neo Con organization. This is how it looks to me at least. It would actually be good to find out differently, but it seems that this is really how it is.

GoodSpeak · November-7th-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi22

Rumsfeld and Cheney are running the country, so how can GW dump them? Dump them for real? It doesn't seem like it can honestly happen. I believe if they were both to go, Rumsfeld and Cheney, nothing would change; the strings being pulled will still be pulled by the same masters. I believe GW is a front man for the Neo Con organization. This is how it looks to me at least. It would actually be good to find out differently, but it seems that this is really how it is.

Truer words were never spoken.

Well put, Sandi.

Sandi22 · November-7th-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Truer words were never spoken.

Well put, Sandi.

Thank you Goodspeak.

I've thought this since before the elections, and the hijacking of them.

GoodSpeak · November-7th-2006, 08:54 PM

And so have I.

kenny weir · November-7th-2006, 09:06 PM

Amid all the yapping about Iraq (around the world) and the US elections, it seem to me there have been two related elephants in the room no one discusses - the arms industry and American gun laws.

Scott Dolan · November-7th-2006, 09:11 PM

So discuss.

kenny weir · November-7th-2006, 09:22 PM

Scott - I'm just back from a week off and thus in the midst of a catching-up day from hell .... but as an outside observer, US gun laws seem bizarre, and the non-debate about them and the NRA etc even more so.

As for Iraq and (name you other favourite hot spots), people couldn't be killing themselves in such great numbers and creating such monumental misery if they didn't have the means to do so. And, when it comes to arms production, I don't know but I'd wager the US and the UK are right up there. But it's hardly ever discussed. (And I imagine that at least part of the reason for that is that it's about business and therefore jobs ...)

I have no solutions for all that - and it makes me a gloomy cynic.

GoodSpeak · November-7th-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny weir

Scott - I'm just back from a week off and thus in the midst of a catching-up day from hell .... but as an outside observer, US gun laws seem bizarre, and the non-debate about them and the NRA etc even more so.

Kenny,

It is a bizarre thing for us like minded folks in this country, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny weir

As for Iraq and (name you other favourite hot spots), people couldn't be killing themselves in such great numbers and creating such monumental misery if they didn't have the means to do so. And, when it comes to arms production, I don't know but I'd wager the US and the UK are right up there. But it's hardly ever discussed. (And I imagine that at least part of the reason for that is that it's about business and therefore jobs ...)

Nope.

It is all about get-back for the Bushites.

The American people are duped and those of us who know the truth, suffer under the yoke of radical-rightist oppression....mightily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny weir

I have no solutions for all that - and it makes me a gloomy cynic.

It depresses me, too, my friend.

But we Liberal bastard-SOB's have no power to change it.

Change will come when there is a second social revolution in this country...but the youth are too busy with their electronic toys to give a tinker's damn.

The rightists win.

Peace loses.

kenny weir · November-7th-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Kenny, Nope.

It is all about get-back for the Bushites.

Goody, I'm talking more about the endless news of slaughter from all over but never a mention of how come these folks - "good" guys, "bad" guys, makes no difference, any continent will do - have the firepower to exercise their trigger fingers so wantonly.

But my gloom rests with the sure knowledge that if there were no arms industry, ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE INVENTED PRONTO. Such is the human race.

GoodSpeak · November-7th-2006, 10:10 PM

Agreed.

Sandi22 · November-7th-2006, 11:28 PM

I grew up around guns, my family had guns all of their lives, not as toys but as a necessity, and then my father had guns, and was an avid hunter, but not a thrill hunter like Cheney seems to be, my father would have given his guns away before he would have taken part in a canned hunt. He truly liked wild game and enjoyed the solitude of being out by himself, hiking and packing in for miles to hunt oftentimes, and then hiking out with field dressed deer, packed on his back, one trip for 9 miles with a field dressed elk, all by himself. A super human feat. No one knew how he did it. I also have a famous/infamous distant relative who was a gunfighter and four Texas rangers in my family clear back to before the Alamo, and Goliadad (sic?). One - a cousin - is Texas Jack Vermillion. Much that isn't true was written of him. However they do say with some authority that he was the one who saved the day in the Gunfight at the OK Corral. About the Texas Rangers one was a great, great uncle, and the other two were uncles and one, my great grandfather. Joseph D Vermillion was one of 5 men who, while searching out Santa Anna after the battle at the Alamo, stumbled upon him and captured him. A lot of history there. Wish I knew more.

My great grandfather quit the Rangers, as he said he was tired of killing. So needless to say, I, like a lot of us, grew up in a gun culture, and can't see all of the complaints about guns as totally valid. A lot are however. How I feel is probably just how I was raised and the talk I heard about guns for years and years when I was little. There's been times, I truly believe we would have been in a terrible situation if we hadn't had guns, but those are long, long stories. Automatic weapons, AK47's etc. they're a different story, but if the criminals have them, how safe are you with a 30.30, or a 30.06 for that matter. You will be out gunned every time. Spooky thoughts.

Gordon B · November-8th-2006, 08:59 AM

I'll bet anybody today even up one cd that Rumsfeld will be gone by March 31.

Coda · November-8th-2006, 09:17 AM

I believe that the Iraqis are allowed one AK47 per household. No joke, it's the law.

Gary Sisco · November-8th-2006, 10:04 AM

It was a decision originally made by the American military. Marines between tours, early on, told my best friend, who lives in San Diego, a navy-marine center, that the people were allowed to keep personal firearms and a reasonable amount of ammunition, but not RPGs, machineguns, and so forth. It was a correct decision because otherwise, they'd have had a fight on with literally everyone.

I'd have made the same decision. Iraqis clearly have a need for the means of self-defense, let's face it. There are so many factions fighting it out in so many different ways, never mind the gringos and Brits, everyone is at least potentially a target of someone, no matter who they are.

Practically speaking, however, it's not possible to disarm an entire population. Many Americans would have died just in the trying.

The biggest mistake they made, strategically, and right away, was to dissolve the Iraqi army and police forces. They realized their error eventually and are playing catch up trying to correct it, but the realization came way too late. There's no correcting it now, and the army and police forces, to the extent they can be said to exist by sane minds, are, now, entirely infiltrated by the insurgent forces (there are many more than one).

Scott Dolan · November-8th-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I'll bet anybody today even up one cd that Rumsfeld will be gone by March 31.

Hmmmmm............

Gary Sisco · November-8th-2006, 10:31 AM

I'm not sure I'd take that bet, Gordon, but I'll think about it.

Junior's mule headed and then some, but he's often expressed absolute support for people he then turned around and schtupped. Tenet, for one example. His nitwit in charge at FEMA is another.

On the other hand, even the repugs in DC can't *all* be as muleheadedly retarded as he is. Some of them at least have been forced to read the graffiti, already. 'Specially with that pinko rag Army Times weighing in against him, and soldiers in Iraq petitioning for an end to the war, and so forth.

Who knows.

I'll not take your wager at this point.