[Vision2020] Retired Generals Blast Rumsfeld

[Tom Hansen]

>From the April 24, 2006 edition of the Army Times -

------------------------------------------------------------------

Retired generals blast Rumsfeld

More former officers call for his resignation, claim active-duty leaders
share their sentiments 

By Sean D. Naylor
Times staff writer

The chorus of retired generals calling for Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's resignation grows louder, but opinions are divided on how widely
the critics' views are shared by currently serving flag officers.

Five retired generals who held important positions under Rumsfeld have
publicly assailed the defense secretary over the past few weeks for his
handling of the Iraq war. None of the generals advocated withdrawing from
Iraq, but all said Rumsfeld should resign.

In a March 19 opinion piece in the New York Times, retired Army Maj. Gen.
Paul Eaton said Rumsfeld "has shown himself incompetent strategically,
operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible
for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq." Eaton was in charge
of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
 
Then, in an essay headlined "Why Iraq Was A Mistake" in the April 17 edition
of Time magazine, retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold said, "The commitment
of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are
the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -
or bury the results."

"We need fresh ideas and fresh faces," wrote Newbold, the Joint Staff's
director of operations until September 2002. "That means, as a first step,
replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their
approach."

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of 1st Infantry
Division (Mechanized) in Iraq, told CNN on April 12 that Rumsfeld had to go.
"We need a fresh start in the Pentagon," Batiste said. 

Batiste homed in on Rumsfeld's leadership style and decision-making. "[W]hen
decisions are made without taking into account sound military
recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're
bound to make mistakes," he said. "When we violate the principles of war
with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own
peril."

That same day retired Army Maj. Gen. Johnny Riggs told the Washington Post
that Rumsfeld and his advisers have "made fools of themselves, and totally
underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." Riggs has the
distinction of having said more troops were needed while he was still on
active duty. 

Finally, on April 13, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who is now retired
but who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq in 2004, told the New
York Times, "We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep
it off our shores. 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."

The criticism from the generals was disputed by the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who addressed them in an April 11
Pentagon press conference at which he appeared side by side with Rumsfeld.
The senior military commanders all were consulted before President Bush
approved the Iraq war plan, Pace said. 

"We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do
not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there," he said. "[T]he
articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat
wrong."

And on April 14, President Bush strongly defended his defense secretary: "I
have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field
and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these
missions. Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly
what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest
appreciation."

The recently retired generals found a sympathetic ear in Paul Van Riper, who
retired from the Marine Corps as a lieutenant general in 1997 but stays
close to today's senior officers. "I think Secretary Rumsfeld should have
been fired three years ago," Van Riper said. "He is professionally
incompetent." 

The retired Marine said the recent criticisms echo the disgust with Rumsfeld
that he hears from currently serving officers, up to and including four-star
generals, and that these senior officers have urged him to speak out against
Rumsfeld. "They absolutely abhor what they see coming out of the Defense
Department, and particularly the secretary, and they only continue to march
because they're good soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen," he said.
Pressed on how many such critics he could name among today's serving flag
officers, he replied, "About 25."

An Army general who retired earlier this decade and keeps in close contact
with his peers in uniform said the active-duty generals' view was that it
would be better for the country if Rumsfeld left. "This opinion is equally
shared among both active-duty and retired" generals, he said. "It's a
universal sentiment." Asked how many active generals he could name who felt
this way, he replied: "I probably rub shoulders routinely with about a
dozen. . Virtually all of them are pretty visceral in their response."

However, other retired generals denied that anger at Rumsfeld was
"universal" among their active-duty brethren.

"I've not heard too much of that," said a recently retired Army lieutenant
general. "I've had plenty of personal experience with him, as well, and he's
a tough boss. It was not infrequently unpleasant to interact with him, in
many cases, but I did not find him to be terribly unfair. I thought he was
extremely demanding, I thought he pushed people very hard, but I have great
respect for his mind, for his logic, for his intent in what he's trying to
do."

Eaton, Newbold and Batiste are not the first retired flag officers to
criticize Rumsfeld publicly. Earlier in the Iraq war, retired Army Gens.
Wesley Clark and Barry McCaffrey spoke out against the defense secretary,
and former Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine four star,
has been a vociferous critic of Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war.

But so far, only retired flag officers from the ground services have been
openly critical. Van Riper said it is no coincidence that the critics all
share one thing: "real combat experience."

But the Army general who retired earlier this decade - and who said he was
not as opposed to Rumsfeld as Van Riper - said that while Marine generals
are upset with Rumsfeld simply for "the management of the war," Army
generals' complaints are "much more expansive," incorporating what some
perceive as Rumsfeld's dismissive attitude toward senior Army leaders. 

"It's modernization, it's the size of the Army, in the sense of being
understrength for the mission, it's the application of resources - there's a
sense in the Army that the institutional Army is slowly being broken because
of the number of deployments. It's all those things stacked together."

The timing of the recent spate of criticism may be related to the Golden
Mosque explosion in Iraq on Feb. 22, he added. The explosion so exacerbated
tensions between Iraq's Sunni and Shi'a communities that many observers now
debate whether the country is on the brink of civil war.

"That really was a seminal event in the evolution of this war," said the
Army general who retired earlier this decade. There was a "sense among
senior military people that the number of viable military options in Iraq
have been frittered away," he said. "What I get from my friends is that this
window of opportunity is turning into a closed door."

'Knew the plan was flawed'

Newbold, who wrote that he was speaking out "with the encouragement of some
still in positions of military leadership," also took aim at senior military
leaders who held office as the Iraq war plan took shape. "When they knew the
plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war,
or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's
effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction," he wrote.
"The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally
flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy,
al-Qaida, became a secondary effort."

Van Riper also accused Rumsfeld of seeking out senior military leaders he
knows will be "compliant."

But Gen. John M. "Jack" Keane, who retired as Army vice chief of staff in
2003, disputed this characterization. 

"It's very conventional to speculate that Secretary Rumsfeld is pressuring
the generals, and therefore [that] they're kowtowing to him," Keane said.
"Frankly, that is insulting to the strength of character of our senior
military leaders. I know for a fact that if [Gen. John] Abizaid [commander
of Central Command], [Gen. George] Casey [commander of Multinational
Force-Iraq], [Lt. Gen. John R.] Vines [commander XVIIIth Airborne Corps and
former commander Multinational Corps-Iraq] or [Lt. Gen. Peter] Chiarelli
[commander of Multinational Corps- Iraq] disagreed with Secretary Rumsfeld,
they would tell him so."

Risks of 'information warfare'

An active-duty Army general said that while he was "not a big fan" of
Rumsfeld, and "there would be some [active-duty generals] who would agree
with some of" the criticisms made by Eaton, Newbold and Batiste, their
decision to go public has made the job of those still working for Rumsfeld
that much harder.

"There is a general feeling [among flag officers] that their professional
advice has not always been taken into account by this particular leadership
team," he said. But the outcry from the retired community won't help, he
added. 

"It puts the serving guys in a position where their advice and counsel may
be minimized even more," he said, because Rumsfeld and other political
appointees may assume that all generals share the views of Batiste and the
others. "It just puts the guy who's now on the hot seat in a much more
difficult position."

Any public criticism from retired flag officers also runs the risk of
demoralizing soldiers in Iraq and emboldening enemies, he said. "If I was a
commander out there in the field right now, that would really be
disconcerting to see that, and if I was an al-Qaida operative, I would find
a way to exploit that," he said. "So it goes beyond your personal feelings;
you are now part of the information warfare campaign for either side. I
don't think the [retired] guys are thinking about that stuff."

But Van Riper, a self-described lifelong Republican, said he often asks
serving flag officers whether retired generals' criticism of Rumsfeld hurts
the military, or makes their service more difficult. "They say, 'Absolutely
not,'" he said. 

Ultimately, the active Army general said, potential critics from the flag
officer ranks must consider what their criticisms are likely to achieve
before voicing them. "We're in this thing, and we have to win it," he said. 

"With all due respect to some great leaders, if the president is satisfied
with his secretary of defense, it's the end of the conversation."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes you are stuck going to war with the Secretary of Defense you have
instead of the Secretary of Defense you want.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

********************************************

"In America, anybody can become president.  
That's one of the risks you take . . ."

- Adlai Stevenson

********************************************