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?

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.

Yeah that makes me think.

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!

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

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?
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.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

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 .

Originally Posted by PJ24

......................
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).