Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Now this is definitely an argument I could absolutely buy.

HOWEVER

The problem is that we live in an atmosphere where we are punished for telling the truth ... for real proof all you have to do is to look at what has happened since GW assumed the office of the Presidency. Every time anyone has made a 'true' statement about what is going on, the bureaucracy has responded with a campaign of verbal terrorism. This can't help the atmosphere for an active duty officer who sees what happens when the person in the cross-hairs is a civilian, let alone what would happen to an active duty person.

SO

Your argument that it SHOULD be about leadership instead of politics is a real truism ... but ... I AM SORRY TO SAY ... in this skewed world we live in, politics sometimes trumps leadership. (Even tho it shouldn't).

You're right, on all of the above, and it is a sad thing. And it is all about politics.

But I'm looking at this from a military perspective, and I cannot excuse these GOs for their inaction either. None of these men were willing to fall on their sword to protect the men they were charged with leading. None were willing to resign in protest and get their message heard when it may have made a difference. If they were planning on going to the press anyway, and obviously they were, why not go out with a boom? They're the guys that people listen to (even if sometimes they shouldn't) not the little fish.

Now they, like those they accuse, are part of the political grand-standing.

Yeah, you can pretty much bet as a GO your career is over if you make a stand against the current admin. That doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Civilians couldn't care less about their military careers, or what they did or didn't do about this while they were in. They're going to see "oh guy that had big shiney stuff and a uniform says this," and they're going to go with it. I can't help but look at it from a military perspective and wonder where this leadership was when it counted.

Because they remained quiet, they supported the SECDEF, they were part of the decisions that have impacted those of us that have been and are on the ground. That makes them just as guilty of what they accuse Rumsfeld for, in my eyes.

I've spent the past several years shaking my head over a lot of decisions that have trickled down. Not all of the things that caused me to do so are to blame on the current admin. some of the blame lies directly on the shoulders of men just like these. And vice versa.

I've been in the military long enough to know the real deal, like I said, I can count on one hand the number of GOs I know or know of that would sacrifice their careers for their men. It still doesn't settle right with me, though, and I doubt it ever will.

PJ
Bravo Zulu's to you ... I couldn't agree more.

Yes they failed the men they led ... but for the life of me, I CAN understand why some of them didn't speak out.

That doesn't mean I think it was right ... but ... I can't really blame them for NOT speaking out while they were 'on the bulls-eye' considering the political climate both within the military as well as in the civilian halls of government..

PJ has put it in words so no sense repeating them. I went through OCS and I remember very clearly that lesson about resigning in protest after you have tried internally EVERYTHING you can.

And also that the men under your command are more important than your career... that is part and parcel, inseperable, from the heart of being a good NCO or Officer of any grade. The rest is all bullspit. Reality this and reality that... politics is an excuse for lacking the moral fortitude to do what is right when push come to shove.

But didn't one of the generals, Gregory Newbold, resign due to this, thus ending his career. I reckon there will always be a schism between the policy makers and executioners and there should be. Europe has seen many countries where the military and politics were an entity and this didn't go well. It just start to become troublesome when the two can't work together apart, if you know what I mean? Imo Rumsfeld so go because his name is tainted and the military has a long memory. The US, or any other nation, can't afford a situation where politics and military become rivals!

Originally Posted by Ted

But isn't this another painful example of a bureaucrat having to work with professionel soldiers? To the apparatnitsjik numbers of dead soldiers are still just numbers... scary, when you think of it!

I think it is more along the lines of professional soldiers having to work with bureaucrats. If they were to just tell the military: Do this and get it done, then let us go do our jobs I believe things would be better off in many ways. Of course the political arena has to have their noses in it to make sure the military does not do things they shouldn't. Kind of like an oversight committee. I will have to agree with PJ24 on points he has made.

I know that as an NCO I look out for my troops first and foremost. Then I worry about others. I have had my butt chewed once or twice because of this and was threatened to be busted down a rank as well. It never happened because when all the facts came to light I was in the moral and legal right.

It is all a matter of how you go about doing or saying it is all.

It is all a matter of how you go about doing or saying it is all.

And for some reason this seems to be the hardest thing to do right! There are so many examples in so many different fields where this just seems to go wrong by definition...

As long as the Military, by design, is under civilian control, there will be wide differences of opinions about anything to do with combat. The President is the CIC, so his staff gets to move the chess pieces. That's how the Founding Fathers wrote it, to keep the Military in check. I don't care for Rumsfeld and haven't from the get-go but at the present, he's calling the shots.

Missileer

To respond to a point you made earlier.

I think whats partly so damning is not that 6 Genarals condemned Rumsfeld but that 3 of these Generals worked directly for him, its not like these guys were stationed in Antartica weather station and got their news via dogsled. They guys worked with the man, that says alot.

In this instance, Civilian careers is not so different from military ones. For example, if I think my boss is an incompentant weenie I am not going to go to the CEO and ask him to fire my boss. That would probably be a detriment to my civilian career as it would be for somebody elses military career.

On the other hand, I do know some people who hated their boss, quit or retired from their job and then wrote the CEO to tell them the boss was a weenie. It happened in my office not too long ago (provoking an earthquake), and its what these ex-generals were trying to do now.

Bush will never fire Rumsfeld. He's had plenty of chances over the Iraq intelligence, the Abu Garab scandel, and the poor waging of the war to date. If Bush was going to fire Rummy, he would have done so long ago...

Originally Posted by bulldogg

PJ has put it in words so no sense repeating them. I went through OCS and I remember very clearly that lesson about resigning in protest after you have tried internally EVERYTHING you can.

And also that the men under your command are more important than your career... that is part and parcel, inseperable, from the heart of being a good NCO or Officer of any grade. The rest is all bullspit. Reality this and reality that... politics is an excuse for lacking the moral fortitude to do what is right when push come to shove.

I absolutely concur that as an officer or senior noncom, your men come first ... period. All I did with my other posts was to recognize a second reality ... there ARE those who for whatever reason, decide their careers are more important than throwing them away for no gain ... their speaking out will NOT change politically directed operations that have their origins in the Oval Office.

On Naval ships, Chief Petty Officers are expected to stand between the deckplate and the officer corps as the bridge and guardian of the rights of the able seamen and Junior noncoms. It's demanded of us that we put it on the line when a Junior Officer (or) even a Senior Officer steps over the line, even if we have to jump the chain of command. This step is never approached lightly ... you better have exhausted all of the internal stepping stones before you go outside your own chain of command.

It seems to me, that CPO's having been doing it right for generations and generations ... I don't really understand why someone who has reached the exalted rank of Commanding General, haven't learned to place their men first ... I know they received the training that taught them this truth.

I GUESS THE LEARNING NEVER TOOK IN THEIR CASE.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

It seems to me, that CPO's having been doing it right for generations and generations ... I don't really understand why someone who has reached the exalted rank of Commanding General, haven't learned to place their men first ... I know they received the training that taught them this truth.

I GUESS THE LEARNING NEVER TOOK IN THEIR CASE.

TRUE, TRUE, if it ain't broke, keep your front feet out of it. Chief, a lot of the GOs have never served under battle stations as many CPOs have. They are just of the mindset of not making waves until retirement. Also, most of them are younger and dumber than you to put it plainly.