Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scoutingagain

New Topic - Now What?

Recommended Posts

Kahuna says, "Those generals, in my opinion, are running for SecDef under Hilary or Kerry. They could not have spoken out before retirement, but they certainly could speak their minds to the establishment. If they felt as they say they did, they should have resigned.

 

I saw General Myers, the recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, yesterday on Fox. He said that Rumsfeld always listened to the generals and frequently took their advice. He also said the same thing Rumsfeld did: You got hundreds of generals out there and lots of egos."

 

I wouldn't pay too much heed to the spin that the radio talk show pundits are trying to put on this. These guys are the real deal, who actually were over there doing the job. You can't dismiss them that easily. They didn't resign at the outset because they are patriots who belive in what they do. They id retire when it bewcame apparent that Rummy wanted to micromanage and had no respect for their opinion or their actual experience in waging war. As far as why we have not heard much from Air Force or Navy brass is because the brunt of this war has been on the shoulders of the Army and Marines.

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49756

 

Patrick J Buchanan

 

The Generals' Revolt

 

Posted: April 15, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

 

In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

 

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.

 

This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment.

 

This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet under way, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war.

 

As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed.

 

The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war.

 

Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point:

 

"Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force. ..."

 

 

With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary.

 

Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies.

 

Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results."

 

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation.

 

Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war.

 

As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own.

 

But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher.

 

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them?

 

Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916.

 

And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired.

 

In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war.

 

Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu River, thanks to Harry Truman.

 

In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SR540B: I don't know what the radio talk show pundits have to do with any of this. And General Myers isn't the "real deal"?

 

The problem with this analysis is that this is not a generals revolt. I would prefer to compare this with Viet Nam than Korea in terms of complexity. No question that Johnson and McNamara screwed up that war by micromanagement.

 

During Viet Nam, the generals were not only silent, they were complicit. Had they stood up and resigned and told the public what was going on, they would have done far more as patriots than they did by assisting prosecution of a war that was taking many lives and that they weren't going to be allowed to win. That would have been a generals revolt.

 

Maybe those generals who are speaking out now are correct and maybe they aren't. I don't think they reflect the thinking of 70% of the officer corps in theater, but I could be wrong. The plain fact is, if they felt the way they say they did, they could have resigned and then spoken out. The impact would have been much more forceful and I would tend to give them more credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those generals, in my opinion, are running for SecDef under Hilary or Kerry"

 

That may be, but I doubt you'll see many folks, Democrats or Republicans running on a platform that supports the way the decision to go to war was made or the way it has been prosecuted after the invasion.

 

I tend to agree though, if these officers felt as strongly as they claim to about the management of the war, a resignation earlier and a statement would have been far more powerful and credible. The really sad thing is that this issue will be a major issue in the next Presidential election, still 2 1/2 years away.

 

SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one plots the cumulative American casualties (deaths) of our armed forces in Iraq against time, the regression is amazingly strong. Over the time of record more than 61 of our soldiers has died each month. At this rate in 10 months the number of our forces that have died as a result of Iraq will surpass the official total for the attack on the World Trade Center.

Never mind that contrary to administration claims, Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack. Never mind that as of right now the official number of wounded stands at 17,269 in addition to the deaths.

We have squandered the good will that the world felt toward us after the WTC attack. We are stuck in a place where we aren't wanted, attacked by a growing insurgency, and we're supporting a dysfunctional government...made worse by our own destruction of both government and army during the invasion.

All this is happening and the person responsible for the WTC attack is still thumbing his nose at us. All this has happened and Osama Bin Laden didn't have to lift a finger to make it happen to us. All we did was follow the liar and his band of sycophants.

I feel sadness for the additional hundreds of American families that are going to suffer personal losses due to this debacle.

And yet, Rumsfeld remains arrogant...and the administration still emphatically supports him. To do otherwise might indeed merely be symbolic but...yeah!

Incredible.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps,

You have those Democrat talking points down pretty well, even if they are old and worn out. "Bush lied, Bush lied, and did I mention - Bush lied." Well, if he lied, let's look at who was lying with him.

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.

We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological

weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.

He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

 

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

 

I think that is pretty much a Who's Who from the Democrat side of the isle. Do I need to post more quotes, or are we through hearing "Bush lied"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, Rumsfeld remains arrogant...and the administration still emphatically supports him.

 

So, packsaddle, you would support a wartime SecDef who is less arrogant? That would make it okay? Patton wasn't arrogant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

There is a world of difference in speculating that Saddam had WMD's and making a decision to actually go to war based on those speculations. Bush's answer was war. It was from the beginning of his admin. It is well documented that PNAC advocated for this war when Clinton was still in the Whitehouse. Since many PNAC'ers ended up as part of Bush's admin, this war was going to happen one way or another. 9/11 made the job easier and stirring up fear of WMD's was the icing on the cake. Ask yourself this, if Saddam was such a threat to our security, why was he more of a threat 12 years after the first gulf war than he was during those 12 years? What was he waiting for, a 20th annaversary? His military might and power was crumbling more and more with each year. I won't call it a lie, but the intelligence was presented in such a way to support what Bush and company wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say dat the information on Saddam and WMD at the time was ambiguous, eh? I mean, the guy himself claimed pursuit, and it is fairly clear that both the French and the Russians were quite flagrantly violating the sanctions protocol. Lots of people fool themselves by seeing what they want to see in ambiguous data.

 

Where I fault this administration is not in that single error, but in its culture of premeditated ignorance. The WMD issue was just a symptom of a constantly repeating theme... ignore the data and let Osama escape from Tora Bora... ignore the data and assume you can do the job of occupation with too few troops... ignore the data on the deficit... ignore the data on global warming... ignore the data on oil supplies, appoint people ignorant of disaster response to head disaster response agencies,... ignore the law on torture, or wiretapping... ignore the data, ignore the law, ignore the complexity.... ignore, ignore, ignore.

 

All that really matters is Belief. And anybody who says otherwise is a traitor.

 

What galls me as a life-long Republican voter is that I voted for this bunch of ignoramuses back in 2K, assuming they'd uphold a tradition of U.S. honor, fiscal responsibility, and the like. I was fooled, but I will not ignore the data that I was dead wrong.

 

What frustrates me is that the Democrats are so stuck in their own mutton-headedness that they seem unable to offer a reasonable and honorable alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kahuna, Patton admitted his arrogance and most of us recognize that it was well-deserved. I suspect that Patton was capable of admitting error. Rumsfeld has clearly demonstrated fallability and yet he doesn't seem to acknowledge it. That is unwarranted arrogance...another type of lie (self-deception in this case, most everyone else sees the truth).

 

Brent, If I grant you the truth of every one of those quotes, it will not at all diminish the fact that Bush is a liar. He lied. I share Beavah's frustration in that I too bought the line. I believed Bush, and yes many of those others on your list. I am a little surprised that you associate Bush with those others in that manner. But as SR540Beaver mentioned, THEY don't have thousands of dead as a result of their lies. Where other politicians lied for political gain or position, that is where the comparison ends, Bush started a war for his lie (rather, lied to start a war) and tens of thousands of people are dead. My intent in that message was mostly to remind everyone that a lot more American soldiers are still going to die, and fairly quickly there will have been more of their deaths than Osama accomplished at the World Trade Center.

I identified this trend and prediction because I think some people will make another comparison in 10 months or so. You might as well get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps,

I have nominated you to the NFL Hall of Fame. Position: Monday morning Quarterback. You'll be a shoe-in. Congratulations.

 

Go back and read those quotes again. Especially the ones made on October 10, 2002. What was special about that day? It was the day before the vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam. Look that up, and see who voted in favor. Then try to rationalize who is and isn't responsible for us being in Iraq. Even your lefty poster boy Max Cleland voted in favor, along with Hillary and plenty of other Democrats.

 

The difference between us is I know they didn't lie, but sitting in your Monday morning Lazy Boy recliner, you think they did. I know they were all acting on the best intelligence they had at the time. Facts like that don't matter to Monday morning QB's.

 

You would expect me to believe that Saddam voluntarily destroyed all his weapons. You would expect me to believe that Bush knew there weren't any weapons, lied about it, but then didn't plant any weapons to cover his story. If Bush is so dishonest, why didn't he plant weapons in Iraq??

 

I have several friends who volunteered for the Georgia 48th as soon as they announced they were going to Iraq. Most are married, with children. One was in his 3rd year at North Georgia Military College, on his way to becoming an officer. They all volunteered because they believe in the mission. They are putting their lives on the line because they believe we are doing the right thing in Iraq. They would rather fight the terrorists there, instead of here, in our backyard. They hope they are fighting the war now, so their sons won't have to in the future. Go ahead and tell me they are without honor. Go ahead and tell me how foolish they are to believe in President Bush. I am sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for your enlightened view of their actions. They could care less about what a bunch of has-been ex-generals, most of whom weren't even in Iraq, have to say.

 

Where is the big scoreboard keeping track of deaths in Iraq vs. World Trade Center? Who said we would only fight until that score was evened? I find it pretty morbid that that would even interest you. Too bad you weren't around for D-Day, WWII. You would have had plenty to complain about, with all the deaths during the invasion of Normandy. Why were we even there? Germany hadn't harmed us!

 

I have no idea what is going to happen in Iran, but I take great comfort in knowing that you will be comfortably planted in your Lazy Boy, waiting for Monday morning to roll around, so you can rewrite history with your faulty hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record. I don't own a Lazyboy. I haven't watched a professional football game, start to finish, since 1977. That just about takes care if it. ;)

Brent, I too supported the vote to authorize. I too supported the decision to invade. I too swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. I plead guilty. But I did it because one man in particular, Bush, said in regard to WMD, there was NO DOUBT. That means a lot to me and I took his word that he had sufficient incontrovertible intelligence to make that unambiguous statement of fact. He didn't have incontrovertible intelligence. And it is now clear that he not only knew there, in fact, was doubt, he also manipulated the information that he had in his hands to deceive me and the American people. A really big lie.

As for the numbers, some people are in denial, some consider the casualties to be a political liability, and some see this tragedy for what it is. I simply applied a statistical procedure to make a prediction. You are free to disagree. In 10 months or so, I may be completely wrong about it and if so I'll admit it. I hope I am.

By the way, you are not the only person who knows individuals who have put their lives on the line. Or who have lost their life as a result. You do not know me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pack,

Are you saying that getting Saddam out of power and eventually capturing him is a bad thing? Would you feel better about it if W said he was attacking Iraq for the sole purpose of getting Saddam?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, Saddam was isolated, militarily emasculated. He was a bad guy but there were (are) plenty of other bad guys around and we didn't conquer those other nations as a result.

I always think honesty is better than deceit. And I don't know what Bush's reasons really were, only that he deceived us. If he had said he wanted to remove Saddam for no other reason than he was a bad guy, I doubt Bush would have gotten many of the votes he got for the authorization. I could be wrong, but it is speculative anyway because we didn't have the benefit of honest motives from Bush. I would not have supported the war if I knew it was merely to remove Saddam. That could have been accomplished with much less loss cost in lives and dollars than we've suffered from the conquest of Iraq.

Here's an alternative scenario. Fidel Castro is a bad guy. His country is much smaller. Their economy and military are weak. He is implicated in serious human rights crimes. He has been implicated in terrorist activities in our country. He is an enemy. Cuba is very close to our border. Castro tried to acquire WMD a while back and actually HAD them. He would probably still want them if he could get them. If he had the money he would probably pursue development, and maybe he is, I don't know. For all we know he still has some hidden away somewhere. Why not invade Cuba? So what if we tried and failed once in the past, that had problems in the execution. We could get it right if we tried again now. So why not Cuba? If your argument is valid and the American people would support conquest based on a leader being a bad guy, then this should be an easy sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

You just repeated the tired old talking point line of, "They would rather fight the terrorists there, instead of here, in our backyard". That statement has always driven me nuts. Explain that to me. Do you think al Queda has some sort of standing army in uniform that will be dropping paratroopers out of C-130's in downtown Milwaukee? Are they sending bombers over St Loius and fighter jets off of aircraft carriers outside San Francisco? Will there be a beachhead in Florida? How are they transporting their artillery and tanks? Just what does fight them there instead of here in our backyard mean? How in the world do you envision the US military fighting a war against al Queda on US soil? There is no "fight" to be had here by the military. There are cells to be tracked down by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, but they probably number in the low 100's rahter than the 10's or 100's of thousands and they most likely are not even armed. The greatest danger we DO face here at home is the unsecured borders that Bush ignores and refuses to do anything about. I do suppose bin Laden could dress his men in sombreros and send them across the Mexico border without us knowing it. Then maybe we would have to fight the war here.

 

As far as facts go, you might want to dig a little about those "has-been" generals who "didn't" spend any time in Iraq. You want to honor those in uniform and rightly so, yet you want to denegrate uniformed men of honor who gave their entire adult life in service to our country because they disagree with your ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps,

You are right - I do not know you. I don't even know your name, since you are afraid to actually sign your posts. I always wonder about people who are so willing to post so many opinions, but afraid to sign their name to any of them. What are they so afraid of? Why do they have to hide behind some silly name?

 

I don't know you, but I certainly know your type.

 

FYI, the President does not filter the CIA and FBI reports that go to congress. Those elected officials who made those comments on October 10, 2002 saw the same reports and came to the same conclusions. If Bush did what you claim he has done - convince the likes of Hillary and Max Cleland to vote for the authorization when the intelligence didn't support it - well, he must be the most powerful man in the history of the world. And if he is so powerful, please tell me why he didn't just plant WMD's in Iraq to cover his supposed lie?

Why didn't the opposition party - the Democrats - challenge his statements? Why didn't they point out he was cherry-picking the intelligence, as you claim? If you blame anyone for what you believe, it should be the Democrats. They failed catastrophically, if history happened as you claim, and every single one of those deaths should be blamed on them. You just stated that Bush needed their votes for the authorization to use force. How do they escape your blame?

 

For the record, there are no resolutions from the UN against Cuba, threatening the use of force. How many were there against Iraq? Beaver asks why we waited 12 years before taking action against Iraq? Because we finally had a leader who said enough with these empty threats. It is like warning your two-year-old that you are going to punish him, but never do - they end up playing the parents for fools. Bush finally said to the UN - if you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk - something that worthless organization just couldn't understand.

 

Those generals are just Monday morning QB'ing, just like ps. Our invasion of Iraq was the most stunning military victory this country has ever seen. If anyone thinks having twice the number of troops over there now would make a huge difference, I think they are kidding themselves. Maybe if we had 10 times the number, but that is impossible.

 

Beaver - ask the Spaniards about fighting terrorists in their backyard. Ask the Israelis. They won't be in uniform, just as they weren't in the 9/11 attackes. Terrorists need camps to train. Our military is doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus we are sending a lot of them to see Allah. I'm curious - who do you think we are fighting in Iraq? Who do you think al-Zarqawi is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...