PJ24
Active member
Ted said:But didn't one of the generals, Gregory Newbold, resign due to this, thus ending his career.
LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.
Ted said:But didn't one of the generals, Gregory Newbold, resign due to this, thus ending his career.
PJ24 said:LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.
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.
PJ24 said:LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.
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.Missileer said:I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?
Missileer said:I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
On target.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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.