Remarks by retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's ouster

tomtom22

Chief Engineer
Remarks by retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's ouster
By Associated Press | April 14, 2006
Quotes from the retired generals who are calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:
"We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team." -- Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.
------
"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results." -- Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.
------
"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign." -- Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.
------
"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission." -- Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command.
------
"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is." -- Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.
------
"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." -- Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.
------
SOURCES: CBS "The Early Show", Time magazine, National Public Radio, CNN, The New York Times

To my knowledge, I have not seen anything like this for many, many years. I think that this is very telling and it speaks volumes about what is not being said by the administration. What do all of you that are in the military or you that have served in the military think?

 
Last edited:
I think that if these former service members feel this way then maybe someone should listen to them. If they are willing to speak out, pretty much in consensus, then that must say something just by itself.
 
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!
 
Marinerhodes said:
I think that if these former service members feel this way then maybe someone should listen to them. If they are willing to speak out, pretty much in consensus, then that must say something just by itself.

Well, let me offer a different view to this. If they are so adamant about their opinions on how the SECDEF is running things, why weren't they falling on their swords when they were in command? Why, when they were told to "sit down and stfu" didn't they resign in protest?

It seems to me they failed to stand for what they believed in when they could have done something about it. These GOs, through their silence, supported the SECDEFs decisions and commited troops, men THEY were responsible for, to the very operations they now slander in the media.

Obviously their claimed convictions did not outweight their own personal desires. That, to me, makes them no better than the man they're complaining about.

Btw, I don't necessarily disagree with their opinions, so that's not why I'm posting what I am.

I used to have respect for some of those GOs, but not any longer.
 
Are you out of your cottin pickin mind???????

Are you out of your cottin pickin mind?
If, a Commanding General were to speak out while he was on active duty, and criticize those appointed over him (or) those who planned (or) implemented an operation, he could kiss his career goodbye almost immediately. If he criticized the President, he could pack his bags that very same day, and start looking for a job in the civilian sector that very same day.

Convictions or lack of convictions have nothing to do with speaking out while in an active status ... the Uniform Code of Military Justice has so many 'general' articles that can be thrown at a person that runs his mouth, that it's a wonder that they even talk after 'retiring'. It is understandable why they are NOT forthcoming while still actively serving.

A vindictive President (or) Secretary of Defense (could), very well put into motion various agencies that could cause a mouthy general officer a slew of problems. It could be as simple as forcing retirement at a lower pay-grade, up to and including, the arrest and prosecution of an officer for disclosure of classified information.

Any person that believes that there are no active duty personnel in Iraq that are upset or disturbed by the incompetence of Rumsfeld is NOT from planet Earth ... they are living in a military (or) civilian world that never was, where you can speak your mind and never have the roof fall on you because you stepped on the wrong persons foot (or) said the wrong thing

I believe that if every active duty General Officer (or) line officer who has the same opinion of Rumsfeld as the ex-generals were to all speak out, the newspapers would run out of paper printing their names and their critical statements about Rummy.
 
Chief Bones said:
Are you out of your cottin pickin mind?
If, a Commanding General were to speak out while he was on active duty, and criticize those appointed over him (or) those who planned (or) implemented an operation, he could kiss his career goodbye almost immediately. If he criticized the President, he could pack his bags that very same day, and start looking for a job in the civilian sector that very same day.

Convictions or lack of convictions have nothing to do with speaking out while in an active status ... the Uniform Code of Military Justice has so many 'general' articles that can be thrown at a person that runs his mouth, that it's a wonder that they even talk after 'retiring'. It is understandable why they are NOT forthcoming while still actively serving.

A vindictive President (or) Secretary of Defense (could), very well put into motion various agencies that could cause a mouthy general officer a slew of problems. It could be as simple as forcing retirement at a lower pay-grade, up to and including, the arrest and prosecution of an officer for disclosure of classified information.

Any person that believes that there are no active duty personnel in Iraq that are upset or disturbed by the incompetence of Rumsfeld is NOT from planet Earth ... they are living in a military (or) civilian world that never was, where you can speak your mind and never have the roof fall on you because you stepped on the wrong persons foot (or) said the wrong thing

I believe that if every active duty General Officer (or) line officer who has the same opinion of Rumsfeld as the ex-generals were to all speak out, the newspapers would run out of paper printing their names and their critical statements about Rummy.

No, actually, I'm not. I'm active duty, I'm quite aware of the UCMJ and the military culture and the consequences that often come from standing up and staying something is wrong. I'm also of the firm belief that my men come before my career. I can count on ONE hand the number of GOs that practice this same belief.

In OCS/OTS up and coming officers are taught to fight bad leadership interally, and if nothing can come of it, resign in protest.

You may support their moral cowardace, to stand by and allow bad decisions to put men's lives at risk. I will NOT make excuses for it. It's funny how they've just NOW found the courage to take a stand and go public. They could have resigned in protest awhile ago and done the same thing.

Also, you can't preach to me about Iraq, you don't have to tell me about the decisions that have been made and how they impact the guys on the ground, I've experienced them first hand, a few times.

This isn't about who's right or who's wrong, in fact, had you read my post you would see that I said I do not necessarily disagree with their opinions, but on the same coin, I will not call these men admirable for what they're doing simply because it reflects on what they didn't do when they should have.

Amazing how these strong convictions weren't worth their careers.

You want to make it about politics but it isn't, it's about leaders that put themselves before their men.
 
Last edited:
Six or seven retired Generals out of the many who have also retired since the beginning of the Iraq campaign doesn't necessarily prove the whole operation was "flawed." I sense an agenda but will reserve my final opinion by how many more come out against Rummy, if for no other reason out of respect for their years of service. I'll change my mind when Gen. Tommy Franks speaks out against the operations.
 
Marinerhodes said:
I think that if these former service members feel this way then maybe someone should listen to them. If they are willing to speak out, pretty much in consensus, then that must say something just by itself.

From what Pentagon insiders say, Rumy likes to Micro manage just alittle too much. I could see why six Generals calling for his resignation would raise concerns:shock: .
 
PJ24 said:
......................
You want to make it about politics but it isn't, it's about leaders that put themselves before their men.
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).
 
Last edited:
Chief Bones said:
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.

 
BZ's to you .....

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!
 
Ted said:
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...
 
Last edited:
The learning never took ...

bulldogg said:
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.
 
Chief Bones said:
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.
 
Back
Top