Another Saddam Lover Criticizes the Pentagon

[DavidJames]

I don't really think the General loves Saddam, I have always displayed nothing but respect for our military. But plenty here are all to happy to paint those who disagree with the administration or the war effort as supporters of Saddam and/or the terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

The spin starts now.

 

[Ziggurat]

The spin starts now.

Are you saying that evaluations of this criticism which disagrees with it is guaranteed to be spin? Maybe that's not what you meant, but that seems to be the suggestion, and if that's not your intention, you haven't started the thread on a good footing to encourage open, spin-free debate. You're almost accusing people before they even post of being dishonest - that's a recipe for making sure this thread becomes bitterly partisan.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, also defended Rumsfeld this week, telling reporters that "nobody works harder than he does."

"People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld," Pace said Tuesday.

Dedication, patriotism, and work ethic are all very nice things. But they're hardly a substitute for good judgment, especially in someone in charge of a war. I'd rather have a slacker who knew what he was doing than a dedicated fool.

 

[Mephisto]

I thought this was particularly pertinent:

"Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders.

"If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."

___________

And to think I was called a Saddam-lover once myself for saying that this escapade was going to be one gigantic cluster-◊◊◊◊.

Can we still rely on this administration to "pull out" of Iraq when the generals on the ground say it's time - or are the "generals on the ground" going to go along with the idiot architects of this war?

 

[DavidJames]

Are you saying that evaluations of this criticism which disagrees with it is guaranteed to be spin? Maybe that's not what you meant, but that seems to be the suggestion, and if that's not your intention, you haven't started the thread on a good footing to encourage open, spin-free debate. You're almost accusing people before they even post of being dishonest - that's a recipe for making sure this thread becomes bitterly partisan.

okay, so instead of actually trying to address the Generals point, your taking exception to my admittedly flippant comment.

I humbly accept your criticism, now, care to address yet another Generals concern about how the war is/was being run.

 

[Elind]

I don't really think the General loves Saddam, I have always displayed nothing but respect for our military. But plenty here are all to happy to paint those who disagree with the administration or the war effort as supporters of Saddam and/or the terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

The spin starts now.

I guess I have been guilty of embellishing a thread title to get attention, but not as badly as this one, I think.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess I have been guilty of embellishing a thread title to get attention, but not as badly as this one, I think.

I agree. It should be immediately changed to "Nude Palestians Riot For Gun Control And Socialized Medicine." That will ensure no hits.

 

[Ziggurat]

okay, so instead of actually trying to address the Generals point, your taking exception to my admittedly flippant comment.

Your original post gave no indication that serious discussion of those points is what you wanted, so I don't see why you're complaining that my original response didn't do so.

I humbly accept your criticism, now, care to address yet another Generals concern about how the war is/was being run.

I can't, really, because I don't have any insider knowlege about how exactly decisions were made in the pentagon, so I have no way of evaluating the particulars of this guy's perspective. And because this is an anecdotal story (there aren't exactly polls about ex-military brass opinions on Rumsfeld), I have no way of knowing how slanted this story might be by selection bias on the part of the journalist. And lastly, none of the complaints are actually new, and there isn't really any new material to the complaints (it's quite pretty slim on details) - the story is primarily the identity of who is complaining, and that's really not much of a story.

What I DO know is that there are differences of opinion within the military, and that Rumsfeld created a lot of resentment among some top brass for insisting on changes that really WERE necessary. For example, killing the Crusader artillery system pissed of a lot of generals, but it was absolutely the right move, and it was a move Rumsfeld pushed through by doing much of what he's accused of here (such as ignoring subordinate carreer military types).

 

[DavidJames]

I can't, really, because I don't have any insider knowlege about how exactly decisions were made in the pentagon, so I have no way of evaluating the particulars of this guy's perspective. And because this is an anecdotal story (there aren't exactly polls about ex-military brass opinions on Rumsfeld), I have no way of knowing how slanted this story might be by selection bias on the part of the journalist. And lastly, none of the complaints are actually new, and there isn't really any new material to the complaints (it's quite pretty slim on details) - the story is primarily the identity of who is complaining, and that's really not much of a story.

What I DO know is that there are differences of opinion within the military, and that Rumsfeld created a lot of resentment among some top brass for insisting on changes that really WERE necessary. For example, killing the Crusader artillery system pissed of a lot of generals, but it was absolutely the right move, and it was a move Rumsfeld pushed through by doing much of what he's accused of here (such as ignoring subordinate carreer military types).

Thanks for your thoughts. Is there a clip level of complaining Generals that would cause you to challenge your own opinions?

I find it interesting that you dismiss the complaints as nothing new. Another way to look at his complaint is it's validation from a second source of the same complaint's. But you choose to dismiss it, I can't say I'm surprised.

Finally, regarding your comment about not having any way to evaluate "this guy's" perspective, I hope you won't be offended if I chuckle and say, barring revelation of any "General level" experience you might have, I wouldn't pay much attention to it anyway.

 

[Elind]

I agree. It should be immediately changed to "Nude Palestians Riot For Gun Control And Socialized Medicine." That will ensure no hits.

How about eliminating the irrelevant and unnecessary words?

Nude Guns Socialized.

 

[Tricky]

Sorry about starting a duplicate thread. In my defense, I did search for "Rumsfield", "Bush" and "General" in recent thread titles. I think we may be trying to be a bit too clever when commenting on news stories. Anyway, here is my OP from the other thread.

Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld

The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq (Gen. Charles Swannack) has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.
...
Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.
...
Former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold also have called for Rumsfeld to step down.
...
"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes," Batiste told "American Morning" on Wednesday.
"When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril."

In addition to commanding the 1st Infantry in Iraq, Batiste also was a senior adviser to former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the U.S.-led invasion.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said.

Zinni, who also appeared Thursday on CNN, blamed Rumsfeld for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning."
Those plans "had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq," Zinni said.
"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said. "When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."

What will it take for Bushco to admit that this war was a horrible mistake? Will Dubya have to receive a message from God before he can at least say that he bungled things badly?

And yes, it does say a lot, as Batiste notes, that these generals have to wait until retirement to speak. It says that the Bush administration is so vindictive that even top-level military personnel fear having their lives or at least livelihood ruined if they speak what they see as the truth. It says that, to this administration, loyalty is more important than honesty. And it also adds to the growing pile of evidence that Bush II will be remembered by history as one of the worst presidents of all time. When a hawkish administration is turned on by many of the top brass of the military, it can only speak of incompetence on the grandest of scales.

 

[Mephisto]

It's no sweat, Tricky!

You can't get too much good news these days.

(edited to add) And to consider that I was laughed at for suggesting that many of the senior officers in Iraq are maintaining their silence because they're worried about their pensions. If they're not, WHY are they waiting until they're no longer soldiers or civil servants? Hopefully, this will start a new trend in the military ranks of NOT voting for whatever moron is sending them haphazardly into combat to bolster support for his idiot policies.

 

[Tricky]

It's no sweat, Tricky!

You can't get too much good news these days.

Well, as little as I love Bush, I cannot rejoice that my government, the military and maybe even the country are being systamatically riven. Bush has to leave in 2½ years, but we will have to repair the damage he's done to our institutions, and I have no idea how long that will take, especially with the long-term financial problems he's going to leave us with. Truly good news is in short supply these days.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for your thoughts. Is there a clip level of complaining Generals that would cause you to challenge your own opinions?

Not as such, and I'm not sure why there should there be. If there's an opinion poll on some topic, will you challenge your own opinion just because the poll passes some threshold result? I wouldn't expect you to. I do, however, try to rethink my position based on continuing events regardless of what any generals are saying, and I do try to compare what they say to what I can observe. In this case, though, there's little I can compare to, since I wasn't at any of the relevant meetings.

I find it interesting that you dismiss the complaints as nothing new. Another way to look at his complaint is it's validation from a second source of the same complaint's. But you choose to dismiss it, I can't say I'm surprised.

Except that those complaints weren't single-sourced to begin with. I'm not dismissing it either, so much as saying I can't really do much useful with this information.

 

[Tricky]

Not as such, and I'm not sure why there should there be. If there's an opinion poll on some topic, will you challenge your own opinion just because the poll passes some threshold result?

Yes, I think there should be, especially if what the poll samples is individuals with the credentials to make knowledgeable statements about the issue. In science, support by knowledgeable scientists and publications tends to cause greater acceptance of a theory. The same should be true when in the military a greater number of experienced persons accept the "theory" that Rumsfeld has done a bad job. Certainly there must be some threshold where you believe it too.

Except that those complaints weren't single-sourced to begin with. I'm not dismissing it either, so much as saying I can't really do much useful with this information.

Useful? Well, you could join in those calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. You might argue that changing a single voice is not "useful", but then you would also have to admit that voting is not "useful".

 

[BryanLower]

It's another piece of evidence. It's more than just a "poll". These generals are intimately familiar with Rumsfeld and his decision making process.

As a citizen, I consider it important to keep up on what my leaders are doing. So yeah, this is important to me.

 

[Crossbow]

While it is good to see that there is more public criticism of Rumsfeld, I sure would have preferred it if these Colin Powell type generals would have made their views and convictions known better before the war STARTED as opposed to waiting for the war be LOST before finding their voice. I do not expect anything really good to come of this criticism because even if Rumsfeld left, Bush would simply replace him with some other lackey who would be equally bad, if not worse.

Anyway, just about all military officers are incredibly deferential and supportive of the civilian leadership regardless of what they know otherwise simply because it is the civilian leadership who signs off on their promotions and assignments, and as such they are more afraid of ticking off their bosses as opposed to doing what is right for the people under their command.

Ugh!

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I think there should be, especially if what the poll samples is individuals with the credentials to make knowledgeable statements about the issue.

Even if you take that view, though, this hardly represents anything of the kind. All we're getting is the views of whatever former generals the journalist who wrote this decided to talk to AND decided to include in his piece. We have absolutely no data on how representative any of those opinions actually are - it's quite possible the journalist doesn't know, and it's also possible the journalist could have slanted the representation of the slice he did have access to. So there's not even enough information here using YOUR standards for making any kind of decision.

The same should be true when in the military a greater number of experienced persons accept the "theory" that Rumsfeld has done a bad job.

But we have no idea what those numbers actually are. All we have is anecdotes.

Certainly there must be some threshold where you believe it too.

Again, not as such. It's possible every single general could think Rumsfeld did a bad job, and I wouldn't agree. Why? Because the complaint I just listed is nebulous, and what I think is important for Rumsfeld to do might not be identical to what the generals want Rumsfeld to do (for example, I suspect most of the public is more interested in the military having tight fiscal discipline than the military itself is - and that's OK). So the SUBSTANCE of the complaints matters quite a bit, and that's not going to be captured by any simplistic poll of who likes Rumsfeld and who doesn't. In fact, it's not even captured significantly within the article linked above. We've got a few sentences of complaint from these generals, but that's really not enough to even understand what in particular they really think Rumsfeld did wrong, and what the exact consequences of those mistakes were.

Useful? Well, you could join in those calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Sure, IF I thought that was the right thing to do, but I haven't reached that conclusion. And this article doesn't actually help me come to that conclusion. That is what I mean by "useful".

 

[Ziggurat]

While it is good to see that there is more public criticism of Rumsfeld, I sure would have preferred it if these Colin Powell type generals would have made their views and convictions known better before the war STARTED as opposed to waiting for the war be LOST before finding their voice.

I don't think generals, while still serving, should be in the business of making public statements, unless called before congress and specifically asked to do so (and even there, when acting in an official capacity their responsibility is to try to keep personal opinions to a minimum). Any objections they had at the time should have been voiced up the chain of command, not out in public. That's part of what civilian control of the military requires to work effectively. Had they not objected at the time within the chain of command, that would indeed have been their mistake

Had they complained vigorously within the chain of command, and been overridden, then complaining publicly afterwards (and NOT while serving) is the correct course of action. So in this regard, I don't have any objection to these generals taking a public stand now (though as indicated above, I find the objections, as presented so far, of limited use). Although I never said I had a problem with them speaking out, it's possible someone might have assumed that I did, and I want to make it explicit that I don't.

 

[BryanLower]

I don't think generals, while still serving, should be in the business of making public statements, unless called before congress and specifically asked to do so (and even there, when acting in an official capacity their responsibility is to try to keep personal opinions to a minimum). Any objections they had at the time should have been voiced up the chain of command, not out in public. That's part of what civilian control of the military requires to work effectively. Had they not objected at the time within the chain of command, that would indeed have been their mistake

You are absolutely correct.

I think one of the problems that these Generals have is that they are unable to complain even *within* the chain of command, for fear of wrecking their careers. Or if they complain, they won't be one of the Generals cherry-picked to speak to the President. So the only time they are safe to criticize Rumsfeld is after they retire.

What can they do about this?

Absolutely nothing.

I agree with you that it is not their place to publically criticize the Sec of Defense while they are still serving. The chain of command is more important than their individual complaints. There is no remedy except for the Generals to retire and then speak their minds.

With that being the case, I think it's important to take their criticisms seriously.