Rumsfeld is the best man for the job
IHT: Fifth retired general calls for Rumsfeld's resignation
The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for the U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said Thursday.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Rumsfeld's ouster. Later in the day, another retired general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.
"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."
Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because among Rumsfeld's critics are generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.
There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.
Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles is often viewed as inappropriate. Read more
db: Will this blow over, or will Rumsfeld be provided with a route to honorable withdrawal? Does it make much difference?
For this to blow over something substantial - packagable as 'good news from Iraq' - needs to happen. As we all now know, that is not likely - if anything it will get worse, much worse. Especially for Iraqis. If the puppet government [that naughty, increasingly disobedient puppet] finely manages to create a facade of 'national unity' it will be trumpeted as just such a breakthrough. However my guess is that within weeks we shall see it as just a change of wallpaper - unlikely to effect the fundamentally flawed nature of a government formed under occupation, and without real sovereignty.
Frankly, it may be better for those that want to see an end to the occupation if Rumsfeld keeps his job - he is a wholly appropriate figurehead who effectively alienates an increasing number of slow reactors - and as his position becomes weaker so does the war machine. His sacrifice would imply a major shift in strategy - but in reality there can't be a major shift until Americans vote the GOP and its neocon dogs out of office. Even then it remains to be seen how much difference the Democrats would make.
In the meantime it can only get worse. Sooner or later their will be a 'spectacular' - whether this will take the form of a breach of the green zone, an assassination of a senior politician or something else, further pressure will be applied - because time is on the side of the insurgents - and it is the Americans greatest weakness.
The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for the U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said Thursday.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Rumsfeld's ouster. Later in the day, another retired general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.
"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."
Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because among Rumsfeld's critics are generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.
There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.
Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles is often viewed as inappropriate. Read more
db: Will this blow over, or will Rumsfeld be provided with a route to honorable withdrawal? Does it make much difference?
For this to blow over something substantial - packagable as 'good news from Iraq' - needs to happen. As we all now know, that is not likely - if anything it will get worse, much worse. Especially for Iraqis. If the puppet government [that naughty, increasingly disobedient puppet] finely manages to create a facade of 'national unity' it will be trumpeted as just such a breakthrough. However my guess is that within weeks we shall see it as just a change of wallpaper - unlikely to effect the fundamentally flawed nature of a government formed under occupation, and without real sovereignty.
Frankly, it may be better for those that want to see an end to the occupation if Rumsfeld keeps his job - he is a wholly appropriate figurehead who effectively alienates an increasing number of slow reactors - and as his position becomes weaker so does the war machine. His sacrifice would imply a major shift in strategy - but in reality there can't be a major shift until Americans vote the GOP and its neocon dogs out of office. Even then it remains to be seen how much difference the Democrats would make.
In the meantime it can only get worse. Sooner or later their will be a 'spectacular' - whether this will take the form of a breach of the green zone, an assassination of a senior politician or something else, further pressure will be applied - because time is on the side of the insurgents - and it is the Americans greatest weakness.
posted by exoplanet at 10:38 AM
<< Home