Remarks by retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's ouster

PJ24 said:
LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.

Did he? It said specifically in our newspaper that he did resign and they went on to emphasize this against the others. Funny, I didn't think a quality newspaper (which is usually not far from the money) would miss such an important detail.
Could it be he resigned and therefor slid into retirement? Or was he due to retire anyway, because then the gesture of quitting is much easier.
 
Ted said:
Did he? It said specifically in our newspaper that he did resign and they went on to emphasize this against the others. Funny, I didn't think a quality newspaper (which is usually not far from the money) would miss such an important detail.
Could it be he resigned and therefor slid into retirement? Or was he due to retire anyway, because then the gesture of quitting is much easier.

Nope, he retired. It was no secret that he and the SECDEF butted heads, though and that that is probably the reason he did. Out of the group, he would be the better one to listen to except when he retired he remained quiet about his objections, now all of a sudden he wants to be vocal.

Remember though, my objections to these men aren't about their opinions, but how they're voicing them and the actions they didn't take.

The real irony to all of this, and those of you with military service will know this one, is that these GOs are complaining about the very thing they, themselves have done to THEIR men. Ever see what happens when a Jr. guy trys to tell a GO he was not descended from Zeus? :eek: It's ugly. How many OIF guys on here didn't feel like they were being micromanaged by the conventional, can't think outside of the box heavy collars? I know we sure did, e v e r y s i n g l e d a y.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have said before that I have not been deployed yet. Even in the rear it is the same. I personally am not micromanaged, but I can see it when words comes down from the top about what we are to do. . . exactly.

It is irritating and frustrating to say the least when you know what needs to be done but are prevented from doing it because you are told to do it in a certain way. By the time you get to actually doing what needed to be done in the first place, the opportunity to fix the problem is gone. Now you have the results of the problem to deal with, and have to deal with the people wondering why you let it get that way in the first place.

Micromanaging can be good in very few cases. Otherwise it is best to send down the directives and let those in the trench do what needs to be done in the manner they deem best. . . within the law of course lol.
 
I got fascinated with General Zinni after reading Tom clancys book about him. I have great respect for the man and kinda hope he'll take rummys job one day. This adminstration or some other one doesnt matter.
 
Missileer said:
I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?
He might lose more than his pension if he spoke out of turn ... he could be cashiered completely with no pension with a BCD. They might not even accept his resignation ... the more normal procedure would result in him being reduced by at least two grades and put out on a reduced pension instead of allowing a "personal resignation". There would also be a 'for cause' charge waiting in the wings IF he stepped over the line after being told that the information he was about to reveal to the public was classified. That includes disclosure after separation.

If you don't think this happens ... think again ... I have seen it in two cases (Vietnam and Granada) ... nuff said.

I don't like getting into these f*ups.
 
Last edited:
Missileer said:
I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?

Not necessarily, he would have had to cause a huge stink internally (by going the external route) while still in the military to piss someone off to that level. That's why the next step, when you can do no more internally, is to resign in protest.

Rabs said:
I got fascinated with General Zinni after reading Tom clancys book about him. I have great respect for the man and kinda hope he'll take rummys job one day. This adminstration or some other one doesnt matter.

I've always been indifferent towards Zinni, but had respect for him. Though I've never agreed with his policy on the Middle East.

He shouldn't be in the position of the SECDEF, he's shown that he isn't willing to lay it all on the line for what he believes is right. Regardless of anyones feelings on Rumsfeld, he has at least, not kept his mouth closed on what he believes is the right way of doing things in order to garner favor and keep out of trouble. In fact, there have been times when he probably should have been quiet and he wasn't.
 
Its been a while since I've been here - so hi to all.

I can't get over how much the dialogue has changed since I was last here just six months ago. Back then, there was a general consensus from the group, with far fewer dissents, that people shouldn't criticize how or why the war was being handled in Iraq as it didn't help the troops and was a time for unity. This came up time and time again.

Now, some of the same people criticize the retired generals for not speaking out at the time. And because they didn't speak out - dismiss them entirely. Just a thought but is it not possible that these 'soldiers', out of a sense of duty and obligation to their troops, did not speak out publicly in the media?

My other question is, how many generals does it take before we believe them - or do we prefer to keep trusting the word of elected politicans?

Just a thought......
 
Rich said:
Now, some of the same people criticize the retired generals for not speaking out at the time. And because they didn't speak out - dismiss them entirely. Just a thought but is it not possible that these 'soldiers', out of a sense of duty and obligation to their troops, did not speak out publicly in the media?

I wasn't here when you were, so your comment isn't directed at me, but I'll reply anyway.

I think if you read through what I've said, I explain why they obviously weren't putting their men first. If they were, they would have resigned in protest and gotten the word out when it may have made a difference.

My other question is, how many generals does it take before we believe them - or do we prefer to keep trusting the word of elected politicans?

Six Generals out of how many? You believe them why? Because they're generals? I know E-4s with more combat experience and knowledge of the AO than some GOs. These are all conventional GOs acting as subject matter experts on unconventional wars. That's not to say they're completely wrong, but they're not the most informed. Just because a guy has shiney stuff on his collar doesn't mean he's all knowing and infallible, nor does it mean he can't become victim to his own bias opinions.
 
PJ24

Of the 6, 3 of them worked directly under Rummy and 2 of those with Rummy while they were stationed in Iraq. I'll agree that not all of them are in the know about what goes on in the Pentagon, but some certainly were.

But as I said, the reason Rummy is staying is not because he's competant, I think many Conservative Republicans in congress (like McCain and Graham) have already concluded that Rummys a failure. The reason is firing Rummy would be an knowledgement of error, particularily in Iraq, and we have seen time and again that Bush has a problem accepting responbility.
 
mmarsh said:
PJ24

Of the 6, 3 of them worked directly under Rummy and 2 of those with Rummy while they were stationed in Iraq. I'll agree that not all of them are in the know about what goes on in the Pentagon, but some certainly were.

But as I said, the reason Rummy is staying is not because he's competant, I think many Conservative Republicans in congress (like McCain and Graham) have already concluded that Rummys a failure. The reason is firing Rummy would be an knowledgement of error, particularily in Iraq, and we have seen time and again that Bush has a problem accepting responbility.

Like I said, I'm looking from a purely apolitical military perspective. The fact that these GOs didn't resign in protest means they supported the SECDEFs decisions. No matter what they say now, they supported him.

I'm not going to comment on the politics of it, or even if I believe their opinions or right or wrong. It's not my intention to defend the SECDEF, or malign him.

I realize you're looking at it from a political angle, and that you truly do feel as though the SECDEF has made poor decisions. Again, I won't say if I agree or disagree, but my point is not about that. It's about men that were charged with leading and protecting their men NOT doing their jobs because they were too busy trying to keep their careers. And many of these men are guilty of the very same thing they accuse the SECDEF of, micromanaging and not listening to the boots on the ground, for example.

There are quite a few men that work and have worked directly with/for the SECDEF, most aren't speaking out. You can't measure the validity based on the number, because there's far more that haven't said anything negative, with careers that overshadow these guys.

I'm not arguing for folks not to listen to these guys, but I do think it's important to take into consideration what they didn't do when they should have, as well as what political and personal agenda some of them have. That should be done with ANYONE, from politicians to civilians to retired military GOs.

If what they say happens to support your own beliefs through your own personal research, opinions and logical conclusions/assumptions, then obviously you've done your homework well enough to have an informed (as best as possible) opinion. What these GOs are saying are simply supporting that. But if that isn't the case, don't just take these guys word for it. That's all.
 
PJ24

I understand what your're saying, but are you not being too harsh? I mean I dont blame these guys for not saying anything before they retired. SECDEF change all the time (Rummy is one of the longest serving SECDEF), but in 3 years there will be a new one. Do you think its fair to expect these Generals to end their 30-40 year careers simply because their current (temp) boss stinks? That seems like an unfortunate waste of talented people.

In Civilian life I have worked for bosses that were incompetant, but I never denounced them to the CEO while I was still employed at the company. Perhaps I should have, but I particuly feel guilty about not doing so. (Something tells me I would have regretted it if I had). But I do know other people that have said something to the CEO their last day before quitting. It seems to me that all these Generals are doing...

Im not military, so perhaps I just dont get it...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
I understand what your're saying, but are you not being too harsh? I mean I dont blame these guys for not saying anything before they retired. SECDEF change all the time (Rummy is one of the longest serving SECDEF), but in 3 years there will be a new one. Do you think its fair to expect these Generals to end their 30-40 year careers simply because their current (temp) boss stinks? That seems like an unfortunate waste of talented people.

When men's lives are at stake. I do, yes. I don't see that as harsh. In civilian life, most jobs won't kill thousands of guys if you silenty agree with what you feel is bad policy. If you have possibility, even the hint of it, to change things, then your career should take a backseat.

I don't see their careers as more important than the men's lives they were charged with looking out for.
 
PJ24

Of course if they do leave, they might be replaced with less experianced less capable Washington yes-men and that too could lead to a loss of life. I do understand what your saying, it seems to me there is no real 'good' solution damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Blackwatch

Yes, I dont remember all of them but two of the critics were the Division commanders of the 82nd Airborne and the other was the Division Commander of the 1st Armored (both stationed in Iraq).
 
Oliver North nails it...

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,94922,00.html

Anyone interested in this topic should read the whole article but I have pulled some highlights...

Set aside for a moment that these are all men who helped plan various aspects of the war they now say was poorly planned. With the exception of Zinni, who served as CENTCOM commander during the Clinton Administration, they all accepted promotions to “serve” under Commander in Chief Bush and helped carry out a plan they now claim to be irreparably flawed. If the jawing Generals felt then as they say they do now -- why didn’t they just quit -- before their promotions and pay raises?

It's been done before. On 21 April 1980, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance tendered his resignation and privately confided to President Jimmy Carter, "I know how deeply you have pondered your decision on Iran. I wish I could support you in it. But for the reasons we have discussed I cannot." The Secretary of State was referring to the mission -- three days later -- to rescue American hostages -- an operation he had steadfastly opposed. Unlike the “six-pack” of generals now castigating the war they helped plan and execute -- Mr. Vance had the integrity to make his views known during planning for the Iran operation -- and the courage to quit when the commander in chief decided to proceed over his objections.

That archaic combination of honor and fortitude is apparently absent from the current crop of retired generals shouting “Dump Don!” into any available microphone. They should be grateful that the Bush-phobic mainstream media is either ignorant of the ethical tradition exemplified by Cyrus Vance -- or too lazy to research the inconsistencies in the generals’ past and present positions on the war.

Perhaps it’s unfair to expect equal measures of courage and character from senior officers in this age of political opportunism.
On target.
 
Last edited:
Oliver North is NOT one of my favorite people - I still consider him a traitor even though others don't ...
(just a personal belief).

HOWEVER - he makes one hell of a point with his comments ... Secretary of State Cyrus Vance demonstrated what it really means when you place others before your own sorry *ss politically motivated aspirations (promotions and increased earnings). He demonstrated courage and character even though it ended up costing him.

It's too bad these "parrot mouthed" generals didn't have the character or courage to back up their convictions during the planning and implementation phases leading up to the invasion and eventual post operations, instead of waiting to blab to the world when it was too late to impact the plans.

These "straw" warriors DO NOT reflect very well upon what it really means to place your junior people's welfare above your own. They really were sad excuses as an example of true leadership.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top