US Military says: Time for Rumsfeld to go - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 11-04-2006, 05:50 AM

The following editorial will be published on Monday by all four branches of the military.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=10582

Quote:

Text of editorial calling for Rumsfeld to go

This editorial will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times on Monday under the headline “Time for Rumsfeld to go”:

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

You know what this tells us? This tells us it's not unpatriotic or a slur against our troops to criticize the war, its prosecution, and its leadership. It actually implies that to NOT do so leaves our soldiers in serious mortal danger. The "war critics are troop haters" defense is officially dead.

So is the career of Donald Rumsfeld. This is a massive vote of no confidence in the civilian leadership of our military. I don't see how Bush can stand by him after this. (Actually, I can't see how Bush has stood by him this long.)

At last the truth can be told: the policy in Iraq is a failure. Not like "close but not quite", either--the whole war effort and nationbuilding drive is circling the bowl. And someone at the top must be held to account. If it's not Rumsfeld, it's Bush.

shakran · 11-04-2006, 06:24 AM

1) I am unable to find any sources to confirm the writing of this editorial anywhere but blogs, which as we all know are not good sources.

2) Assuming it's true, Bush is not going to fire Rumsfeld. He's already said as much and it makes sense. As Fark noted, you're not supposed to fire your boss.

3) The military news community has been running editorials like this for quite some time. See the May 17, 2004 editorial in Military Times (I'll quote it here) and it's had no effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Military Times editorial, 2004

Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels

Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.

Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons.

There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed.

But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

One can only wonder why the prison wasn’t razed in the wake of the invasion as a symbolic stake through the heart of the Baathist regime.

Army commanders in Iraq bear responsibility for running a prison where there was no legal adviser to the commander, and no ultimate responsibility taken for the care and treatment of the prisoners.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late.

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush.

He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.(emphasis added)

Ustwo · 11-04-2006, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You know what this tells us? This tells us it's not unpatriotic or a slur against our troops to criticize the war, its prosecution, and its leadership. It actually implies that to NOT do so leaves our soldiers in serious mortal danger. The "war critics are troop haters" defense is officially dead.

Trust me rat we never thought you really believed it anyways. Please insult the troops intelligence and their leaders abilities like left always does. I'm sure with your help the outcome in Iraq could be just as good as in Vietnam!

ratbastid · 11-04-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

1) I am unable to find any sources to confirm the writing of this editorial anywhere but blogs, which as we all know are not good sources.

My bad, I left the URL out. I've edited the OP. It's showing up on several news sources this morning.

Quote:

2) Assuming it's true, Bush is not going to fire Rumsfeld. He's already said as much and it makes sense. As Fark noted, you're not supposed to fire your boss.

Yeah.... He still can't admit a mistake. Say some more about how it makes sense? I don't get that.

Quote:

3) The military news community has been running editorials like this for quite some time. See the May 17, 2004 editorial in Military Times (I'll quote it here) and it's had no effect.

True, but this is the first I've seen that has been so universally damning. The one you cited was specifically about Abu Ghraib. This one indicts Rumsfeld specifically for the whole war effort in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Trust me rat we never thought you really believed it anyways. Please insult the troops intelligence and their leaders abilities like left always does. I'm sure with your help the outcome in Iraq could be just as good as in Vietnam!

Oh yeah, I remember--you think Jane Fonda lost us Vietnam.

It couldn't possibly be failed policy that's behind the quagmire in Iraq? A failure of leadership? Shortsightedness, pig-headedness, and blind faith in the White House?

Nah. Got to be those damn liberals' fault. Probably Clinton did it. Yeah, that makes more sense.

Hey, by the way--I'm glad that you're at least not one of those "I'm HAPPY with the progress we're making in Iraq" conservatives. Those folks are engaging in self-deception to a jaw-dropping degree. Sadly, our president appears to be one of those...

dc_dux · 11-04-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

The following editorial will be published on Monday by all four branches of the military.

I think the Military Times Media Group (Army TImes, Navy Times, ...) is owned by Gannett. They are not DoD or "military" publications.

That being said, I cant say I see much value in UStwo's typical photo commentary either. Criticism of the "leaders abilities" is not just coming from the left. The latest criticism has come from two prominent neo-cons who served on Bush's Defense Policy Board and were among the architects of the "invade Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East" strategy.

Richard Pearl:
According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' …

Ken Alderman:
Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f.../neocons200612

These myths that the Ustwo crowd loves to propagate about the left (or the media) being responsible for the outcome of failed policy and incompetent management of that policy is no longer playing with the American people. Its good to see at least two prominent neocons, as well as a growing number of Republican members of Congress put the responsibility where it belongs...with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

Cheney: "I haven't seen the piece I'm not going to comment on it....."full speed ahead"

Rekna · 11-04-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Please insult the troops intelligence and their leaders abilities like left always does.

So because Kerry took a jab at Bush's intelligence but misspoke the left "always insults the military intelligence now?" At least the left isn't always trying to find new ways to hurt America like the right. Oh and the right of course is never thinking about OBL. And of course the entire right considers the constitution just a damn piece of paper.