Rumsfeld Faces Growing Revolt by Retired Generals

April 13, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 13 — An expanding group of influential former military officers is calling for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation in a public rebellion that has become a significant challenge to the Pentagon's civilian leadership.

The uproar is significant because for the first time the criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld is coming from some recently retired generals who were involved in planning or execution of Iraq policy.

Though their critiques differ in some respects, a common thread is that Mr. Rumsfeld's assertive style has angered many in the uniformed services as he has sought to establish more clear-cut civilian control over the Pentagon and at times involved himself in the details of war-planning more than his predecessors.

The outcry against Mr. Rumsfeld also appears to be part of a coalescing of concerns among military officers that, three years into the Iraq war, the effort is taking a mounting toll on the armed forces, with little sign that the American troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/washington/13cnd-military.html?hp&ex=1144987200&en=6365ea46871d51d8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

We sure do live in interesting times. Cheers to Sy Hersh for calling this one.

Major General John Batiste, USA, (ret), was on the Lehrer newshour tonight repeating his less-than-clarion call for the head of Rumsfeld. Need new leadership at the pentagon, he said. Well sure.

He is now the sixth (I think) of these star-studded and beribboned warriors to peek from behind the secure bunker of comfortable retirement to denounce the SecDef. He is correct, of course. He is also way late.

Lehrer pressed Batiste on why he and his fellow reluctant mutineeers didn't speak out earlier when it might have done more good.

The general took refuge in the "culture" of the army. That's disgusting. The mafia has such a culture.

if enough of these retired generals speak up, some active duty generals will begin to speak up too?

behest of those still in. This could be the shot across the bow warning of a wider revolt in the military if the suits continue ignoring their concerns. .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301238.html
> Replace Rumsfeld
>
> By David Ignatius
> Friday, April 14, 2006; Page A17
>
> With luck, Iraq will make a fresh start soon with the formation of a new government. The Bush administration should do the same thing by replacing Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
>
> Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.
>
> But that isn't the reason he should be replaced. Military officers often dislike the civilians they work for, but in our system strong civilian control is essential. On some of the issues over which he has tangled with the military brass, Rumsfeld has been right. The Pentagon is a hidebound place, and it has needed the "transformation" ethic Rumsfeld brought to his job. I'm dubious about the Pentagon conventional wisdom that we needed 500,000 American troops in Iraq. More troops were necessary, but they should have been Iraqi troops from an army that wasn't disbanded.
>
> Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush 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, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.

..He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.

And were relieved or replaced or fired ?

The woman General at Abu Gharib (sp?) spoke up about torture and was demoted.

At least one general told BushCo that 150,000 troops weren't enough to invade and occupy Iraq and he was replaced with a yes man.

Over this! This!

That's how twisted it is.

...at this point in time, don't you? Their retirement is based on being allowed to keep it, and that could change at any moment in time.

Being publicly critical while on active duty would have resulted in a court-martial, loss of rank, and possible loss of the retirement these guys have worked so hard to earn. I don't blame them for being "timid"...maybe they believed that Congress would assert themselves and shut down the NeoCons long before now. Or maybe they believed the American people would assert themselves by taking to the streets and launching one or more general strikes.

None of that happened did it? But let's blame the generals for speaking out now, right?

several of these guys were 'forced' into retirement for speaking up. One even lost his promotion and retired at a lesser grade (that IS a big deal). Generals can lose all that they worked for in the blink of an eye. Many of these guys stayed on to protect as many of the troops as they could (these guys were seasoned in Nam). The last time we saw this many Generals leave was early in Viet Nam.
I don't know if you have served in the military. From your responses, I think not, but correct me if I am wrong. The military and it's generals serve UNDER THE CIVILIAN SEC of DEFENSE. The civilian has the ultimate athourity over the military. And frankly, I would NOT want it any other way. Unfortunantly, we have an asshole civilian at the helm. The Generals are speaking up when and where they can, and I have an immense amount of respect for them. They are there to do the job they are ordered to do. I fear what presedent might happen if they disobey a direct order. Iran is shaping up to be interesting.

come out against Stump and Dick too. Shall we try?

I don't usually add smilies, but :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

Take a read of the scorching war-blogger (back-to-iraq.com) Chris Albritton gives Lt. Gen Greg Newbold:

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2006/04/why_didnt_you_say_so.php

These generals are patriots. In and out of uniform, they are loyal to the Constitution. So far, I don't see any "men on horseback"
condottierre here. Let us pray to God it stays that way. I haven't seen a single one of this group to whom I would not trust my own life
were he to be my leader in any kind of fight. They are saying what they are saying for the good of the service, and the good of the country.
Rumsfeld and the entire neocon regime must be neutered.

The generals and the captains all leaving... thats a Big Sign!!!

:rofl:

Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says

<snip>

"The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign.

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

Exactly who in this administration is doing well? Rove is about to be indicted, Delay indicted, Abramoff indicted, Frist is villified and told to keep out of trouble after Schaivo.....

Where are the republican heroes? Who do we look up to? Who's going to save their pathetic, lying asses?

SEC violations of stock transactions related to his family's bogus company....
don't forget frist is just as criminal as the rest....
he's also for sure a repthuglican candidate for president..

new info? And BTW, welcome to DU!

let's see..
1. frist is making a very active bid for running for pres. in 2008.
2. has endorsement of the neocon crowd, the bushes, cheney, etc. he's essentially their next guy to serve on the throne
3. thinks he/bush have done nothing wrong about iraq, but KNOWS deeply that Katrina was a PR Fuck up.
4. KNOWS that homeland security is the american hot button, working on a $10M project communications restoration project underwritten by Carlysle and Virginia state budgets to give America the idea that the rethugs can focus on homeland security again.
5. SEC information is hard to share at the moment, but in due course, we'll see indictments, of this we all can be assured.
6. other skeletons in the Frist family closet, which will come out in the next few months....
7. will push a more extreme religious right agenda than even bush if he gets elected
8. his family's hospital involved in some shady AIDS treatment deals and heavily tied to pharmaceutical companies

enough for you for now?

,...that will bring them down.

They think they've reigned in all the power to impose their will. *Asshole tyrants* They were wrong.

:woohoo:

After all, their oath is to uphold the Constitution, not follow the orders of civilian leaders into the Valley of Death.

It is definitely seeping into active duty military. These guys recognize a nutcase when they see one.

See the last paragraph…an anonymous General says “…folks are seeing the end of this administration.” What more can I say. Thank you for your service.

More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?hp&ex=1145073600&en=bdbb556e9e293705&ei=5094&partner=homepage


From left, Major General Paul D. Eaton, General Anthony C. Zinni, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Major General John Batiste, Major General John Riggs and Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr.

April 14, 2006
More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation
By DAVID S. CLOUD and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, April 13 — The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.

<snip>

Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.

<snip>

"Are the floodgates opening?" asked one retired Army general, who drew a connection between the complaints and the fact that President Bush's second term ends in less than three years. "The tide is changing, and folks are seeing the end of this administration."

The anonymous general was reverring to three years from now.

Well, he'll just have to check this out: EndGame

But prissy Larry DeRita nonetheless puts a good face on everything:

The outcry also appears based in part on a coalescing of concern about the toll that the war is taking on American armed forces, with little sign, three years after the invasion, that United States troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.

Pentagon officials, while acknowledging that Mr. Rumsfeld's forceful style has sometimes ruffled his military subordinates, played down the idea that he was overriding the advice of his military commanders or ignoring their views.

His interaction with military commanders has "been frequent," said Lawrence Di Rita, a top aide to Mr. Rumsfeld.

"It's been intense," Mr. Di Rita said, "but always there's been ample opportunity for military judgment to be applied against the policies of the United States."


Oh, gee, Larry, ya don't say??? Pity we didn't let that judgment be CONSIDERED BEFORE we embarked on this misadventure!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301238.html
> Replace Rumsfeld
>
> By David Ignatius
> Friday, April 14, 2006; Page A17
>
> With luck, Iraq will make a fresh start soon with the formation of a new government. The Bush administration should do the same thing by replacing Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
>
> Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.
>
> But that isn't the reason he should be replaced. Military officers often dislike the civilians they work for, but in our system strong civilian control is essential. On some of the issues over which he has tangled with the military brass, Rumsfeld has been right. The Pentagon is a hidebound place, and it has needed the "transformation" ethic Rumsfeld brought to his job. I'm dubious about the Pentagon conventional wisdom that we needed 500,000 American troops in Iraq. More troops were necessary, but they should have been Iraqi troops from an army that wasn't disbanded.
>
> Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush 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, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.

Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low. (emphasis mine)

Reinforcing Ignatius' quote, above, the following is reported by Seymour Hersh:

how many generals are there (how many men do the supervise)
when did these gens retire and where were they serving
what % were recently serving in the M.E.

agree with you. There really is no way Rumsfeld can rescue himself now. As other people have pointed out, the retired generals are in fact speaking for the enlisted men.

Someone else pointed out that if this attitude is pervasive with the officers, it's going to seep down to the troops. It's tough enough already in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting a losing battle.

But if they lose faith in their leader, there is nothing Rumsfeld can do. What if they decide to mutineer?

Cheney is as responisble as the Secy of Defense.
Or do they like their tax cuts too much?

our lifetime. Fascinating.

We might just see something beyond retired generals speaking out in that case.

In his recent New Yorker article, Seymour Hersh said that a number of high ranking officers would resign if the nuclear option isn't removed from plans regarding Iran.

As otherwise noted, the officer's oath is to the constitution, not the pretzel dunce.

take their place.

...failed military coup against FDR in 1933-1934. If it hadn't been for a general blowing the whistle on the plotters, our history since that time may have been a good bit different.

Also, take a look at who was calling the shots during the autopsy of JFK, and who believed they would benefit by his death. A good barometer of this is the make-up of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time...every single one was a rightwing hardliner. Oh, they definitely had help from those at the highest civilian levels who believed that JFK had to go, but the military pulled a key security force from Dallas at the last minute, and were the guys in charge of transporting JFK's body to the autopsy, and directing the military doctors performing the autopsy. A little too coincidental for my liking.

Jump forward to the maneuverings that took place a little over a year before Nixon resigned. Two-star General Al Haig was installed as the Chief of Staff...almost immediately, a message was sent out to all major commands to "disregard all orders of the Commander-in-Chief", and to destroy that message as soon as it was read. Who was in charge of the U. S. government during that period of transition from Nixon to Ford?

I will agree that this may very well be the most PUBLIC criticism by retired top-ranked officers...and may very well be the tip of a VERY discontented military iceberg. The trick is going to be how to resolve the coup if it happens. Will we become a military dictatorship, or will the military plotters honor the Constitution and turn over the reins of government to civilian leaders they install?

But then we had a strong president who could stand up to anyone in the administration.
Not now, the country is ripe for a takeover, actually my daughter's 4th grade class could probably do it at this point. :(

It's becoming clearer everyday that a full blown military coup is this country's only hope. Impeachment is about 2 years too late. Our military leaders are not stupid. Let's hope they can find the courage to do what must be done for the sake of this country.

It's a discussion that includes ex-generals about the possibility of it happening here (and how it's kind of already happening). I'm no fan of Rummy, but it bothers me that it's the military that's pushing this and not civilians.

Get rid of Rummy, and Bush will just appoint Delay or Harriet to the job.

A fish rots from the head down. It is Bush and Cheney who need to go.

McCain or even Lieberman. It was written in a way that made it seem like they very serious and made me think they should stop smoking whatever they are smoking.

These generals hate America and hate Rummy's freedom.

I was expecting a Rovian plot.

I don't know, it just seems to me that all these generals all coming out at the same time, just doesn't sit with me. This is the beginning of yet another smoke screen. Something stinks about this whole thing.

yeah yeah yeah, rumspuke is a failure we all know that, but it's just this whole thing appears to be orchestrated. As if rumspuke was going to retire anyway, but to put on the face of some sort of counter propaganda, blah blah blah, listening to the generals, listening to the soldiers, rumspuke ouster is going to be the tool to "turn things around in iraq" bullshit.

And being the true right wing "soldier" that he is, I believe rumspuke is going along with this whole heartily. Because let's face it, if he really did retire, what then? all sorts of controversy as to who would replace him. It would last for weeks and weeks, and would be scrutinized by all the Dems and would be an additional pile of shit that moron* would have to deal with. however, if you have a bunch of generals crowing about what a failure he is and they put up or some one is put up that they agree with, all controversy is blunted. Because, who in their right mind would question a general, right??

What we are watching is orchestrated bullshit. mark my words.

acceptable, or even encourage them to do this? Maybe they're frightened and have had it 'up to here', as we have.

is to the Constitution of the United States of America. Only. It is not to one man. I wouldn't be surprised if this is not traceable right back to Gen. Washington, himself,
who essentially refused to be crowned king by the Continental Army shortly after the defeat of the imperial British occupation army. He was loyal to republican (in the sense of the Roman Republic)
ideals from the beginning, and it is to him that we can be grateful that we haven't had a bunch of pocket Caesars already.
The generals are loyal to the Constitution. They do not accept the neocon pseudo-Caesars - incompetent drooling morons really - that have subverted our country.

What we are watching is orchestrated bullshit. - Orchestrated, certainly. That is what good generals do. Bullshit ? - most definitely not. It is a crucial point in our nation's history.
It is time for Congressman Murtha and all the loyal Congressmen - including Republicans like Walter Jones and Ron Paul - to step forward with these generals, to restore our Republic. It is a very proud moment for all of us.

That's why I truly believe this is all orchestrated bullshit.

They are following orders. This is just more smoke and mirrors.

And please, do not lump these general in the same sentence as Washington.

has stopped interviewing her usual cast of retired generals on the NewsHour of late.

:kick: I'm glad the generals have come out. Rummy said that there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of generals and only some have come out against him. What a f*cking putz.
IMPEACH BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE

Do they:

Keep Rummy, despite the uproar? I suppose they could hope that this will all blow over. However, it seems to me that some powerful people are really out to get him and have weakened him to the point where he will become another albatross around the neck of this administration.

On the other hand, if they ditch Rummy, it will be taken (and rightfully so) as an admission that they fucked up terribly with Iraq. Most of us already know this of course, but Rummy's resignation would crystalize it as fact in the collective mind. I don't think it would be going too far to say that a Rummy resignation could bring down the whole house of cards.

So, there you go. I would be glad that this treacherous administration is in such a predicament, if it did not have such terrible ramifications for those serving in the military and our nation in general.

already in the last month, which is far more a tell-tell sign of disintergration of the military ....

so sit back and enjoy the show folks, this is gonna get worse!