Rumsfeld and the Generals

[seayakin]

Probably many of you have seen this article in today's New York Times "Top Retired General Rebuts Critics of Rumsfeld" by Christine Hauser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/w...&en=46571ab513b7bb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities. The article of course is mostly about retired generals but they do cite some unspecified individuals of the military in active service who have concerns.

Now, I have no love of Rumsfeld but I do believe the military should be under civilian control and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold Rumsfeld and the Bush administration responsible for the strategic (sometimes tactical) decisions. It is the responsibility of the military to keep the civilian authority factually informed about its capabilities and the threats presented.

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

 

[Mephisto]

Probably many of you have seen this article in today's New York Times "Top Retired General Rebuts Critics of Rumsfeld" by Christine Hauser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/w...&en=46571ab513b7bb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities. The article of course is mostly about retired generals but they do cite some unspecified individuals of the military in active service who have concerns.

Now, I have no love of Rumsfeld but I do believe the military should be under civilian control and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold Rumsfeld and the Bush administration responsible for the strategic (sometimes tactical) decisions. It is the responsibility of the military to keep the civilian authority factually informed about its capabilities and the threats presented.

Do you believe military leaders should ever break rank to openly question civilian authority?

When the casualty count in a war based on lies is rising while commanders see the brave men and women in our military risking their lives daily and there is no plan other than, "stay the course," I think military commanders have a DUTY to break rank to openly question civilian authority. They are, after all, fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, aren't they?

I assure you that several officers (maybe even quite of few of high rank) disagree with the way this war has been run, but again they fear reprisals from this administration and (logically) are not willing to sacrifice years of civil service. This administration has said they will base their decision to pull out of Iraq by what the generals on the ground say. It would be very interesting to hear what the "generals on the ground" actually have to say about our chances of "winning" this war.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pentagon Issues Memo to Retired Generals to Come on out and defend the SecDef:

Pentagon steps up efforts to defend Rumsfeld
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: April 16 2006

The Pentagon has intensified efforts to shore up the position of Donald Rumsfeld, issuing a memo to retired military leaders encouraging them to speak out on behalf of the defence secretary.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cdc85084-cd86-11da-afcd-0000779e2340.html

I'd like to see that memo ... probably will by tomorrow.






Here's how General Wesley Clark answers your question:

"Asked whether it was appropriate to comment on the defence secretary’s performance while the United States is at war, Clark replied: “It’s more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on.” “Now these officers are saying at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen. That’s why secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He’s made bad policy choices. It’s time for new leadership.”

The military is under civilian control. They go and do what they are told to do by the President, his SecDef and the Congress. This is not about that.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Ex-NATO chief joins calls for Rumsfeld's resignation

WASHINGTON: A former NATO commander on Saturday joined six other retired generals in calling for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.

"I believe secretary Rumsfeld hasn't done an adequate job. He should go," General Wesley Clark told Fox News Channel in an interview. Clark said Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed the United States into Iraq, and said the invasion "had no connection" with the war on terror.

"They pressed for this, they pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished," said the retired general and Fox News analyst. "It was a tragic mistake, a strategic blunder."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C17%5Cstory_17-4-2006_pg4_11

 

[seayakin]

Pentagon Issues Memo to Retired Generals to Come on out and defend the SecDef:




I'd like to see that memo ... probably will by tomorrow.






Here's how General Wesley Clark answers your question:

"Asked whether it was appropriate to comment on the defence secretary’s performance while the United States is at war, Clark replied: “It’s more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on.” “Now these officers are saying at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen. That’s why secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He’s made bad policy choices. It’s time for new leadership.”

The military is under civilian control. They go and do what they are told to do by the President, his SecDef and the Congress. This is not about that.

I guess the real time to worry is if the military takes actions of war without orders from the civilian authority.

 

[CapelDodger]

I guess the real time to worry is if the military takes actions of war without orders from the civilian authority.

Oh yes. Then the dog's taking you for a walk. Fortunately this current furore seems to be at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Ziggurat]

I was more curious about anyone's thoughts about when it is appropriate for military personal especially high ranking military personal to speak out against the civilian authorities.

Whenever they're not in service (meaning after they've retired or if they've resigned in protest), and not when they're still obligated to take orders from their civilian commanders. If a problem is so serious it needs to be complained about immediately and in public, then it's serious enough to resign for. If it's not serious enough to resign for, it's not serious enough to break out of the chain of command with a complaint.

 

[Rob Lister]

Having read the post, but without having read the replies to the post, it is my opinion that once a civilian you should follow your heart and say what you think is true. That does not necessarily mean that these retired military are do that: they may have motives they are not expressing (I can think of several). Still, I have given their opinion a great deal of consideration and found it lacking on several counts for several reasons. I'm not sure of my conclusion so it isn't firm yet.

I do not dislike Rummy. I like him quite a bit. I'm also retired military but not of such high rank of these. I respect their opinion but to respect their judgement takes a skeptical view.

 

[davefoc]

Reasons to fire Rumsfeld:
1. Numerous failures during initial occupation that seem to be the result of bad planning and failures to heed advice of people who turned out to have been right. Failures that include failures to secure explosives, failures to secure museiums, and failure to correctly estimate the number of troops required for the task.
2. Rumsfeld seems to have been involved with the prisoner abuse scandals. The degree to which he was is debatable, but the fact is it happened on his watch, was hugely harmfult to American interests and American credibility and Rumsfeld needed to take the fall for this alone.
3. Rumsfeld was definitely involved with Guantanamo prisonor abuse programs. Rumsfeld basically favors torture and is willing to put procedures in place to implement it. In the case of Guantanamo it might be argued that there were benefits to it and for some people those benefits may have justified the ethical and practical problems. In the case of prisoner torture in Iraq, the costs almost certainly outweighted the benefits to American and human interests.
4. The US is running the largest deficits in history. Deficits that are contributing to a huge balance of trade deficit, deficits that are weakening American power throughout the world and deficits that threaten the stability of the US economy. The current US military budget is now approximately equal to the rest of the world military expenditures combined. In the face of this Rumsfeld has not found one major military program that can be cancelled. Rumsfeld needs to be fired just for that.

But Rumsfeld won't be fired. And Rumsfeld won't be fired because the current POTUS thinks that his ego is more important than the good of the country and that firing Rumsfeld in the face of calls for him to do so would be an affront to that ego. Interestingly, Rumsfeld's failures seem to have lead to his job security in this administration. After each of his publicized failures there has been a round of public calls for his replacement. But the POTUS can't take the hit to his ego to actually fire somebody when there are public calls for his dismissal. So I guess the lesson here is that if you are an arrogant screwup in the Bush administration make sure your screwups are well known so that there will be public calls for your dismissal which Bush will then ignore.

 

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

When the casualty count in a war based on lies is rising while commanders see the brave men and women in our military risking their lives daily and there is no plan other than, "stay the course," I think military commanders have a DUTY to break rank to openly question civilian authority. They are, after all, fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, aren't they?

What you think a commander's duty is, is irrelevent. They risk court martial if they speak up, their duty is to tow the line. They are reminded of this. Frequently.

 

[Rob Lister]

What you think a commander's duty is, is irrelevent. They risk court martial if they speak up, their duty is to tow the line. They are reminded of this. Frequently.

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die -- unknown

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die -- unknown

2

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

 

[Rob Lister]

Reasons to fire Rumsfeld:
1. Numerous failures during initial occupation that seem to be the result of bad planning and failures to heed advice of people who turned out to have been right. Failures that include failures to secure explosives, failures to secure museiums, and failure to correctly estimate the number of troops required for the task.
2. Rumsfeld seems to have been involved with the prisoner abuse scandals. The degree to which he was is debatable, but the fact is it happened on his watch, was hugely harmfult to American interests and American credibility and Rumsfeld needed to take the fall for this alone.
3. Rumsfeld was definitely involved with Guantanamo prisonor abuse programs. Rumsfeld basically favors torture and is willing to put procedures in place to implement it. In the case of Guantanamo it might be argued that there were benefits to it and for some people those benefits may have justified the ethical and practical problems. In the case of prisoner torture in Iraq, the costs almost certainly outweighted the benefits to American and human interests.
4. The US is running the largest deficits in history. Deficits that are contributing to a huge balance of trade deficit, deficits that are weakening American power throughout the world and deficits that threaten the stability of the US economy. The current US military budget is now approximately equal to the rest of the world military expenditures combined. In the face of this Rumsfeld has not found one major military program that can be cancelled. Rumsfeld needs to be fired just for that.

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.
2. What seems is not necessarily what is
3. You can debate that, but I've seen no evidence
4. Rummy does not set the military budget, congress does

 

[Rob Lister]

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Thank you ID, very nice.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Would speaking out earlier have changed a thing? I do not think so we were going to war no matter what. The outcome of war was predetermined so was the fact that Bush & Friends were going to write the new battle plan. If they spoke up it wouldnt have changed a thing and maybe ended up worse depending on their replacements "Brownie hows the war going?".

 

[Zep]

Practically speaking, there hasn't been an actual "war" in Iraq at all. The troops rolled in to very little to no real opposition, reaching Baghdad in a couple of weeks. Yes, there was the odd angry shot, and yes, some soldiers were injured and died. But a war...? Hardly.

The REAL war has come after the occupation, and it is a guerilla war of attrition. Many more US soldiers have died since VI-Day than before. The "enemy" is still there, is still armed, is still fighting, and is still VERY dangerous. And this war is NOT being won. And there are no plans extant from this administration on how to make an end to it. Already it has drawn out longer than the Korean War, and even that went to a truce!

Maybe this "lack of progress" can be sheeted home to the commanders on the ground, but I doubt it in this case. The plan, and the command, come from the top...and that's where the credit, and the blame and responsibility lie.

 

[Luke T.]

If an active duty member disagrees with his chain of command, he does have a duty to speak out. To his superiors, not the New York Times.

 

[geni]

1. It was one of the greatest military victory in the history of the world.

Please. Charles Martel's victory at battle of Tours. Napoleon victory at the battle of Austerlitz. Odo of Aquitaine's victory at the Battle of Toulouse.

These were serveal orders of mangitude greater.

 

[Mark]

If an active duty member disagrees with his chain of command, he does have a duty to speak out. To his superiors, not the New York Times.

What if he/she knows the orders they have been given are illegal? Serious question: what is the appropriate course then?

 

[hgc]

What if he/she knows the orders they have been given are illegal? Serious question: what is the appropriate course then?

You are to dutifully complain up the chain of command and, in doing so, place your head on the chopping block.

 

[Mark]

You are to dutifully complain up the chain of command and, in doing so, place your head on the chopping block.

I suspect you are right...but I hope there is something else!