http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=26901Most US citizens don’t realize that unprecedented activities are occurring within the high levels of our current and former military commanders. There is overall agreement that the current military is the finest team that the US has ever provided for fighting a foreign war. They also believe that the US troops are doing an outstanding job in executing their orders in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of the previous military leaders however, do NOT agree with what the president is saying or doing regarding the execution of the occupation of Iraq and the past diversion of the troops and the strategy focus from Afghanistan to Iraq.
The disagreement began in earnest back in 2002 just before the war when Paul D. Wolfowitz, the then Deputy Defense Secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill. He said the estimate by General Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that “several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq”, was "wildly off the mark.". Mr. Wolfowitz stated that Pentagon officials (Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld) had put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in that fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward. "We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated many committee Democrats. In hindsight, General Shinseki appears to have been much more accurate than the civilian side of the administration that was supposed to be “following the direction of the US military commanders”.
In recent comments from President Bush, he has accused the Congress of “playing politics" when they try to add a time line for troop withdrawals in Iraq. The president also accuses the congress of “trying to micromanage the war from Washington DC and not following the directions of the military on the ground in harm’s way”. The truth be told, the President and his administration are the “politicians that are not listening to the Generals” and they are the ones trying to direct the military for winning an un-winnable occupation. President Bush has conveniently forgotten as to how many capable, top level generals have retired or quit the military due to disagreeing with the ignorant decisions that have been made by this president and his Department of Defense.
US Military leaders are overwhelmingly consistent in their opinion that the US Commander-in-Chief should be the civilian US president. However, a general or admiral in the US military only has three ways for dealing with a serious difference of opinion with their civilian leadership. They can quit, retire or acquiesce and agree with the leadership’s direction. In normal times, the military leadership will choose one of these options depending on how important the issues happen to be. However, in the past, once they have made their choice, everybody would then just move forward. Those that had chosen to quit or retire would normally never say a negative word about their previous civilian leaders, especially during an on-going, active military conflict. Now, for the first time in the history of the US military, large numbers of qualified, previous US military leaders are speaking up against the current administration. They are making it crystal clear that the president only listens to those in the military that agree with the administration. Those military professionals with opinions counter to the president’s views are then left to quit or retire.