The Revolt Against Rumsfeld

The NY Times continues its coverage of the revolt (my hyperbole, not theirs - alliteration is all!) against Rumsfeld.

At one time, as exemplified by the dispute over the Crusader, grumbling from the Pentagon could be dismissed as the Old Guard defending the Old Army against Rumsfeld's attempts to transform it away from a heavy force meant to fight the Soviet Army in Central Europe and towards a smaller, lighter, more nimble force. 

However - these latest generals served in Iraq and are directing their criticism towards the effort in Iraq.

Gregory Djerejian, not a long-time fan of Rumsfeld, has more.

In the media watch department, we are groaning over this:

Mr. Rumsfeld's critics often point to his treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that was later provided. General Shinseki's estimate was publicly dismissed by Pentagon officials.

Yes, the critics often point to that - can't fault the Times for literal accuracy, although we wonder whether they should recycle fantasy like this.  Prior to that Congressional testimony Rumsfeld had neutered Shinseki by announcing his replacement 15 months prior to Shinseki's scheduled retirement in June 2003.  They had a variety of disputes, as noted in the WaPo link, or more here.

MORE:  The "Crusader"?  What PR visionary picked that name?  Obviously that name wouldn't bother the Soviets, but what if we used it in, oh, let's say Iraq?

UPDATE:  Let's get John Cole and Powerline in the mix for some spine-stiffening.

Comments

[Semanticleo]

"Rumsfeld had neutered Shinseki by announcing his replacement"

So all the President's generals are just
'disgruntled former employees'?

WH spin at it's Merry-Go-Roundest

[kim]

These generals are like Clarke, or Felt.
=========================

[kim]

Well, S, not necessarily, but one wonders why Rumsfeld is always such a convenient whipping boy?
==============================

[MayBee]

I don't doubt that there are a variety of resons. I heard two of them mention Shinseki in interviews.
Zinni's turn as envoy in Israel/Palestine was fairly disastrous in 2001. His plane landed at about the same moment violence escalated. He left, went back, left...all in all an open-ended mission lasted 15 months. I don't blame him, but talk about castrating.

He's also in the No War For Israel Club.

[Ed]

Spine stiffening from Powerline? I'll go along with John Cole's caveat but Powerline is just partisan hacks taking talking point orders from the RNC. If they've ever had an independent thought, let me know.

[boris]

If they've ever had an independent thought, let me know

self parody alert !

[vnjagvet]

There are always "schools of thought" in any large institution. Clearly the retired generals who are now getting the pub were of a different school of thought than the one being implemented by the current administration.

That is doubly hard on those who might have been committed to the school of thought favored in a previous administration.

Some might call it politics.

Nonetheless all of the vocal critics are, of course, retired. In some previous wars, vocal critics within the general corps were still on active duty.

Recall the names George McLellan who had major heartburn with his Secretary of War, Stanton and his President Lincoln, and Douglas Mac Arthur, who thought Truman was a political hack and didn't keep that thought to himself, for example.

This is relatively small potatoes in history's perspective.

[Beto Ochoa]

So much water off a ducks back.

[davod]

Ed and Boris: The truth hurts. These guys must all be getting their marching orders from the DNC. Just at look at how they all use the same punch line words. It is a pity they couldn't coordinate themselves a little better when they were in the military.

[Raoul Bloodworth]

Franks, in his book, states that the decision to use as small a force as possible was driven by the fear that Saddam would use chemical weapons to defend Baghdad. If he used 500K troops and half were "neutralized" that would leave US forces severely decimated.

Unsaid, but logic suggests, that by using 150K troops if half were "neutralized" the US would have the incentive to use unconventional weapons... and turn Baghdad into a glass parking lot.

I don't know why this isn't being discussed.

[Beto Ochoa]

davod,
I'm curious who their phone LUDs would show has been talking with them.

[Sue]

Sure takes a brave general to speak up after the fact. I, myself, prefer those who are vocal at a time when it takes guts to be vocal. Piling on after the tackle is jr. high football. And frowned on by those in the stands who are only interested in the tackle itself, not the showboating afterwards.

[davod]

If they get Bush to fire Rumsfeld it will be used as a critique of the Bush policy.

[Davod]

Beto:

You just want to get the subject back to the NSA.

[Chuckg]

I never understood how Shinseki could supposedly be 'neutered' by having his replacement announced 15 months before the fact, when I understand that they are normally appointed to a four-year term in office. Of which General Shalikashvili served his full four years.

The day the man was leaving was known virtually from the day he arrived, and yet it 'neuters' him to announce that 15 months before the fact? I don't get it.

[Cecil Turner]

Seems to me the best take is from Victor Davis Hanson (and it's hard to pick a best part, but here's the gist):

Apart from the ethical questions involved in promoting a book or showcasing a media appearance during a time of war by offering an "inside" view unknown to others of the supposedly culpable administration of the military, what is striking is the empty nature of these controversies rehashed ad nauseam.

Further, there's a selection bias when citing officers who complain to the press, highlighted in the Times article:

"If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign. My advice should be private." --LTG John Vines

The hard fact is, a serving officer only has two options when presented with leadership he finds personally distasteful: 1) resign; or 2) shut up and soldier. And just as Shinseki's opinion of operational issues he has no say in should be taken with a grain of salt, so too should the opinion of those whose career decisions override their duty. (Not that that applies to all, or even entirely to any, of the officers cited.)

[Chuckg]

Whoops. Typed "Shalikashvili" up there at the last, not "Shinseki". Whadda brain fart.

OTOH, Army Chief of Staff also serves 4-year terms normally (like Chairman of JCS), and Shinseki served his 4 years in that spot, too, so...

[Semanticleo]

Just wonderin'.

What would Mick Collins think of all this?

[Lew Clark]

Just because I spent my entire adult life working for DoD doesn't mean I'm right, but it does give me some cred.
I'm not shocked that some generals are unhappy with the SecDef. I'd be more concerned if all the generals totally agreed with the SecDef. Because that would mean he wasn't in charge but was just a figurehead with the Pentagon running the show.
I have tremendous respect for our military and the job they do. But there is a reason we have a defense structure with a professional military effecting the decisions of an elected civilian leadership (or in the case of SecDef, appointed by elected officials). That is to assure that the people have the last word.
I never heard one general say, about any Secretary of Defense "That guy, now he really knows his stuff, I'd follow him into battle anywhere." But lets put it in perspective. In any organization the "professionals" always think the managers don't know diddly. Because the professionals are only looking at their narrow specialty, where the managers are looking at the big picture. Generals never ask for less troops, they always ask for more troops. The generals never ask for smaller, less expensive weapons, they always ask for bigger weapons with bigger bangs.
I don't fault the generals for being generals. No more than I fault the IT guys in a company wanting to make the company the cutting edge in automation. But it is the job of the President and his advisors to look at the big picture and balance priorities. And no "specialist" is going to be totally pleased with that.
Few active generals slam the administration. Bad career move. All retired generals voice the opinion that "We could have won that war in three days, if they had only listened to me."
The difference, like with the voices of dissent in the intelligence community (that have always been there), is that the opposition to this administration is looking for any dissent to weaken and defeat this president. And the MSM still has a big pulpit. When there is a president popular with the MSM, who shares their leftist philosophy, as with Clinton, then voices of dissent are portrayed as detractors that don't understand the president's great vision. When the president is unpopular with the MSM, the same dissent is portrayed as "See, even his own people disagree with him and agree with us."
There is nothing new with the generals not being totally on board with their “bosses“. Starting with "You want to leave George in charge after Valley Forge? Are you crazy?" But you do have, right now, political opposition that will do anything to regain power and don't mind destroying the nation in the process, if they get to be in charge of what's left.

[Tano]

Raoul asks why we don't consider Frank's point that using 500,000 troops would have not been smart, because of the fear of Saddam using WMDs.
It seems to me though, that nobody has had much criticism of the troop levels, or how they were used, in the march to Baghdad. The use for the extra 350K troops would have been to bring up the rear and to secure the territory that had been taken, not be added front line troops. They could have been sitting in Kuwait till the day the statue fell, then moved in to secure the nation.

[Bob in Pacifica]

Pass the pipe, that shit is great! Everything looks so great in here!

[Bob in Pacifica]

Beto: See this?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14336462.htm

[Geek, Esq.]

Those Generals who are complaining about Rumsfeld's decisions regarding Iraq are fools who are getting fed misinformation by the MSM media.

/Hinderaker

Seriously, what this is about is Rumsfeld letting his "big idea" of a smaller, more technologically advanced army override the demands of the mission in Iraq.

To be more precise, it didn't occur to this Strangelovian weirdo that the Iraqi army would just dissipate, leaving behind chaos and insurgency. You'd think he would have read a few military history books or something--and you'd be wrong.

[PeterUK]

Since Franks has stated that he,"Got what he asked for" in terms on men and materiel and he was the actual general in charge,we are presumeably going to get a swarm of Unterpants fuhrers from the left explaining exactly how they would have done it.

[owl]

Just sounds like Kristol/McCain redux....

[windansea]

surfs up....they always come in waves

whatsamatter troglodytes? did Fitz's correction spoil your fun??

let's get Rummy!!

[PeterUK]

Geek,Just hoe suited is an armoured division to fighting an "insurgency" war.
What you have now is an army designed to fight the Soviets on the plaines of central Europe.
Not to root out those who hide amongst a civilian population.

[boris]

Rumsfeld is great. The anger is because he's so effective.

If gore had been elected in 2000 and the current situation were about the same ...

• MSM would be saying ... "Iraq = Major Success";
  
• The Wilson's would never have been heard of;
  
• The NSA program would remain unleaked.

So the thing is a lot of what is "claimed" is from the "Pass the pipe, that shit is great!" school of analysis. Very skeptical of the "more troops would have been better" argument. History will validate Rumsfeld, not the pipe smoking detractors.

[PeterUK]

Boris,
They alll belong to the school of retrospective thinking,they would have done this they would have done that,in essence though,they have never done anything.
What is fascinating is these are the same creatures who opposed and invasion of Iraq,why therefore do they now want to have opposed even more troops.
"Ya shouldn't have done it and ya shouldn't have done it with a bigger army", "We wuz right,we wuz right!"

[Geek, Esq.]

Rumsfeld is great. The anger is because he's so effective.

Yes, everyone is pissed off because Iraq is going so well.
Geek,Just hoe suited is an armoured division to fighting an "insurgency" war.
What you have now is an army designed to fight the Soviets on the plaines of central Europe.
Not to root out those who hide amongst a civilian population.

One needs manpower to secure a country and establish some sort of order. Rumsfeld had a giant blind spot when it came to the possibility of an insurgency. How this is possible, given the experience of the USSR in Afghanistan, the US in Vietnam, the French in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, and even the French in Russia is beyond me.

If it wasn't possible to preserve order in Iraq with the manpower available, then we really shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Simple as that.

[Cecil Turner]

Seriously, what this is about is Rumsfeld letting his "big idea" of a smaller, more technologically advanced army override the demands of the mission in Iraq . . .

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the RMA. The whole point of lighter forces is to enhance deployability: all the tanks in the world don't do you any good if you can't get them to the battle zone; or if you can't support them logistically once they arrive. And the real rap on Rumsfeld in this area is that he hasn't moved fast enough.

You'd think he would have read a few military history books or something--and you'd be wrong.

Oh please. Rumsfeld has significant military experience as a former Naval Aviator and a former SecDef. He's one of the most qualified guys to hold the job. Statements like this are so obviously political (and wrong) that it discredits the whole argument.

If it wasn't possible to preserve order in Iraq with the manpower available, then we really shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Simple as that.

As usual, it becomes apparent the argument isn't really with conduct of the war at all, but the go-to-war decision. Unfortunately for proponents, that also demonstrates the current chorus of criticism is fundamentally dishonest.

[PeterUK]

"One needs manpower to secure a country and establish some sort of order. Rumsfeld had a giant blind spot when it came to the possibility of an insurgency. How this is possible, given the experience of the USSR in Afghanistan, the US in Vietnam, the French in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, and even the French in Russia is beyond me."

How do you know Geek? You see you contradict yourself with your example,there was the manpower in these cases,it resulted in huge casualties.So perhaps not following such precedents was a good idea.

[PeterUK]

"If it wasn't possible to preserve order in Iraq with the manpower available, then we really shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Simple as that."

So Geek,if sufficient troops had been made available you would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

[Sue]

Seems to me Rumsfeld accomplished in Afghanistan in short order that which the Soviets failed to do in a decade. Maybe Rumsfeld did read some history books.

[boris]

Good point Sue.

[PeterUK]

No Sue,Afghanistan was a failure,you didn't lose.To make a leftoid really happy,there simply have to be helicopters lifting off the embassy roof.You must understand,"War is wrong,War never solves anything" "International law,UN,"I'd like to teach the world to sing" buzz,drone"

[Lew Clark]

We did not have the manpower to maintain order in Western Europe, we should never have launched the D-Day invasion! We did not have the remaining sea power to go up against the Japanese navy after Pearl Harbor. We should never have taken our "leftovers" into battle against a navy that totally controlled the Pacific! And who's stupid idea was it to confront the British Empire with the most powerful army in the world at that time with a bunch of farmers with squirrel guns!
If Geek had only been in charge for the entire history of this nation, we'd be soooooooooooooooooooo much better off!

[Geek, Esq.]

As usual, it becomes apparent the argument isn't really with conduct of the war at all, but the go-to-war decision. Unfortunately for proponents, that also demonstrates the current chorus of criticism is fundamentally dishonest.

It's an either or:

Either:

a) It was possible to stabilize Iraq after conquering it, and they just failed at that aspect of the mission; or

b) it wasn't possible no matter what they did.

A resounding chorus of criticism is warranted regardless of which holds.

And I really don't care what Donald Rumsfeld's qualifications are--his judgment and decisions have been abhorrent.

And, yes, Afghanistan is more stable than it was when it was in a state of complete anarchy. However, note that the criticism is regarding the handling of Iraq, not Afghanistan.

[Beto Ochoa]

Isn't this crap exactly what Sen. Reid planned to have happen during Easter Break?
Here is the article from The Washington Times March 18th 2006,
"Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators... at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts."
This "Generals Revolt" propaganda is right in line and dragging Shinsekis' name back into the mix is classic old news rehash with fresh hyperbole we've been witnessing for the past ten days.

[Geek, Esq.]

We did not have the manpower to maintain order in Western Europe, we should never have launched the D-Day invasion!
Uh, we did have the manpower to stabilize Western Europe after WWII.

We did not have the remaining sea power to go up against the Japanese navy after Pearl Harbor. We should never have taken our "leftovers" into battle against a navy that totally controlled the Pacific!

Last time I read a history book, Japan started the war in the Pacific. So, we made no decision to go to war in that instance. We had no choice but to go to war in that instance.

And who's stupid idea was it to confront the British Empire with the most powerful army in the world at that time with a bunch of farmers with squirrel guns!

You do see the irony, given that the Americans were the insurgents and the British were the occupying army, right?

If Geek had only been in charge for the entire history of this nation, we'd be soooooooooooooooooooo much better off!

Try defending what's going on in Iraq instead of events and decisions that worked in our favor.

[PeterUK]

Geek,
Answer the question,if sufficient troops had been made available you would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

"a) It was possible to stabilize Iraq after conquering it, and they just failed at that aspect of the mission; or

This begs the question of whether it has actually failed.

b) it wasn't possible no matter what they did.

No there are numerous possibilities and permutations.

[RLS]

The "Generals", led by Franks were the ones that drafted the plans for Iraq. If you read Franks' book, you will see the preparation that went into the plans. A very deliberate process.

Gen. Pace outlined the give and take at a DoD presser:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060411-12800.html

[Geek, Esq.]

"If it wasn't possible to preserve order in Iraq with the manpower available, then we really shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Simple as that."

So Geek,if sufficient troops had been made available you would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

If this administration was up to the task of stabilizing post-invasion Iraq, very possibly. But, that thought never occurred to me because it was plain as day that this administration was never up to the task.

[PeterUK]

Geek,
Apples and orange argument.
"We did not have the remaining sea power to go up against the Japanese navy after Pearl Harbor. We should never have taken our "leftovers" into battle against a navy that totally controlled the Pacific!

Last time I read a history book, Japan started the war in the Pacific. So, we made no decision to go to war in that instance. We had no choice but to go to war in that instance.

Lew is talking about going into BATTLE,you are talking about going to WAR.

[Sue]

Right on time...the DNC Easter Parade...

And in response to the criticisms of Rumsfeld and the calls for his resignation...Bush responds with Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere. Just as everyone expected him to do.

I don't have a problem with their criticisms, per se, just the fact that once again they are rewriting news as if it is 'new' news. Those criticizing Rumsfeld are basing it on old stuff, not what is happening today. Abu Graib. Not enough troops (which has been debated ad nausem, how do you unring the bell? Get a do-over? Pulling out in defeat?) It is what it is and all the I told you so's aren't going to change it. If Rumsfeld resigned, he would be replaced with someone like him. Why not have the geniune article?

[PeterUK]

Geek,
"So Geek,if sufficient troops had been made available you would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

If this administration was up to the task of stabilizing post-invasion Iraq, very possibly. But, that thought never occurred to me because it was plain as day that this administration was never up to the task."

I will take that as a NO! Your detailed knowledge of the conditions in post invasion Iraq is fascinating,you are probably the only person on the planet that knew exactly what would be required.

[PeterUK]

Sue,
"how do you unring the bell?"

!GNUD

[PeterUK]

Anyway Geek,unough of the frivolity,
"If this administration was up to the task of stabilizing post-invasion Iraq, very possibly. But, that thought never occurred to me because it was plain as day that this administration was never up to the task."

Would you have supported a Democratic administration invasion of Iraq?

[noah]

I think Gingrich's criticism is valid. That is, if I understand it correctly, that we should have set up a provisional government from the get go...to allow for the politics to be much further along.

Geek...you should read Hanson's short piece at NRO.

And then if you have the time read Tommy Franks' book. Its an eye-opener by a working class alcoholic that joined the Army, went to Officers Candidate School, worked his butt off, and got the frying pan command Centcom.

He's no admin toady.

[Rick Ballard]

Hmmm, what comes after Reid's Revolting Generals? Could be "Republicans Planning Additional Hurricanes This Summer to Wipe Out Minorities, Women and Children" unless it's "Republican Strategy to Increase Inflation Through a Tighter Job Market Revealed".

Wily E. Coyote, on the prowl again.