WSJ: The Two-Star Rebel

The Wall Street Journal

May 13, 2006

The Two-Star Rebel

For Gen. Batiste, a tour in Iraq turned a loyal soldier into Rumsfeld's most unexpected critic.
By GREG JAFFE
May 13, 2006; Page A1


(snip)

"I was shocked at where I was," he says. "I had spent the last 31 years of my life defending our great Constitution." Over the course of the war in Iraq he says he saw troop shortages that allowed a deadly insurgency to take root, felt politics were put ahead of hard-won military lessons and was haunted by the regretful words of a top general in Vietnam. The war in Iraq should have been a decisive victory for the U.S., Gen. Batiste told himself, as he paced in the parking garage. He blamed Mr. Rumsfeld for his "contemptuous attitude" and his "refusal to take sound military advice." As he got into his car to drive home, he recalls thinking: "If I don't speak out, who the hell else will?"

Since March, seven retired generals have called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. Some critics argue that the dissenters, a fraction of the hundreds of generals who have retired in the last decade, have axes to grind or have no first-hand experience working with the secretary. Three were passed over for promotions or forced to retire. Two left the military before the Bush administration took office. Gen. Batiste stands out among the generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign because he is the only one who served in a high position in the Pentagon and commanded troops in Iraq. He turned down a promotion and resigned last fall. He then spent the next seven months trying to decide whether to speak out in public, weighing a strong sense of duty and respect for his chain of command against a feeling that he owed it to his soldiers and their families to speak out. Among the generals who have spoken out, "the only one that really shocked everyone was Batiste," says Don Snider, a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Mr. Rumsfeld has suggested that the criticism of him by the retired generals is a byproduct of the sweeping reforms he brought to the Pentagon and the Bush administration's bold efforts to win the global war on terror by spreading freedom in the Middle East. "There's a lot of change going on; it's challenging for people, it's difficult for people," he told reporters recently. For many senior military officers, today's debate over whether to speak out has its roots in the Vietnam War. All of today's senior generals either fought in the lost war or joined a military struggling to recover from it. "Their memory of Vietnam is that the military was abandoned by the American people and betrayed by the civilian leadership. It is hardwired into them never to let that happen again," says Andrew Bacevich, a professor of International Relations at Boston University and a retired Army colonel.

(snip)

In 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz arrived at the Pentagon with a mandate from President Bush to transform the military into a lighter, faster force. Mr. Wolfowitz tapped Gen. Batiste, who had been recommended by his superiors, to become his senior military assistant... Initial plans called for shrinking the Army by as much as 20%, to pay for high-tech airplanes, space and missile defense systems. In discussions with Mr. Wolfowitz, Gen. Batiste argued the virtues of a big Army, drawing on his Bosnia experience.

(snip)

The general says he forged a close relationship with Mr. Wolfowitz. "He is a brilliant, dedicated hard-working man," Gen. Batiste says. "I didn't always agree with him, but he listened. He was a fair man." Mr. Wolfowitz declined to comment for this article. Gen. Batiste didn't feel the same way about Mr. Rumsfeld, who served as a Navy pilot from 1954 to 1957. Mr. Rumsfeld's plan to cut the Army by 20%, before 9/11, reflected a belief that new technology made it possible to win wars with smaller ground formations. "He came in with a lot of ideas about warfare that I thought were just bankrupt," Gen. Batiste says.

(snip)

He also felt the unit didn't have enough reconstruction funds. When Mr. Wolfowitz came to visit in June 2004, Gen. Batiste said that his division had spent $41 million in three months on rebuilding. It had $23 million left for the remaining six months of the year. That wasn't enough, he says, to repair infrastructure destroyed by decades of misrule and sanctions, such as sewer, electrical or health-care systems. In addition, reconstruction funds put unemployed Iraqi men, who offered a potential recruiting pool for the enemy, on the U.S. payroll. Over the course of the year-long tour, Gen. Batiste says he had to deal regularly with troop shortages. On three occasions, he was ordered to send soldiers to help other U.S. units in the cities of Najaf and Fallujah to put down revolts. Typically, the Army holds a couple of units in reserve to deal with unforeseen flare-ups. But the desire to keep the force as lean as possible meant there were no extra troops in Iraq.

(snip)


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114748270803051995.html (subscription)

will still vote the Republican party ticket.

I am currently doing some work that has me in shoulder rubbing distance from a number of these guys. They are more like the country as a whole than many will give them credit for. I suspect there is a slightly more Republican tilt than the country as a whole, but not as much as many imagine.

In the enlisted ranks, there are, I'd guess, more on our side than the other way around. But only to about the same degree the officer corps leans right.

I worked for so long with so many military men and women who bitched, whined, groused, etc. Then they'd turn around and vote the same idiots in.

I think the vote goes the way the appropriations go, in most cases. Who's going to vote with caring for the military?

They're learning that the Repukes don't.

Clark is on the ticket, I think you will see a lot of military vote Democratic.

My father was a yellow dog Democrat all his life, but in 1952, his first election, it was Democrate--I like Ike--Democrat--I like Ike. Mom still thinks he voted Ike.

about the former Enron employees.

As for the generals, and other military personnel, I think that it will depend on the candidate(s).

Since McGovern, the Democrats have appeared as "soft on the military." This is one reason why Bush won again in 2004. But if our candidate appears as someone who can fight terror the smart way, not the dumb one, we should be able to earn their votes.

This is why I think that we may have some kind of an October surprise as far as bringing the troops home, so that Iraq will be a non-issue.

It was the Repubs who squandered the military. It was the Repubs who sent them out without armor. It was the Repubs who stop-lossed them. It was the Repubs who squirmed out of caring for them upon return. It was the Repubs who told them to torture.

It was the Repubs.

Period.

For the military, at least, 'bring'em home' will not translate to more votes.