'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

Richard B. Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 2001 to late 2005 responded to the unjustified criticism of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in the last few days and said:

"We gave him our best military advice and I think that's what we're obligated to do. ... If we don't do that, we should be shot. ... You'd have to believe that everybody in the chain of command is intimidated, and I don't believe that. ... In our system, when it's all said and done ... the civilians make the decisions, and we live by those decisions."

Gee, that sounds just like what I've been writing!

 

Yes, we can't know why so many general officers have lost confidence and respect for the present administration. No doubt a lot of it is classified, and they cannot expound on it. What is unprecedented is the number of officers who have retired and then blasted this administration. There is a reason for that, and they have expounded on some of them.

Bush and Rumsfeld did that, not me. They were running the show. They botched the war, and now we're bleeding with no end in sight. There's no point in trying to blame me for what Bush did, or what all those generals have said.

How many general officers retired and then blasted Clinton? How about Bush Sr. How about Reagan? That's perspective. Can you put it into perspective?

You've got a great deal of denial, but you must know that it's not realistic to deny what's so obvious.

As you know, but for some reason attempted to hide, I've said we can't just quit now that we're in this mess.

I honestly never expected that sort of thing from you. I have to say I'm disappointed.

 

And now there's this:

Some critics have argued that Shinseki should have banged on the table, pushed harder to stop Rumsfeld from going into Iraq with too few troops. How does Shinseki respond? "Probably that's fair. Not my style," said the old soldier, who nearly lost a foot in combat in Vietnam. There was, he added cryptically, "a lot of turmoil" at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the war. Was that Rumsfeld's fault? "Partly," said Shinseki. Did Rumsfeld bully General Franks, the overall invasion commander? "You'll have to ask Franks," said Shinseki, who indicated that he had talked long enough. "I walked away from all this two and a half years ago," he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335719/site/newsweek/

 

Retired officers have always expressed their opinions. But what exactly are those opinions? You say "blasted this administration" which makes it seem like they - all retried officers - are suddenly stepping forward to proclaim total and universal fault with all we've done. That's not at all the case! There are a few who claim their input wasn't considered or taken.

I'm not so sure they were all in the position to offer than critic. Consider, just as one example, that a Division Commander doesn't normally get asked to provide input to national policy. Instead he gets tasked to accomplish a specific mission - a military mission - in support of national policy decided by others far above him. Consider, for another example, that an Army Commander may request troops and equipment that he believes are needed but may not get all that he asks for because his bosses may have a different mission in mind. He may present alternatives to accomplish national policy. He may give civilian leadership assessments of risks verses benefits for various options. All options have some risk including risk of the unknown and unexpected. Our leaders decided against having an immense occupation force in Iraq after the end of the war pushing instead towards Iraq taking the responsibility for it's own future as soon as possible. This approach seems consistent with what most Americans want and it's exactly what our military is helping accomplish.

What bothers me a lot about all this news is the attitude of second guessing that suggest those doing it would have had flawless success with whatever it was they recommended. Yet, in several cases, I don't even think they were in a position to make such recommendations and I'm very sure there would be flaws in any plan involving war. The enemy always has other plans than your own. The reaction to what you do and don't do is also a risky venture. I can't even count all the books written about past wars that second guess the decisions made.

Blame for what? There's nothing to blame anyone about except maybe those that take news like this and try to make something out of it that's it not. The war was the right thing to do and, all in all, it's gone well. The grumblings are worth considering because of whom they come from but they're not conclusive of any wrong doing and, in most cases, are very vague statements mostly expressing opinions that input wasn't solicited or accepted and that more troops should have been committed. No of that has been proved. In fact the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - a person who should definitely know the score - says the opposite is true.

There's nothing to deny! What you're proclaiming as fact is very very far from being "obvious"! The war was the right thing to do. We could debate the exact policy, strategy, and tactics used but, in the end, someone had to make a decision and someone had to act on it. We had a relatively quick and easy victory over Iraq's military forces. We're making progress - slower than we'd like but progress never the less - towards getting the new Iraqi government to handle it's own security and law enforcement operations. We could debate the "would 've, should 've, could 've" of this war just like any other but we can't be sure alternate policy, strategy, or tactics would have worked any better. It's never easy to figure out what to do and then do it. It is easy to find fault with what others did.

I'm sorry you're disappointed and I certainly don't mean to be offensive at a personal level to you or anyone else but, for some of this, there's just no way to get around tough words. I don't agree with you on this but I try very hard to remain respectful of everyone. No, I'm not hiding what you've said at all. You have said that we should "finish" the war but I'm not sure how you want to accomplish that. I think a lot of people have developed a "quitter's" attitude about the war. They believe it's wrong and doomed to failure. They want to us to leave Iraq no matter how we do it. I think this latest news is all part of that agenda and, right or wrong, I think you've bought into it.

 

What is unprecedented is how many, and how strongly they are doing it.

And there are many others, like Shinseki, who are reluctant to say so, but clearly believe it.
Shinseki must be a saint. He warned the administration that it was going to be a mistake, and got publicly ridiculed for it, by people who had resisted serving, and who had no idea what they were talking about. I'd be tempted to rub their noses in it, if I was him.

It's clear that these guys are just the tip of the iceberg. It's more than just Rumsfeld's lack of tact. It's his lack of competence, and his failure to listen to people who know better than he does.

Barbarian observes:
Bush and Rumsfeld did that, not me. They were running the show. They botched the war, and now we're bleeding with no end in sight. There's no point in trying to blame me for what Bush did, or what all those generals have said.

He has to. He's still working for Bush. So he's recruited to give an endorsement. The war is killing about 60 good people a month, and has made us militarily, politically, and economically weaker. And we have one more country in which terrorists are free to operate.

What are we getting for all this?

Barbarian observes:
How many general officers retired and then blasted Clinton? How about Bush Sr. How about Reagan? That's perspective. Can you put it into perspective?

You've got a great deal of denial, but you must know that it's not realistic to deny what's so obvious.

Show me. How many general officers blasted Clinton for his use of the military? Bush Sr.? Reagan?

Barbarian observes:
As you know, but for some reason attempted to hide, I've said we can't just quit now that we're in this mess.

I honestly never expected that sort of thing from you. I have to say I'm disappointed.

So why the "quitter" accusation, when you knew it wasn't true?

I don't know. I'm praying that someone does. These disasters are easier to start than to get out of.

Including a lot of the troops. And it bothers me. A lot. Rumsfeld and Bush lying to them didn't help matters. The last time the troops lost faith in a war, it was the only one we ever lost.

Even when I've expressly said the opposite. This is why I'm disappointed.

 

I'm disappointed - but not all that surprised - with people that won't support the cause for which we went to war in Iraq. I'm disappointed with people that only want to find fault in all that we're doing and the reasons we're doing it. It seems every week there's some new tactic towards that same goal and nothing - nothing at all - is sacred any more. I think it - the "quitter" attitude - is supported by things like that whether or not the person doing so openly advocates a "retreat". If you don't support the cause and the decisions made by our leaders then you're not supporting those we send to implement it and are, instead, supporting those that stand against us. That translates to giving in to the enemy's goals by discrediting our own and abandoning them to so called "politically misguided" adventures.

I'm very much okay with after action reviews for the purpose of evaluating our decisions and, hopefully, improving upon them in the future. That's the possible value I see in the comments being by some retired officers although I don't care for the venue. I'm not okay with the extrapolations of those comments into critical blame and ridicule that has no constructive purpose. That's all about discrediting the present leadership and has nothing to do with improving our policies, strategies, much less tactics. But this latest revelation - which is partly old news - isn't about anything except putting down the President through the Secretary of Defense using the comments of a few as a tool to do so. It stinks real bad! It all fits right in there with the quitter's attitude I've written about.

That's how I see it. Don't expect to "shame" me into a different position as you'd be wasting your time.

 

Which one? That seemed to change from day to day. It came down to a vendetta Bush had against Saddam for allegedly plotting to have his father killed. (which could be true for all I know)

If he had been honest about his motives, he wouldn't be the object of so much derision from Americans now.

It's getting a bit tiring reminding you that I've praised Bush when I thought he did something right. Do you think we can stop the process, now?

Bush never was sacred.

I would like him to do a better job. I would like him to clean up the corruption that's draining away money with no benefit in sight. I would like him to fire the incompetent who is directing Defense, and get someone our fighting men and women can respect.

An appeal to conscience is always worth a try...

 

That's far, far, far out, Galatian!

I'm tired of explaining it to you.

I'd be pleased if it would work! It would be great if you'd support the cause.

 

General Zinni, the former CENTCOM Commander, before the current war even started, has always advocated leaving the dictators of the Middle East alone in the name of stability in the area. Some folks want that. President Bush has taken on a longer term view of upsetting their comfortable situation and that angers them greatly. He figures going after the environment that fosters, condones, or supports terrorism is the right thing to do.

Maybe it also bothers the General that he's not getting his way now in foreign policy. What's missed by many is that he wasn't even in charge during this war. Therefore, it's highly unlikely his input in that capacity was solicited. That might have annoyed the present Commander.

The allegations against Secretary Rumsfeld, and thereby President Bush, are very vague to the point of being difficult to identify. The general tone of these Generals is that their boss - Secretary Rumsfeld - wouldn't listen to them. The question is more like "listen to what" and "to whom"? Several of them weren't in a position to even have input. Some of them are way below the level of direct access to the Secretary. Division Commanders answer to Corps Commanders - not the Secretary of Defense. Others may have but just didn't get their way.

The only tangible complaint I've been able to discern is that of not committing more troops to the "occupation force". Interestingly, some military commanders, including the present CENTCOM Commander, General Abizaid, are okay with the smaller number of troops and the focus on training the Iraqis to handle their own security and law enforcement. He figures having too many troops in the area would upset the Iraqis more they some believe they already are.

Some have argued that we should have handed over the Iraqi government to the Iraqis sooner than we did. Many were in a "big hurry" to "get out of Dodge City" when the fighting was over. Others wanted to take longer than we did. The military had input to that but it remains a national policy decision made by the elected leader. It's hard to say whether we did it sooner or later or right on time. Paths not taken are difficult to evaluate. The fact is that Iraq has taken more and more responsibility for it's own future and the people are happy to have, at long last, some representative government. We should take a bow for having facilitated that and not made Iraqis our slaves for a hundred years.

It amazes me how there's so much endorsement for the comments - and there extrapolated meanings - from people who are generally against the military. In general I don't think it's the military they respect. I think it's the criticism they relish and especially so since it can be extrapolated to falsely imply it is deeply and widely felt.

It's not Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation that's desired it's the President's head. This is just another attempt towards the goal that failed in the last two elections.

 

We keep coming back to the same excuses. But Clinton didn't have one general after another blasting him for his handling of military operations.

How is it Clinton had their respect, and Bush does not?

And BTW, here's a quote from Bush about what you think is "far, far, out":

"Hussein tried to kill my dad."

And I doubt all the generals who are speaking out want Bush's head. They just want a competent Secretary of Defense.

Perhaps some have the idea of taking the president down. Is it not ironic that Bush has managed to do to himself what the democrats could not do in two tries?

 

Page 11, final warning, thread will shut down no sooner than 8:00 CDT tomorrow morning (04/18/2006).

If you wish to continue you may open another thread.

Thank you,
Phillip

 

Well let's see, out of an estimated 3000-6000 retired general officers and admirals in the US, about six of them have publicly blasted the Bush administration.

Run! It's a landslide!

 

Well let's see, out of an estimated 3000-6000 retired general officers and admirals in the US, about six of them have publicly blasted the Bush administration.

Run! It's a landslide! </font>[/QUOTE]How many of those other generals served in Iraq?

 

Couldn't say Terry. But the results would likely be alot less lop-sided than what we see in the press now.

 

Good point NiteShift. I know a LOT of officers that have returned and I don't know a single one who was against government policy in the war. They all knew that this was going to be a tough battle, and pulling out would be the hardest part; but, they were prepared and are actually frustrated because people who listen to the news-media don't understand that the military wishes to wrap it up correctly and they are getting tired of the people whining about the time it takes to do the job right.

 

Here's the answer to that:

"Retired Army Brig. Gen. Charles Brower, a military historian and deputy superintendent at Virginia Military Institute, said it is unusual to see such a group of retired generals issuing public criticism.

"Officers now feel that there is almost an obligation to speak more openly about policies that they disagreed with once they have retired," Brower said. "There is now a group of officers who feel an obligation to speak more aggressively, and I think that has to have been influenced by the Vietnam experience," during which miscalculations by the civilian leadership caused a military defeat and a years-long erosion in military morale.

"It's an important thing happening right now, an important phenomenon that's going on," he said.

As Gen. Shiseki makes clear, there are others who feel strongly about the incompetence of this administration, but are not speaking out.

 

Interestingly, General Pace, the present Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also strongly supports Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

 

Isn't that a big part of his job?

 

Isn't that a big part of his job? </font>[/QUOTE]For some, only the negative comments are relevant. They just can't accept that someone might actually respect their superior and be willing to say so publically.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President.