Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
It is frustrating to attempt a thorough discussion here. I perceive an interest in "leaving out" key considerations, vital to examining what is really going on in the "controversy" created by retired senior officers recently calling for Rumsfeld to resign.
Probably the most important considerations that are "left out" are:
1.)The secrecy of the Bush administration, as to the actual reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, and the long term plan for the U.S. military role in Iraq. (See supporting articles, below.)
|
Secrecy will always exist in government under any administration. State secrets are defined in terms of damage to the national security that either compromise national interests or allow others to exploit weaknesses that adversely affect our national interests. And wartime administrations are more secretive than peacetime administrations. I don't see how this fits in the argument; I accept secrecy as something that comes with the territory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
2.)Bush and Cheney appointed Rumsfeld, directed his agenda, approved and co-planned his decisions....he continues in his position on their approval, and they will appoint and supervise his successor, if Rumsfeld is fired. The buck stops at the desks of the co-presidents.
|
If you take a closer look at the criticisms, they are focused on Rumsfeld's management style and not so much on the broad policy decisions being made about Iraq. While I agree that Bush is the one who appointed Rumsfeld to the position, the criticisms from the general officers are aimed specifically at the way Rumsfeld is running the Pentagon and not so much how the war is being prosecuted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
3.)Turning the wave of tardy, public dissent of combat "flag" officers, into something trivial, as in <b>"if every officer is bitching that his own plan wasn't adopted?"</b> seems like an attempt to avoid recognition and discussion of the controversy. Are some of the most respected, experienced, and involved, former senior combat officers, now criticizing Rumsfeld in unison....or not? If the critics are inconsequential in stature there is no controversy. If they were the former key military leaders who Rumsfeld ordered to war, in 2003, at the behest of Bush/Cheney, isn't it important to ask why they call for Rumsfeld's firing, instead of minimizing their stature?
|
First of all, I don't agree that anyone is trying to trivialize the dissent. Nor do I think that it is as simple as sour grapes because a certain officer's war plan was rejected. These are seasoned warriors and experienced commanders who understand the essence of warplanning. I believe they accept the war in Iraq from a strictly military perspective and aren't wrapped up in the politics behind the reasons for invading Iraq. I don't see that as trivializing or belittling their views at all. I think that as the Pentagon was trying to overhaul a military and two combat actions arose in Afghanistan and Iraq, the question that surfaces is whether you continue with change or temporarily stop the change and revert back to the old ways. It all depends on which point of the transition they are at. I see it as a comfort zone for generals resistant to change. While I have the utmost respect for General Shinseki, he was more about cosmetic changes than true changes. The black beret fiasco was proof of that. I wasn't surprised at the idea that he would be forced into retirement; I was surprised that it actually happened because at that level, flag officers enjoy a high degree of political immunity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
4.)Did the former officers, turned critics, at this late date, harbor their objections to flawed or unworkable Iraq invasion and post invasion plans and orders, 3 years ago? If they did, did any of them have the option to resign in protest, and then publicly voice similar objections to the ones that they voice now about Rumsfeld's flawed leadership? What has changed to prompt them to voice dissent from the safety of measured, post retirement timetables, vs. sudden resignations in protest, in 2003?
|
I seriously doubt any of them considered the Iraq invasion as unworkable. And I think this is the heart of our disagreement. You see it as centered on the Iraq war itself, and I see it as focused on the power shift taking place inside the Pentagon with the Iraq war serving as a catalyst to the debate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
5.)Why do the officers' criticism stop at Rumsfeld? If they are letting it all out now, why are none of the officers critisizing the POTUS who appointed and continues to support Rumsfeld? How can they avoid criticism of their former CIC, Bush....who said over and over, that he leaves troop levels and military strategy to "commanders in the field". Doesn't the criticism of these officers, contradict Bush's oft repeated assertiion?
|
Have to ask these officers these questions. Their criticisms are carefully worded. Could be to avoid any direct criticism of the President or it could be that their beef is solely limited to Donald Rumsfeld. Keep in mind that these senior military officers also have a lot of political savvy. And keep in mind that they deny any conspiracy even though the timing of their comments is too coincidental to avoid the speculation that they have orchestrated this among themselves. I don't think the American public cares about the power struggle inside the Pentagon and would dismiss such arguments as whining. However, by adding the emotionally-charged topic of deaths in Iraq, the argument suddenly gains an audience even if that audience, as I assert, can't see the true argument behind the scenes. Think about it: these are combat veterans who are now suddenly concerned about the death toll of our troops on the ground. When did they become so concerned? Was it when the death toll crested 1000? Was it when it approached 2000? These generals clearly understand that from a strict military planning perspective, the number of those killed and wounded so far are well within the acceptable bounds of combat operations. These figures are, from a combat readiness perspective, trivial. I think they are using these numbers to politically rally American opinion to their true aim: limiting civilian influence over military operations.
And that's the heart and soul of this discussion, IMHO. The military works for the civilian leadership, including Rumsfeld, Congress and President Bush. While I don't expect Rumsfeld to tell commanders how to carry out their missions, there has to be a give-and-take between the civilian leadership and military leadership in achieving certain national goals and objectives.
The same things happened during the Clinton administration. But that's a story for another time.
