Retired Generals Amass Against Rumsfeld
13 April 2006 7:46 am by Taylor Marsh
Retired Generals Amass Against Rumsfeld
 |
The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called
yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former
top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's
authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.“I think we need a fresh start” at the top
of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st
Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. “We need
leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military
to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork.”
Rumsfeld
Rebuked By Retired Generals
Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for Resignation
Maj. General John Batiste was offered a third star to return to
Iraq but turned it down because he didn't want to serve under Rumsfeld anymore. There
are specifics to his disdain.
It starts with Rumsfeld
obliterating the “unity of command and unity of effort,” as well as
sending too few troops into Iraq in the first place. Batiste believes this is
what helped produce Abu Ghraib, which is undoubtedly a real burden for career
military types to bear. What Abu Ghraib did to the image of U.S. forces cannot
be denied or ignored.
Just last week Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold wrote of “McNamara-like
micromanagement” that exists under Rumsfeld.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton said that Rumsfeld was “incompetent
strategically, operationally and tactically.” Eaton was on the ground in
Iraq and worked with Iraqi army troops. He asked for Rumsfeld to step down.
Then there is retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East, who said flatly that we'd wasted 3
years.
Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who commanded Marine forces in the Pacific
Theater, said that the main issue for many is Rumsfeld's outward disrespect
of the military's advise, who is ignored.
The revelatory aspect to the generals' outspoken criticism of
Rumsfeld has got to be alarming for the administration. No single group has
the power to affect the public's mood more than the military. The generals are
seen as people beyond reproach or question, especially since many of the generals
asking for Rumsfeld's resignation served in Iraq and have concrete reasons for
asking for it.
Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen.
John Riggs, said he believes that his peer group is “a pretty closemouthed
bunch” but that, even so, his sense is “everyone pretty much thinks
Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out.”He emphatically agrees, Riggs said, explaining that
he believes Rumsfeld and his advisers have “made fools of themselves,
and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict.”
(source)
However, the real issue is that Bush is so weak, his approval ratings so low, especially on Iraq, that he likely feels that any further show of error or weakness will only make matters worse now. Only a critical mass of negative opinion will force Bush's hand, which can't come just from the military. Bush hasn't listened to them so far and won't start now.
Discharging Rumsfeld might be what a strong commander in chief would do, but not a weak president, who would simply be admitting those weaknesses by finally firing someone who was directly in charge of the war effort. Besides, in the end, Bush isn't going to change course. So anyone he hires for the Pentagon will just be walking into a bad war, which is going south fast, over which he has absolutely no control whatsoever. The policy is set. We're going down with it.
