Redstate

This is simply conduct unbecoming an officer of the US military.  They should be ashamed but they obviously don't have the character to be ashamed.

Newbold and Zinni were both opposed to the war from day 1.  They could not sell their position to the JCS or to Rumsfeld.  This is sour grapes, pure and simple.  They deserve to be put in a home with John Murtha where they can drool on each other.

Oh, Zinni's on a book tour.  Double the lack of character comment for him.

The four Army Generals are million man Army guys who didn't get listened to either.  And, oh by the way, their big complaint is that Rumsfeld was A.B.R.A.S.I.V.E. ?  Not a team builder?  Oh my.  These guys are supposed be commanding people who's job is to break things and kill people.  And their upset because their bosses bosses boss is abrasive?  Good riddance.

The correct individuals have retired.

It looks like Rummy already did that, and they are gone.

Good job

put an end to this right now.  He needs to hold a press conference, in prime time if necessary, and flatly state that Rumsfeld is going nowhere unless and until he and Rumsfeld decide that it is time.

Rumsfeld should be given a medal.  If Tenet can get the medal of freedom, Rumsfeld should get one too.  This would have the added benefit of driving the left absolutely stark raving mad.

and hasn't gone deep enough.  I spent 25 years doing corporate turnarounds.  I learned early on to cut deep and to do it quickly.  You can always add good people.  The bad ones will poison the organization if allowed to stay.

See Shinsecki...

The networks just won't give the story a rest.  But at least they mention that W came out today with an "unusually strong statement of support" for Rumsfeld.

long on criticism, short on details, shorter on ideas, shortest on alternatives.  

coincidental either according to Fred Barnes who tonight claimed to know that Zinni was coordinating a lot of this in an email campaign.

Your comment

This is simply conduct unbecoming an officer of the US military.  They should be ashamed but they obviously don't have the character to be ashamed.

speaks volumes.  Regarding character, they apparently learned how to comport themselves after they retired from their post from their former Commander in Chief; the one before President Bush.

History will forget these men, that is unless their actions, along with those of the rest of the anti-war crowd, lead us to lose our resolve, lose our commitment and lose the GWOT.

Oh wait, that didn't work in New Orleans, did it?

Retired Army generals are hired on a regular basis by defense contractor manufacturers and their lobbyists to persuade the Army to purchase  the products that they make. This is known as the "Military-Industrial Complex". While both the Air Force and Navy generals support Rumsfeld's Transformation of their services from Industrial to Information Age forces, the Army continues to resist such change preferring to fight a no-longer existing Soviet Union. Without questioning the patriotism of the anti-Rumsfeld generals, one might learning more about their post-retirement employment and related political activities.

Fatty Blanco and Numb Nagin did ignore their blunders and avoid responsibility.  Thanks for the reminder.

isn't worth the paper its printed on to the press.  The president needs to go on television, preferably in prime time, and slap down a question like he did from Helen Thomas last month.  This alone will get the press' attention and put an end to the erosion of support for Rumsfeld.

With that in mind: It's entirely logical to insist that one should take the time to insure their first post is a reasoned and well thought-out response to the topic of the original post.

Known Facts™ and Talking Points™ are in abundant supply, easily debunked and readily disparaged.  I suggest engaging in Original Thought™ and Reasoned Debate™.  

Perhaps this explains some of the disconnects-

Sir:

I think Richard H. Kohn ["The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today," Summer 2002, pp. 9-60] is largely correct, based on my twenty years of participation/observation. There are two areas, however, where I think he may be missing something. One is the so-called Republican affiliation of the military officers. You do find a preponderance of what used to be called conservative--we now call it paleoconservative--viewpoints in the military. But in party affiliation, due to the merger in ideologies of the two major parties in the last thirty years, a pretty fair representation of officers consider themselves independents, Democrats (hawkish, often southern Democrat in ideology, and libertarian-leaning), as well as registered Republicans.

For paleoconservatives (holding registration cards of several different political parties), an alarming trend in current politics in the Pentagon is the emergence of neoconservative political appointees, who in fact have ideological roots in the hawkish Democratic politics of Senator Scoop Jackson in the 1950s-1970s. As discussed in a 1990 Heritage Foundation interview with Senator Joe Lieberman, a Scoop Jackson Democrat (like himself) or neoconservative supports "both a strong international presence for the United States and a positive role for the federal government in creating a better economic life at home" (http://www.policyreview.org/summer90/lieberman.html). Richard Perle, of course, was a staffer for Scoop Jackson under Carter, and both he and Mr. Wolfowitz officially left the Democratic Party in the late Carter/early Reagan administrations. If you trace the political roots of many who make policy today in President Bush's inner circle, you will find similar trends.

Thus, the political ideology or advocacy of the officer corps cannot be discussed accurately without a reflection of the political evolution of the Republican Party itself in the same time frame. Current Republicans making policy are neoconservatives, closer ideologically to traditional Democrats than any other modern U.S. political party. In fact, we have to go back to the Whigs of the mid-1800s, precursors of Lincoln's Republican Party, to find similarly nationalistic advocacy of major federal/congressional intervention in domestic as well as international affairs.

My second point is that there are two classes of flag officer, and these are not distinguished in Dr. Kohn's article. There are those who intend after retirement to work for the military industrial complex (either as CEOs, advisers on boards, or lobbyists for business interests), and there are those (apparently far fewer in number) who will retire their stars entirely and do something else. Generals and admirals know in which group they are while still on active duty, and what they want for themselves afterward drives them, perhaps, to stray (as Kohn suggests) from the sole defense of the Constitution into proposing and lobbying within the system for particular policies.

I am very happy with the oath I took twenty years ago, and I believe my understanding of the Constitution has been strengthened by my military experience. It is a good oath, and if followed, it would address many of the problems that Kohn describes. I am also happy to be retiring soon from a military businessplace that I think has become at best a Spartacracy, at worst a self-licking ice cream cone.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force

I think he got the Medal of Freedom from Ford in 1976.  Can you get two?

a lot more useful, and a lot less insightful, if you'd mentioned LTC Kwiatkowski's politics and history.

Try here. It's a good start, and, hilariously, not comprehensive.

The retired Army Generals seeking to overthrow the civilan Secretary of Defense are spokespersone for the Democrats and not the Republicans.  For the first time in history, the Democrats agree with the retired Generals that a civilian does not have the necessary occupational knowledge and experience to be a U.S. Secretary of Defense.. Retired General Zinni seems to be promoting himself as Rumsfeld's replacement.

these lonely six retired generals out of... how many generals have retired in the last decade?

What would a general who retired in 2000 know about Rumsfeld's ability as Secretary of Defense? The more telling number would be the number of retired generals that were tactical commanders with experience in Iraq. I suspect six might be a significant percentage of that number, but I don't know. And I would like to. (I am also not sure if all six of the generals listed fall into that category.)

As to the first, maybe a lot. Think of the ranks of general officers as a very, very exclusive club. Retired generals are routinely called in to participate in decisions. During the Gulf War the Army relied on guys who had been 3 and 4 star generals during Vietnam for advice on a lot of subjects. You can get booted out of the fraternity, I think Wes Clark has accomplished that feat.

Two, arguably three, of the generals have tactical experience in Iraq. Batiste commanded 1st ID. Swannack commanded the 82d Airborne. Eaton was responsible for the training of the Iraqi Army, but given how the situation has improved since his retirement I am more than a little skeptical of his criticisms. Having said that, a division commander is hardly going to be intimate with a SecDef and his knowledge is going to be based on rumors and perceptions. In the old saying of the British navy, "today's wardroom joint is tomorrow's mess stew."

Without knowing a lot more about these guys than we know we really can't evaluate what they are saying.

here

Can you do the Can Can

Can you do the Can (can can can can)...

Neat threadjack/trolling combo there cutie. Call this your one warning.

Can you do the Can Can

Can you do the Can (can can can can)...

I believe it is simplistic to dismiss the revolting generals as simply a partisan action, to me it reflects a growing dissonance within the Officer Corps between traditional conservatism and the evolving codification and embodiment into Military Affairs of the social and political agenda of what is loosely termed (and demonized) as "Neo-Conservatives".  

I believe the review was written in 2002, before her strident polemical career, and while she was still on active duty.  Still, her observation about the natural trend towards conservatism in the Officer Corps is well taken, and reflects my own observations as a recently retired Officer.  I believe she makes an important point about  the traditional conservatism of the officer corps, and its emphasis on personal virtue, truth-telling, patriotism, and that sense of honor and humility in the special trust and confidence we place in them to properly care for the people and resources entrusted to them.  

The Kohn article that LTC Kwiataowski is a good read and I highly recommend it, it describes the deterioration of civilian control of the military during the Clinton years.

I served under Gen Zinni, twice.  When he speaks, I listen.

I believe it is simplistic to dismiss the revolting generals as simply a partisan action, to me it reflects a growing dissonance within the Officer Corps between traditional conservatism and the evolving codification and embodiment into Military Affairs of the social and political agenda of what is loosely termed (and demonized) as "Neo-Conservatives".

To me, it reflects a growing dissonance between a group of folks with healthy egos and a civilian who has the unmitigated gall to ignore their words of wisdom.

I believe the review was written in 2002, before her strident polemical career, and while she was still on active duty.

One hopes you're not suggesting that the views informing her strident polemics sprang, like Athena, from her head at the instant of retirement.

Still, her observation about the natural trend towards conservatism in the Officer Corps is well taken, and reflects my own observations as a recently retired Officer.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

I believe she makes an important point about  the traditional conservatism of the officer corps, and its emphasis on personal virtue, truth-telling, patriotism, and that sense of honor and humility in the special trust and confidence we place in them to properly care for the people and resources entrusted to them.

One presumes you could get behind a statement endorsing Momma and apple pie, too.

The Kohn article that LTC Kwiataowski is a good read and I highly recommend it, it describes the deterioration of civilian control of the military during the Clinton years.

I missed that military coup. And at any rate, the problem appears to be solved.

I served under Gen Zinni, twice.  When he speaks, I listen.

One presumes you were one of his press officers.

I agree, particularly on the Army side, that there is some push-back on Rumsfeld's vision of "Transformation", which I endorse, in large part.  The Armor community in particular, and some Artillerists are very concerned.  Rice bowl game.

Here's a link to the Kohn Article.  It primarily discusses changes in the public sphere activity of active duty military leadership during the '90's and early years of the current administration.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/summer/art1-su2.htm

The spore on which the fungal disaffection of these Generals grew is this: it's a new world.

In the Old Days, we were fighting nations.  Now we're fighting terrorists.  It's a different game, one these traditionalists can't play.

Those Generals were corraled by folks in a further effort to undermine the war. Some talkin head mentioned this. Emails being sent back and forth in a coordinated campaign.

These guys all have at least one thing in common; They fought against the restructuring of the military and lost. You don't see the Air Force or Navy out there raisin cain. It was the Army and USMC most greatly effected

Counting the votes for and against Rumsfeld suggests that the process should also apply to commanders of units at every level. Why should only Generals have the right to vote on disciplining and removing their superiors ?  This implies that such Generals have become European-style aristocrats denying to their subordinates the same right to fire and replace their commanders. The Generals' publicized attempts to overthrow their SecDef is already setting an example to be followed by members of Army squads on up. These retired leaders of the troops are sowing the seeds of rebellion  from top to bottom.

SHOULD Tenant have got a medal of freedom?

a demon on spelling on another thread, I can't resist noting the man's name is Tenent.

And as an aside, you need to reconsider the email account you are using. Not a request, BTW.

swear him into any branch of the service and give him a Congressional Medal of Honor.

Just the fact that the CongressCritters would have to approve it would be entertaining.

Here's some quick advice for your next post, assuming there is one.

Do not sit on your head when you try to type.

are not in this because of transformation.  The Corps will not be affected in any negative way.

Zinni, as has been noted by others, is on a book tour and likely wants Rummy's job in three years.  Newbold was against the war from day one, Peter Pace and Rummy obviously told him he was an a**hat and he stomped out the back door.  Both of these guys are part of the John Murtha "New Corps".

The one thing I'm certain of is that the right people have retired.

and then in the Gaurd until I think something like 1985--I suppose he could re-up.

'The one thing I'm certain of is that the right people have retired.'

Major General Anthony Zini

Powell's appointments have shed light on his world view. His Special Advisor on the Mideast, General (ret.) Anthony Zini, argued against the 1991 Gulf War and cautions against a 2002 war on Saddam. He has considered terrorism to be a diplomatic and a legal - more than a military - problem. He has been a frequent visitor to Arab capitals, especially to Riad, and minimized until recently contacts with Israel and pro-Israel elements in the US.

OK NEXT...

Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold

Major General Paul Eaton

Giving them a pass for now...

Major General John Batiste

Has a French sounding name. I didn't even bother to do a search. He had me at "Bonjour".

Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey thru Geneology...

Major General John Riggs

He used to be a three-star general, until senior Army officials told him he would lose one of his stars because of infractions.  He was then told to retire, and given 24 hours to leave the Army.

Disgruntled Ex-Employee...

Major General Charles Swannack

Major-General Charles Swannack was quoted in the Washington Post as saying: "I think strategically, we are [losing the war]."

Talking to the Post as an active Military Officer? 'We are losing the War'... Class dismissed!

You would have to go to the archive to see them, but I have posted both comments and diaries in the past.  It has been a while, though.  I have been reading and pondering the direction of the party and this country, while trying to maintain a sense of humor about the situation in which we find ourselves.

My point was this: saying that Rumsfield is doing a great job and expressing support for him is not enough.  The only thing that will save Rumsfield, Bush, and the Republican majority in congress is real evidence of progress in Iraq.

It has often been said here that the problem with liberals is they have no sense of humor. What would the world be like if conservatives lose their sense of humor, too.

I'm not French or particularly cute, but in the spirit of Republican camraderie, I offer this:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFltTBRFems

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/4/14/194015/807/37#

You said:

The only thing that will save Rumsfield, Bush, and the Republican majority in congress is real evidence of progress in Iraq.

Unless your definition of real progress in Iraq is pegged to the withdrawal of US troops, I think you will find this, this, this, this and this from Bill Crawford very enlightening (Parts 1-5 posted at NRO).

Looks like "real evidence of progress" in Iraq to me.  How about you?

The real scandal is the refusal by the MSM to deviate from their doom-and-gloom template.  And of course, Bush Lied™.

in Iraq. There will never be any progress in Iraq. There can never be any progress in Iraq. We can never beat the Iraqi Army. We should continue the diplomacy in Iaq. We must only work through the UN. We must work with out tradional allies. We will be bogged down in Afghanistan just like the British and the Russians. Oceania was at war with Eastasia : Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

for the position we find ourselves regarding Iraq and Iran.

Before contemplating that statement too deeply, one must analyze this scenario and all of its implications:

What would the political landscape of the Middle East, and more particularly here at home, look like today -- had the US military been capable of liberating Iraq immediately following our success in Afghanistan?

My definition of progress is anything that gets us closer to leaving Iraq without leaving the middle east worse off than it was before we arrived.  I have read the Bill Crawford pieces and agree that there are some positive things happening that are not adequately reported by the MSM.  At the same time, it is not hard to understand the anger and frustration of so many Americans that this is taking so long.  Given the divergence of expectaions and reality about how things would go for us in Iraq, the only thing that will stop the criticism of those who are managing this effort is a successful conclusion.  Until all our troops are home and Iraq has a stable representative government it will be hard to convince the American people that Donald Rumsfield is doing a great job.

At the same time, it is not hard to understand the anger and frustration of so many Americans that this is taking so long.

Since US History is no longer adequately taught in our public schools, many Americans are unaware of the resistance we faced while ratifying our own US Constituion, and the difficulties we overcame during the formulative years of our constitutional republic.

Academic Freedom must become commonplace in our public schools and universities in order to address this problem.  Unfortunately, this will not happen quickly, and certainly not within the expectations generated by the 24hr-News-Cycle.

Until all our troops are home and Iraq has a stable representative government it will be hard to convince the American people that Donald Rumsfield is doing a great job.

Major problem here:  US troop concentrations in Iraq will be quite substantial for decades, but most assuredly, no significant reduction in troop numbers will occur before the successful resolution of the Iranian Nuclear Crisis™.