What about General Tommy Franks? What's his position now that he's retired? Are there any retired generals publicly supportive of Rumsfeld?

Very insightful stuff. Glad I bookmarked this site some time ago.

Tommy Franks has too much class to join this whine-fest. He is probably having a good laugh as he sits on his porch in t-shirt and shorts, sipping on a cold one, and enjoying his retirement. If you read his book "American Soldier" you would know his disdain for these whine-fests. So he is not about to become that which he despises.

Like his dad once told him, "Tommy, you don't necessarily need to know anything to have an opinion."

Bravo! Good piece!

This decentralization is the best thing that could happen to the Military; Case in point: Today our soldiers can call in an air strike on a postion near them which nearly took a note from your mother and an act of Congress to do during Vietnam. In the end, flexible units that use initiative have won every war we've had ... not 10,000 men sitting in boats waiting to land on a beach.

Isn't it interesting how those "principled" Generals waited until they retired (thus drawing full benefits) before they decided to make their disdain known? An honorable officer would have resigned his commission rather than serve under what he considered gross incompetence. Yet, every one of them was silent and drawing pay during the 8 years of Clinton and the wonderful leadership we saw straight from the top in places like Mogadishu.

Shawn Beilfuss:

He is probably having a good laugh as he sits on his porch in t-shirt and shorts, sipping on a cold one, and enjoying his retirement.

Well, I wish he would finish the brewski, enjoy his retirement for about fifteen more minutes, and then hump on down to the elections commission and declare his candidacy for the United States Senate!

I want to see the back of Bill Nelson; and although I love Rep. Katherine Harris -- she was a brave girl when we needed just such a one -- she's not the one who can do it.

Dafydd

The only thing I would add is Vietnam under Westmoreland was "Old School". Creighton Abrams completely changed the way the war was fought after '68. If he were alive today he might be a Rumsfeld kind of military guy.

Had WaPo or another of antique Media’s array of arm-chair experts begun beating this drum 2 or 3 weeks back, they’d have hit the 3rd anniversary of the hand-wringing General’s almost to the day. For consistency in recycling stories and arguments MSM certainly gets an ‘A’. Since they’ve chosen to theorize on this topic specifically, let me theorize and propose that the strategies and tactic’s upon which they cling would not have only led to a larger number of casualties but coalition forces would almost have certainly been stuck in the quagmire so many have been hoping to see.

I’d certainly like to see one question put to these retired Generals, ‘What is the most common and formally acknowledged name for the of type of warfare being conducted against US and coalition forces in Iraq and elsewhere?’ It’s been around long enough that, hazarding a guess, these General’s must have studied it at one of our war college’s.

Should they need a hint, this type of warfare is always conducted under the banner of liberation.

You are describing the "old school" / "new school" style of warfare dispute as a merely a philosophical disagreement between two groups. But the generals have seen "new school" in action, in Iraq-- and they blame this philosophy for the current situation there (and Rumsfeld for forcing the strategy upon them). You don't seem to address this-- in fact, you do a remarkable job at avoiding any mention of the current state of the country.

I am hardly a military expert, and would not make a pretense at being so. But why do you assume that the generals' criticism must be because of this reason, or that reason-- but that it is surely not because of an honest opinion about what Rumsfeld's strategy has led to in Iraq?

Awprokop:

But why do you assume that the generals' criticism must be because of this reason, or that reason-- but that it is surely not because of an honest opinion about what Rumsfeld's strategy has led to in Iraq?

I'm certain it's an "honest opinion." It's honestly, sincerely wrong.

The generals begin with the same assumption you evidently begin with: that there is some sort of catastrophe in Iraq that has to be blamed on someone.

But I look at Iraq and see a remarkable achievement... and a remarkably good chance of total victory, where victory is defined as a relatively democratic state that will not spawn the sort of hopelessness and helplessness that leads people to join groups like al-Qaeda.

I see the "Shinseki Option" -- massive force to "conquer" Iraq -- as completely missing the point, probably because Gen. Shinseki never understood Sec. Rumsfeld's point: that in the end, Iraq must be governed by Iraqis; it cannot be an American colony, or we'll simply replicate the failed British Empire.

Since it must be governed by Iraqis (not Americans), we cannot fight it like we fought World War II: massive, overwhelming force to crush even the slightest resistance. Bear in mind, Awp, that it took us seven years to rebuild Japan and Germany following that war, which is far longer than we plan to spend in Iraq.

And there is no guarantee that seven years of brutal American dictatorship over that country would wipe out the exta-territorial, religiously fanatical terrorist movements there. We never had to deal with that in 1945-1952, because it hadn't been invented yet.

Rumsfeld and Bush made the determination that the only solution was to return Iraq to the Iraqis as soon as we could guarantee a democratic government, and then let them handle it from then on. And the Shinseki/Zinni/Powell doctrines were antithetical to that goal.

Once that decision was made, anybody who was so opposed that he couldn't support that plan had to be removed. Hence, adios to a bunch of generals.

Hardly surprising that those who were turne dout would seize upon every ebb and ignore every flow to maintain the face-saving fiction that they were really right after all: "you should have listened to me!"

It's the Richard Clark disease: they wanted to make decisions that were far beyond their pay grade, not just in degree but in kind. These generals wanted to seize control of policy from the civilian government.

I'm sorry, Awp, but we simply could not allow that. They were given a stark choice: come on board, or get the hell out. It was exactly the same choice offered by President Truman to Gen. MacArthur... and in the end, it really doesn't matter if the generals were right or wrong; we decided more than two hundred years ago that the elected officers, not the generals, would make those decisions.

The generals mentioned here couldn't accept that core principle. Like Gen. Jack D. Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove, these fellows said "war is too important to be left to the politicians."

So adios, muchachos. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out. Unless you're on the side of the generals in Seven Days In May, you'd better at least agree with this point.

Dafydd

If I am not mistaken, Gen. Newbold spoke out of turn during a Pentagon news conference and was replaced. It was either the start of things bewteen him and Rumsfeld deteriorating, or the culmination of things. That might account for some of his antipathy towards Rumsfeld.

Says D ab H on Tommy Franks: "Well, I wish he would finish the brewski, enjoy his retirement for about fifteen more minutes, and then hump on down to the elections commission and declare his candidacy for the United States Senate!"

Never mind the Senate. We need a man of General Franks' stature running for the Presidency.

And, thanks for this much-needed counterweight to the chorus of carping generals. I haven't seen an administration this beseiged since Reagan's during Iran-Contra.

/Mr Lynn

I worked for Tommy Franks when he got his first star. While political, who at that level couldn't be, he has a take no prisoners style of leadership. I can't see him joining in this type of hate fest.

Franks, opinionated? Yes, but very savy in getting his point across with blunt humor and interesting stories that got the point across. I enjoyed working with him. It was always a hoot and a great development process.

I disagree that generals approved by any President reflect that President's politics. The US military has remained resolutely apolitical. Saying that generals approved by Clinton are Clintonistas is implying that we run our military like some banana republic. We don't. Generals are products of the military institution and decades of vetting long before the President who approved them was ever elected.

While retired generals have every right to criticize their former civilian bosses, it makes me uneasy to see them do so. It seems unprofessional, as if the military should be picking its civilian leadership. It should not.

However, such criticism is nothing new. General McClellan had plenty of criticism for President Lincoln, who McClellan was fond of calling "the Original Gorilla." McClellan even ran for President against Lincoln as the Democratic candidate, as at least one of the retired generals has attempted to do. The modern general critics of Rumsfeld seemed to be cut from the same cloth as McClellan.

I do agree with your observation that these generals seem to be all Old School generals, or more to the point, Big Army generals as opposed to the Small Army generals of the special forces. There is a cultural gap between the Big and Small armies within the US Army, which is illustrated in Imperial Grunts by Robert Kaplan. The Big Army and the Small Army are just wired differently to accomplish their missions. I suspect that the grievances of the retired Big Army generals lies with the shift in emphasis to the Small Army needed to defeat platoons of terrorists rather than armored Soviet divisions. The Small Army requires a more entrepreneurial and decentralized culture which Rumsfeld is particularly qualified to understand and implement.

General DeLong and General Joulwan have both spoken out in support of Rumsfeld, along with Pace. Fox and Friends teased Franks as a guest this morning for Monday. If this doesn't die, I expect we'll see General Myers as well.

Great post, Dafydd. This is nuts--and completely useless. No man is indispensible in this democracy, and if Rumsfeld had a heart attack tomorrow (perish the thought) someone would step up to the plate and life would go on. But if he doesn't, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who couldn better prosecute the two wars we have underway, the one on the horizon and the transformation of the military to a 21st century forct, so why replace him?

I don't want our military sitting around singing kumbaya together anyway. Dissent and friction between the military and the civilian leadership is part of the program.

Rumsfeld also realigned weapons systems procurement which include some of the largest 'rice bowls' in the defense industry. Remember when he canceled the Army's Crusader artillery system (a Cold War relic)? Many flag officers move on to employment in the defense industry and his attempts to improve efficiency and move to a fast reacting force were met with much resistance - both in the senior military ranks and the defense industry. Rumsfeld is also a demanding guy who is not afraid to question the status quo - not the kind of guy who makes friends in the clubby E ring of the Pentagon. I think he was, and is, the perfect man for the job.

The attacks on these Generals -- calling them a bunch of disgruntled Clintonites trying to sell books -- is simply another example of the deeply anti-military attitude of today's conservative Republicans. The humiliation of Gen. Shineski; the contempt for military men who question the administration's talking points; the Bush administration's constant attacks on military veterans (McCain, Kerry, Murtha) -- it's all part of a pattern of anti-military, anti-soldier rhetoric from today's conservatives.

If you want to support our military, vote Democratic. As the 2004 election proved, the Republican party has become the anti-military, anti-veteran party.

Where do these guys get the balls to speak out? Just stab in the back, all day long, stab in the back. And they think that by doing so they are behaving honorably. Make up some facts, ignore other facts, twist the argument around, and stab in the back.

It is really just disgusting.

P.S. I am talking about you members of Fighting 101 Keyboarders.

The 90s were a difficult time for the military. Their leadership was chosen largely for their ability to get along and manage the downsizing without (publicly) visible complaint. Both the administration and the congress (who also have a large role picking-and-choosing among the highest ranks) were complicit.

Worse, after Vietnam and going volunteer, the Pentagon, with malice-of-forethought, reorganized the forces and distributed the workload so we could not go to war without the part-time (amateur) component (reserves and guard). In time, I suspect historians will view this as a near-treasonous act. No where in the Constitution does it say that the President must have popular support and congressional approval (save budget) to be able to act as he sees fit in the defense of the constitution and the people. We (the people) get a say after-the-fact and must weigh these issues as part of selecting the President and Commander-in-Chief.

Anything less is a death sentence for a democracy (when faced by dictators who have no such limits). This is why the President is trusted with the Nuclear button, and is largely free of constraint in his/her ability to push it. Else it would have much less value as a deterrent and as an effective strategic weapon.

Note that DoD must not be free from criticism. It faces the same soft-corruption and rot as all the other agencies who stumbled in procting us, though it is far better managed and motivated (up or out does not exist anywhere else in the government, save elected officials). And our allies are even in sorrier state (as evidenced by their struggles to do even the little required in Afghanistan).

These things eb-and-flow, as is the nature of our system. A Rumsfeld or his equivalent always appear (are created by the demands of the crisis and circumstance) to make the changes required. And they are not loved except in hindsight. Consider that Mr. Weinberger (may he rest-in-peace) was certainly not loved by many military leaders in his time.

(hmm. dropped my closing)

If not Rummy, then who? And what should they do different (besides arguing for less use of punitive offense, or a force of a size that neither we nor our allies can afford / risk deploying, which is the same as saying "don't, we can't fight")? are the questions the critics must answer.

Forced change is never pleasant, but it is a fact-of-life.

M.H.:

You have got to be kidding. Those were not members of the Young Republicans who were running the military recruiters off the Santa Cruz campus recently. Please.

Dafydd:

I am reading McCullough's bio of Truman and you are absolutely correct in your comparison of this situation and the firing of MacArthur. And people were ready to string Truman up for it too. But the Constitution makes it plain that the military is in the hands of the civilian government. In fact I think some of these remarks border on insubordination.

I remember listening to NPR before the attack on the WTC and there was a story about changes in the military. Even then people were saying that Rumsfeld was going to make lots of enemies because he intended to reshape the military and the DoD.

Both Bush and Rumsfeld come from the private sector, from organizations where sucessful initiatives are rewarded. In more bureaucratic organizations - e.g., governments, large banks - there is less reward for successful initiative and still the same large penalties for unsuccessful initiatives. Therefore, those who have spent their careers in government, including within the military, have only been exposed to organizations that do not readily reward initiative. Change comes to the Pentagon personified by Rumsfeld. How else would you expect the career bureaucrats to act?

chsw

M.A.:

The humiliation of Gen. Shineski....

Humiliation? How was he humiliated? He was not retired forcibly or early; he retired on schedule, after serving out his full term as Army Chief of Staff.

His idea for the Strykers was brilliant; his support for the Crusader considerably less so. Giving all the soldiers black berets was incompetent and insulting.

And (now I'm looking at Wikipedia) his claim that we would need "several hundred thousand men" to "stabilize postwar Iraq" has certainly not been proven by "history" to be "more accurate" than the Rumsfeld plan.

I suspect, M.A., that you begin with the Murtha premise that the Iraq War is lost. That begins every lefty's "analysis" of Iraq. It's like a socialist who begins by saying, "well now that everyone agrees that Capitalism doesn't work...."

But in fact, we're doing pretty well, all in all. The country is actually pretty stable: only one, single province (al-Anbar) is currently rated as having a "critical" level of violence; three others are rated as serious (I think it was), the rest (13 or 14 out of 18) were lesser.

There isn't the slightest movement towards restoring the Baathists; there is currently a power struggle ongoing between the Sadrists (led by Jaafari) and Shia who support a true unity government, and the latter have the upper hand.

Nearly all services are at or above pre-war levels. The country is markedly freer. What more do you want?

Ah... you believe that if only we had listened to Gen. Shinseki, there would be no terrorism in Iraq!

But what makes you think that if we had, say, four hundred thousand troops in Iraq right now, crushing Iraqis and smothering the country, preventing the rise of native institutions by our looming mass, that we would be closer to our goal of a democratic Iraq run by Iraqis?

Or do you even agree that that should be our goal? Do you -- did Gen. Shinseki -- want us instead to be permanent imperial overlords of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East?

Do you also believe, as do so many on your side of the philosophical divide, that if only we would send a few hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan to scour the Tora Bora mountains, we surely we capture Osama bin Laden -- and the terrorist war would be over?

There are quite a few on the Left who have suggested just such a course... John Kerry among them.

Dafydd

We've discussed this before and to tell the truth, I'm amazed that you still keep trying to prove that mobile infantry can solve all ills.

It can't.

You need boots on the ground - at least one or two divisions, just to keep the natives from getting restless.

That is Rumsfelds error. Light, mobile infantry is great for scaring the hell out of the populace and the opposition grunts. It doesn't work when trying to control an insurgency.

You can't beat having boots on the ground in huge numbers - to provide administration and ground control from MPs to water service to electricity.
It provides time to develop some sort of civilian infrastructure that can gradually take over and take control.

It's a lesson that we will learn eventually when the death toll reaches 5,000 or more. The Iraqi "Army" isn't going to do it because they cut and run when faced with an undersized invasion force.

That's Rumsfeld's error in total - not enough boots.

I commented on this a year ago during the last campaign against Rumsfeld, that one led by Kristol and Donnelly. The issue is a combination of Dem opportunism exploiting the Army's anger over military reform, and revenge by Army people over perceived budget slights. The group of Army generals who had paid their dues and risen through the ranks poised to take over leadership, just like the way the sclerotic space-fillers at General Motors rose to the chair after the appropriate ticket-punching, suddenly got pushed aside from their Divine Right Of Ring-Knocking Heavy Armor-Artillery Succession by Rumsfeld's efforts and they are now getting even.

At first they were going to simply wait him out, but when Rummy canceled Crusader, then elevated an outsider (Schoonmaker) to Chief of Staff, he ignited the shooting war (look at how many previous Army staff leadership and VCSA spots were filled by Field Artillery Branch people- all of a sudden they are out of power after ruling in the 1980's, and the dad-blamed LIGHT INFANTRY is in CHARGE?).

The fact that he was mostly right is irrelevant- because the Army is not getting as many budget toys as the other services, they have to take it out on someone. Here is the longer story: http://mnkurmudge.blogspot.com/2005/01/army-versus-rummy.html#comments Actual defense needs and national security shouldn't be allowed to interfere with an egotistical O-8 career path....

Humiliation? How was he humiliated?

You know very well how he was humiliated: publicly rebuked and turned into a lame-duck, since Wolfowitz and others deliberately made it clear that no one was listening to him. Shinseki was a representative of military traditions, of viewing war as a last resort; he was a threat to the anti-military Republicans, who wanted to establish war as a first resort and use our troops as cannon fodder and political props. Conservatives hate the military and its traditions.

I suspect, M.A., that you begin with the Murtha premise that the Iraq War is lost.

Well, the war was lost as soon as the premises were proven fraudulent. (In essence, it was lost before it began: when Bush kicked the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in 2003, fearful that they would find no WMDs and that the justification for war would collapse, it was clear to any thinking person that the WMD justification was flimsy at best, and that the Bush administration was immorally using war as a first, rather than last, resort.)

But even assuming the other justifications for war make sense (which they do not), the assumption that the war is a success is based on a combination of propaganda, deliberate misreading of statistics (e.g. if fewer Americans die but more Iraqis die, that's a "good" month) intimidation of the media (and the media is already consistently pro-Bush), and meaningless buzzwords like "freedom" (in fact, in the Islamic theocracy that Iraq is becoming, women are less free than they used to be), combined with ridiculous statements about a "stable" country in which people are blown up every day. (Again, if car bombs went off in New York City every day, I don't think you'd be telling the media to report all the good news about the bombs that don't go off in upstate New York.)

But you know all this, and are merely regurgitating propaganda to keep our troops there, being killed for no good reason. This is part of the anti-military attitude of conservatives: their willingness to let soldiers die for no better reason than Bush's unwillingness to admit his failure. The deep conservative hatred of the military once again rears its head, just as it reared its head in the Bush campaigns against McCain and Kerry.

If you support the military, vote Democratic. Conservatives hate the military and have worked to destroy it.

"To say we've 'wasted three years' in Iraq is so absurd and demeaning to the troops -- including Marines -- that only politics can explain (but not excuse) it."

No, it's not just "politics" - unless by "politics," you mean these generals' right to speak their mind about the federal government's policies. It might be worth remembering that Rumsfeld offered to resign twice, and Bush wouldn't have it. Was it "absurd and demeaning to the troops" when Rumsfeld himself offered to resign?

Rumsfeld's offer to resign was the only rational thing to do after Abu Ghraib, and after the WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda link arguments fell apart.

The Economist, and Rumsfeld himself, had the right idea some time ago.

M.A.:

I see. So the thing to do is to put in hundreds of thousands of troops and bring home all the troops.More people, no people. Makes perfect sense to me.

For as long as I can remember I have been listening to self righteous liberals bitch and moan about the US supporting dictators, but they bitch and moan even more when we don't.

So we should have just gone on with the no fly zones, allowed Saddam to use the UN like a cheap whore, looked the other way when he tried to kill a president, pretended not to notice when he violated dozens of UN force resolutions, and overlooked the torture chambers and mass graves and destroyed infrastructure.

OR

We let him render the UN even more of a laughing stock than it is and say so long adios, stop flying the no fly zones and let Saddam and his psycho offspring get back to what they were doing before they were so rudely interrupted. Which means building nasty weapons and killing hundreds of thousands of people for the sheer nasty fun of it.

If you want to show support to the troops, you complete the mission so that their sacrifices have not been in vain. You do not make a lot of silly, inconsistent demands that have more to do with politics than they do with the soldiers themselves.

I was not aware that the Iraqi Al Qaida links fell apart.

For as long as I can remember I have been listening to self righteous liberals bitch and moan about the US supporting dictators, but they bitch and moan even more when we don't.

You know, if liberals say silly things, nobody cares except you, given that liberals have no power in the federal government. Forget about "liberals" for a second and start talking about the people who are actually in charge, and what they're doing wrong.

If you want to show support to the troops, you complete the mission so that their sacrifices have not been in vain.

The "mission" was to remove Saddam. This has been accomplished. Another "mission" was to remove Saddam's deadly weapons -- but they didn't exist, so that went down the drain. The ex post facto "mission" was to use military force to create a peaceful, democratic Iraq, but this is literally impossible.

If you want to keep the troops there indefinitely until we "win," this is the "Tinkerbell Strategy" -- the belief that we can only fail if we stop believing in magical fairies. It is a wrongheaded belief, and it is deeply insulting to our troops, because it implies that they are merely cannon fodder who should keep getting killed just so Bush's pride isn't hurt. The way to support the troops is to admit the mistake (which is not their mistake, but Bush's) and stop killing them for no reason.

If the President would not fire Donald Rumsfeld over Abu Ghraib, or at least accept his twice-offered resignation, I do not think that the gripes of a few former generals are going to accomplish it either. Abu Ghraib was certainly worse for Rumsfeld--and the Bush administration--than this has been.

I am inclined to believe that the willingness of some retired generals to turn on Rumsfeld now has more to do with his treatment of those generals--whether by scuppering their careers, discarding their cherished pet projects, or tossing aside their long-held ideas--than with any "Clintonista" or old vs. new school factor.

I would also like to point out that General Zinni personally recommended General Franks to succeed him as CENTCOM Commander. That is why General Zinni directs his "messed-up plan" remarks at Rumsfeld, even though General Franks was the one responsible for building and leading the team that created the plan (and which the President's team regularly reviewed and constructively criticized towards Gen. Franks' submission of the final strategy). But Gen. Zinni knows to come out and publicly attack Gen. Franks would be turning the gun on himself.

I would see Gen. Franks entering the fray if and only if someone like Gen. Zinni begins to directly question his integrity and leadership in developing the Iraq plans.

Personally, I agree in hindsight that the Stage IV plan was taken too lightly in terms of the key, non-DoD players and their ability to deliver. Thus the DoD players had to pick up a great deal of slack in 2004 while non-DoD entities like the DoS has been playing catch-up.

OutragedModerates:

Iraq-Al Qaeda link arguments fell apart...

Hm... I see we haven't been keeping up with recent news, have we?

Dafydd

I don't think that having more armor in Iraq would have been all that useful. When we needed it, it was there. This isn't like Somalia, where lives were lost because President Clinton declared the mission over, and that there was no need for armor there. But this is a different type of war. If we made mistakes, one was possibly not getting going fast enough in rebuilding Iraqi security forces. What would armor units do there? Drive around in their fancy tanks and Bradleys? Show off their MLRS that can obliterate entire grid coordinates with one firing? And precisely where would they fire them? I can just see it right now, every time that an Iraqi police station is attacked, a MLRS battery takes out the entire community around it.

No surprise to me that light infantry is taking the brunt of this fight. This is an insurgency (though many of the insurgents are foreigners), and this type of war has to be won one community at a time, as it is being won. That means boots on the ground.

Also, and importantly I think, the emphasis for the last couple of years has been in rebuilding the Iraqi security forces. We can't take this insurgency down ourselves, but they can, are, and most likely will suceed at it. It is their country. They know who is doing what, and who belongs there. They are the ones with the most at stake.

The insanity is that the left got the meme going a couple of years ago that the Iraqi forces weren't up to the job. They weren't then. But because of this, the MSM constantly ignores that more units go operational every week or so. We are withdrawing from direct security responsiblity one community at a time, at a pretty good clip. And the Iraqis, for the most part, aren't cutting and running any more when faced with opposition. Of course, it helps that they can call us in for backup, but in any number of cases, haven't, out of pride, even when it would have been prudent.

If we had put the 250,000 troops into Iraq as suggested, what would they be doing there right now? Training Iraqis to use MLRS systems? Of course, there is the added problem that if we had, we wouldn't have had the troops to rotate in after a year. Why? Remember, Clinton cut the number of active Army divisions in about half, in the name of a Peace Dividend. But putting twice as many men into Iraq wouldn't have trained up the Iraqi security forces that much faster. In other words, we might have been able to field 200,000 troops for the first year, but would have had to cut back to 50,000 or so the second year. In other words, the troop levels implemented were (barely) sustainable. Doubling that number wouldn't have been.

Bruce Hayden:

In other words, the troop levels implemented were (barely) sustainable. Doubling that number wouldn't have been.

Or as the SecDef himself said, in one of the most profound insights about war I've ever seen, "you go to war with the army you have."

What does that mean? That when reasons for war exist, you cannot sit around and wait until you've built the perfect, unstoppable army, because by then, it will come too late.

The longer we would have waited, the more difficult the job. How could we have doubled our military anyway? And how long would that have taken? Would the Democrats ever have stood still for such a task, at least after one electoral cycle?

No, Kerry would have run against Bush screaming that the president had "completely squandered" the peace dividend and that Bush had allowed Saddam to get WMD.

You go to war with the army you have.

Given the army that George W. Bush inherited, a Powell-Doctrine invasion was out of the question. That left only two options:

• We do nothing, wait for sanctions to be lifted, hence for Saddam Hussein's WMD programs to come out of the shadows, restock his ChemBio forces, and finish developing his nuclear arsenal; or,
• We go to war with the army we have, now, while Hussein is still relatively weak... before the Europeans have enough time to utterly betray us.

In any event, General Tommy Franks and other strategic planners, Donald Rumsfeld, and the president himself believed that the era of refighting World War II was over, and that different threats required different responses.

As Sachi likes to say (I think she's paraphrasing Winston Churchill), if you're afraid to fight your enemy when he's weak, what makes you think you'll have enough spine to fight him later, when he's strong?

Given the limitation of resources and the urgency of the situation, Donald Rumsfeld designed a magnificent victory. Those who now say we should have had twice the number of troops either never said any such thing at the time (the Democrats) and would have prevented it if we had tried; or in the case of those such as Gen. Shinseki, may have been sincere -- but had no idea in the world where to find so many troops.

And for the record, I think now and thought at the time that Gen. Shinseki should have been fired outright, just as MacArthur was and for the same reason: insubordination.

The secretary of defense and the president listened to Shinseki, considered his advice, but rejected it. The CinC made his decision -- and that makes an end of it.

If Shinseki was still so anxious, he had a remedy: he could have resigned. That would have been eloquent enough not to require any explanation.

But he did not resign. Instead, he went over the president's head to take his case directly to Congress -- and through Congress to the news media, of course -- telling a committee that the president was wrong, that it was going to be a disaster, and so forth.

What was Shinseki's plan... to get Congress to revoke its vote authorizing the Iraq War? To get them to defund the invasion? To foment a coup d'etat?

It makes no difference whatsoever whether one thinks he was right or wrong in the original dispute... he has no right to make that decision. That is "above his paygrade." Do we really want our generals deciding such core policy, over the objections of the elected government?

His only honorable options were to salute and say "yes, sir," or to resign his commission and leave the decision to his successor. He chose a third way.

Gen. Shinseki should have been publicly humiliated, stripped of his rank in a ceremony like the opening credits of the old Chuck Conners TV show Branded.

And the president should have demanded time from the networks and given a brief, ten-minute speech saying exactly why he had done so: because in our country, such decisions, right or wrong, must be made by the Commander in Chief, not by the generals -- and never by Congress.

"War is too important a matter to be left to the generals."

God, is Shinseki lucky that Bush is a gentleman and chose not to do so. I would have had him drummed out in his underwear.

Dafydd

Speaking on the need to grab one's ankles and the wisdom of pre-lubricating before certain kinds of encounteres, have a look at the strange tale of blogger Bill Hobbs.

http://www.flanktwoposition.com/2006/04/the_strange_case_of_william_ho.html

He apparently was fired from his job at Belmont University after a couple of columnists at a Knoxville newspaper 'outed' him for putting a Mohammed cartoon on his blog - an expression of free speech which apparently was a step too far for anyone other than tenured faculty in one of our esteemed and principled institutions of Higher Ed.

I have emailed said institution with the suggestion that they truncate their name to simple Belmont because calling themselves a University, college, or even a Pig Slough would be an insult to honest institutions bearing the same name.....

Zinni is more of a Clintonista that you think. His biggest achievement since leaving the service has been to steal money from the enlisted men, selling them garbage funds and annuities through an outfit called First Command.

There are various points I'd dispute in your account, but lets start with one basic item, which is a key element in your argument.

You make the claim that somehow the generals who criticized Rumsfeld were "Clintonistas". You don't really develop the argument - moving on instead to another strand having to do with an "old school"/"new school" divide.

But you imply - based on your discussion of General Zinni - that their motivations for speaking out are based on "politics," rather than experience, expertise, or simply honest opinion. To put it another way, their loyalty to Clinton and the fact he promoted them colors their views, which means they can be dismissed.

You make two assertions at the outset:

1) while progression through the rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military performance, elevation to flag rank is by direct presidential appointment.

2) Typically, presidents don't hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies....if President Bill Clinton elevated an Army colonel to a Brigadier General -- or made him Commander in Chief of CentCom (paging Anthony Zinni) -- that general is probably a Clintonista.

You make the claim: "They are, in a sense, Clinton appointees."

I don't know whether assumptions 1 or 2 hold in fact, but lets stipulate for the moment that they are true.

Now lets look at some facts.

It is the case that Anthony Zinni was promoted to be commander in chief of Central Command by President Clinton. Zinni was, in fact, promoted to Brigadier General by President GHW Bush.

But lets move on to a few other individuals:

General Peter Pace
General Tommy Franks
General Richard Myers

Each one was promoted to Brigadier by GHW Bush, and to one of the Unified Combatant Commands (in Myers case, the Space Command - Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command) by President Clinton. Since each got his fourth star through the same kind of appointment process as Zinni, does that make them "Clintonistas", too?

Explaining the six generals' comments to some supposed affinity with Clinton falls into the category of "post-hoc ergo, propter hoc" reasoning. Your problem is that the same conditions apply to probably dozens of senior officers who come down on both sides of the debate over Bush/Rumsfeld reorganization plans. Saying that their careers advanced during Clinton's tenure tells us nothing in and of itself.

Essentially you are finding facts to fit your explanation, rather than building your explanation from evidence.

Do you have any specific information that would show these six individuals' connections to Clinton?

If not, you are impugning these individuals' integrity by claiming their views are a reflex reflection of political commitments ascribed only by yourself.

Given their lengthy service to the country, which is indisputable, don't they deserve better? I am surprised to hear such an attack coming from someone who states his admiration for the military - and presumably the men who dedicated themselves to making it work.

One final inconvenient fact: General Batiste retired rather than accept promotion (by President Bush) to Lieutenant General.

This does raise a troubling issue. If one of your original assertions is correct - and we already stipulated that it is - that "Typically, presidents don't hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies," then the Bush administration must have been happy with General Batiste's performance. According to your own assertion, it would have been unlikely for him to have been promoted if he had been a "Clintonista."

It might be that he was one of the officers who as you put it above, "salute(s)and say(s) 'yes, sir.'" Or it might be that he resigned over his differences with the Administration. In other words, that he took the path you say General Shinseki ought to have taken: to have resigned when faced with a conflict between his own views and the policies of his commander-in-chief. Curiously, in discussing Shinseki you described the two paths - "salute and say 'yes, sir'" or resignation as the "only honorable options."

Can you find it in yourself to admit that - by your own terms - General Batiste acted honorably?

1ifbyland:

You make the claim that somehow the generals who criticized Rumsfeld were "Clintonistas".... To put it another way, their loyalty to Clinton and the fact he promoted them colors their views, which means they can be dismissed.

No. You begin with a misapprehension that requires a complete reworking of your argument. I'll confess that this is my fault to some extent, since (as you noted) I didn't elaborate on this point. I will do so now.

By "Clintonistas," I did not mean in the James Carville sense of having a personal loyalty to Clinton; some may have had, some may not.

I meant it in the broader sense of holding the same basic military/statecraft philosophy as Clinton -- which is also the same (more or less) as GHWB, as Madeleine Albright, as Colin Powell.

That is, they believe (in no particular order) in:

• Grand coalitions of scores of nations, where maintaining the coalition is the most important goal;
• Slow, stately military buildups;
• That terrorism is best handled by the criminal justice system, treaties, and occasional use of the military in extreme cases;
• That the threat of military force is better and more effective than military force;
• That "stability" and "containment" are better than war;
• That the main purpose of the military is to intimidate countries into signing treaties;

And so forth; the panoply of Clintonian foreign policy.

By contrast, Bush-43 and Rumsfeld believe in:

• Coalitions of the "willing," where it's more important to achieve the objective than keep the coalition together;
• Lightning-fast response, even if that means a smaller force;
• The use of the military actually to kill enemies and depose enemy regimes;
• That terrorism is best handled by swift and certain military action.

There's more, but that's enough for my point. The question is not which of these two approaches is correct in some cosmic sense; merely that Bush-41 and Clinton accept the first set, while Bush-43 accepts the second, and they cannot be reconciled.

General Zinni, for a perfect example, clearly believes in the first set: he has said many times that sanctions had Saddam Hussein in a box, that we should never have fought the Iraq War -- and that if we had to fight it, we should have fought it Gulf-War style.

I'm not arguing that he's wrong, though I think he is; I posit only that his approach is completely incompatible with that of Donald Rumsfeld... so it's hardly surprising that he has organized this gripefest of grizzled old generals.

(And Zinni did organize this protest; according to Fred Barnes, Zinni was on the phone to these folks urging them to "come out" and assault Rumsfeld... as a proxy for assaulting Bush, who is the real target, of course -- Rumsfeld is only doing the job that Bush wants him to do.)

I'm utterly certain that Gen. Zinni thinks he's doing what's best for the country; it just so happens that what is best for the country is for General Zod -- excuse me, General Zinni -- to call the shots.

My point being only that this is the other reason these generals appear to be predisposed against this war, against this style of fighting, and so forth (besides the "old school" business).

All right, this ended up more long-winded than I meant it to be. But I hope I'm clearer now: those griping generals are akin to Clinton appointees because they act that way, not merely because Clinton appointed them.

Rather, Clinton appointed and elevated them because he liked their philosophy. By contrast, he would never have appointed a John Bolton or a Donald Rumsfeld to his cabinet, because their philosophies are antithetical.

One final inconvenient fact: General Batiste retired rather than accept promotion (by President Bush) to Lieutenant General.

Well all know that -- but why is this "inconvenient?" I never said Gen. Batiste was dishonorable; I said that Gen. Shinseki was insubordinate.

By the way: if you believe that we should pay attention to the generals -- then are you interested in the views of Dick Myers and Tommy Franks?

They think Rummy has done a great job.

Dafydd

Forgive me for suggesting this, but you are being slightly disingenuous.

You wrote in replying to me:

By "Clintonistas," I did not mean in the James Carville sense of having a personal loyalty to Clinton; some may have had, some may not.

I meant it in the broader sense of holding the same basic military/statecraft philosophy as Clinton -- which is also the same (more or less) as GHWB, as Madeleine Albright, as Colin Powell.

So why not call them "Bushistas" or "Powellists" - if the term applies to them all? Because raising the specter of some tie to Clinton (especially the heavily freighted term "Clintonista") immediately taints what these men have said. Carville and Blumenthal were Clintonistas. Even if Powell or GHW Bush may have shared certain international policy preferences, we would never use the word to describe them.

The term carries the additional baggage of straight out political opposition (and opportunism), given the pending mid-terms, Hillary's potential run in '08, etc. If you had described the generals as followers of "GHWB" or "Powell" doctrine it would not have conveyed these oppositional POLITICAL associations; it would have put the issue less in the political realm and more in the area of disputes about appropriate policies, and in this realm their views would not have been so easy to dismiss. If this is about policy matters - and your more measured reply suggests that it is - your original invocation of Clinton was misplaced and misleading. I could have described it as a smear, but I'm trying to keep this on a positive note.

And from what you say, you've withdrawn the first step of your argument - the rather fanciful effort to draw conclusions about political views based on which president was in power when the particular individuals obtained promotions.

That - by the way - concedes a lot. We see Clinton was completely comfortable - as you suggest presidents typically are not - to promote to the highest echelons of the military men whose general strategic orientations were not consistent with his own - Pace, Abizaid, Myers come to mind from the current discussion.

But to the argument: now that this is on the terrain of appropriate policy, lets review the individuals concerned.

Can you sustain the claim that these generals shared the views you ascribe as the Clintonista agenda:

* Grand coalitions of scores of nations, where maintaining the coalition is the most important goal;

* Slow, stately military buildups;

* That terrorism is best handled by the criminal justice system, treaties, and occasional use of the military in extreme cases;

* That the threat of military force is better and more effective than military force;

* That "stability" and "containment" are better than war;

* That the main purpose of the military is to intimidate countries into signing treaties;

You go further to say "those griping generals are akin to Clinton appointees because they act that way, not merely because Clinton appointed them." So it is not only their words that indict them, but their actions.

Okay. Is there any evidence they say or DO things that are consistent with what you describe as Clinton's approach?

My reading of his statements - scattered though they may be - is that Batiste thinks we have not been doing a smart enough job of killing insurgents and thinks we need a tough enough regime to stabilize the country, not one burdened by democratic distractions.

His complaints are pretty simple: we didn't have enough personnel on the ground to consolidate the military victory and many mistakes were made that made this task more difficult. And in part those mistakes owed to the unwillingness of the Administration to listen.

Now he may be wrong or he may be right on all these points, but there is little on the public record that bear on any of the points you identify as being consistent with the "basic military/statecraft philosophy as Clinton." His criticisms are of the post-war war, not the war itself.

Nor can I find much on the public record that someone like General Swannack supported any of these theories. Looks to me like he wanted to go in as fast as possible and kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible.

He does appear to have displeased the administration by indicating - based on his direct experience, and he was on the front line - that the insurgency was well-planned and developed from before the war, and that the insurgents were almost entirely of local origin, rather than composed of foreign fighters.

Again, he may be wrong or he may be right, but how is this consistent with the "basic military/statecraft philosophy as Clinton"?

I didn't choose Batiste or Swannack for any particular reason, and perhaps you could mine the other generals' views and find some that criticized the actual invasion plan itself in a manner consistent with your asserted "Clintonista" approach. But at least these two seem pretty much in a rather different camp.

If you have evidence to the contrary, let us see it. If not, you should dispose of this aspect of the "Clintonista" charge, as you have dropped the effort to impute their beliefs based on the identity of the president who appointed them.

Finally, of course I am interested in the views of Generals Myers and Franks. But "cat did not get caught in the tree" is not a news story. We've heard their views consistently for years. Now we learn that there are rather important differences among senior officers. It is worth trying to understand these differences, rather than to squelch the debate through political labelling and ad hominem attacks based on unspported opinions.

A final point - Myers and Franks deserve respect and a full airing of their views. But the same principles should apply to the six who've now come forward. As with Myers and Franks, they are serious, experienced individuals who have put their lives on the line to protect this country, and have important things to say based on their experience. Your commentary should begin from that point, rather than with the rather dismissive and disrespectufl term "griping generals."

1ifbyland:

Allow me to be equally frank: if you are being ingenuous yourself, then you are rather remarkably naive.

Do you actually think this orchestrated attack on Rumsfeld is anything but "straight out political opposition" anent the November elections?

I withdraw no part of my argument, and I really wish you would quit trying to speak for me. I told you that "Clintonista" did not mean "personal loyalty to Bill Clinton." I noted that it primarily meant having the same military politics as he (and more or less as Bush-41) -- but it also means being as politically opportunist as he.

I don't think they have any personal loyalty to Bill or Hillary Clinton... because loyalty is not a part of the Clinton philosophy (rather, it's one-way loyalty). I mean that they are like Bill Clinton -- so they got on well with him.

They think like he; they act like he. They are not to be "dismissed" but rather understood as having an intense political agenda... and that agenda is to engineer a Republican defeat in 2006 and 2008.

And like Clinton, Anthony Zinni -- the ringleader -- is willing to jeopardize American national security to achieve that end. He would be overjoyed to see us lose this war -- because it would be disasterous for the GOP... and in particular, for the legacy of George W. Bush.

And their statements -- and their actions, in coming forth now and in the way they did -- prove it. What do you think they imagined would be the effect of these coordinated attacks on Rumsfeld. Do you really imagine, 1ifbyland, that any of these generals actually believed that by vigorously attacking Donald Rumsfeld, they would cause Bush to fire him?

Not even you could be that naive. They knew that if anything, it would make Bush defend him all the more stridently. They know who Bush is.

No, friend, the only sane reason for such attacks at such a time was to bolster the Democratic campaign for the midterm elections in a few months... to set up a new thread: Bush the incompetent military bungler, to weaken the GOP's strongest case for re-election... that the Democrats cannot be trusted to run the war on terror.

No, no, they're saying, it's the Republicans who are incompetent and cannot be trusted! I think you know very well that this is the only plausible explanation, and you're mostly playing semantic games (because you, too, want to see the Democrats prevail).

If you really cared about deference, respect, and the traditions of the military -- then you would have been outraged at these nakedly political generals, because that is not an appropriate role for an ex-general to play.

(Did you see any top generals who retired during Clinton's administration call a press conference to denounce him? We know a great many thought he was the worst Commander in Chief since Jimmy Carter. Yet they held their silence, knowing it would be inappropriate and overstepping to do so.)

You would be especially angry at Gen. Shinseki, who was clearly insubordinate while still on active duty, by going "over Bush's head" to Congress to predict dire consequences if the Rumsfeld plan were followed. This is exactly what Douglas MacArthur did, trying to undermine President Truman's Korea policy because he thought it would lead to disaster... and for which MacArthur was rightfully dismissed.

But you're not outraged, angry, or appalled. You celebrate their boorishness and political pandering. I think we can draw pretty solid conclusions from that.

Dafydd

Yes, I'm outraged, angry and appalled - but not by "boorishness" and "political pandering," which are the product of your fevered imagination.

I tend to pay attention when former ground commanders tell us things are going wrong. And so should anyone who worries about the war. Rather than engaging in a serious and respectful way with the content of their comments, you've taken every opportunity - with little evidence - to cast aspersions on their character. I've taken issue with your ad hominem smears, and these have only gotten more vicious in your recent reply.

Its almost as if as your evidence gets thinner and thinner your volume and innuendo ratchet upwards. Not a surprising turn of events, but hardly an edifying spectacle.

I asked you to show any evidence that these generals share Clinton's (and GHWB's and Powell's) basic "military/statecraft philosophy." You had the opportunity and presented nothing. You simply assert once again that they have "the same military politics as he (and more or less as Bush-41)."

Not good enough. Available evidence about their views on the war in fact run the other way, as I tried to show in the main body of my as-yet unrebutted post: that they endorse Bush's terms for the invasion, but believe major mistakes were made which made it difficult to consolidate the early victory.

Unable to show any policy similarities or other connection to Clinton you are left to make the rather odd argument that they are like Clinton because they are opportunistic. If so, put the word out: there must be thousands and thousands of Clintonistas stalking the government. Opportunism is hardly a career liability in DC - nor one that follows political registration lines!

But why do you think they are opportunistic? Because they are criticizing the President, and the only reason they could be criticizing the President is that they are pursuing an intense political program to defeat the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

Again, no evidence produced: you are arguing from results to causes, without benefit of facts.

Why, you ask, are they doing this NOW? Well, in fact, some of these individuals have been making similar comments for some time - well before last week.

What you are saying is that anything critical, from whatever angle, is evidence of pandering, opportunism, and worse.

For indeed, you go further: you invoke Zinni, who (in your words) would be willing to jeopardize American national security to achieve the end of defeating Bush, and would be overjoyed to see us lose the war because it would be disasterous for the GOP.

Do you have any evidence to support your beliefs that Batiste - leader of the Big Red One - and Swannack - leader of the 82nd airborne against insurgents who were setting off IEDs against our men and women - honestly wish for the defeat of the US?

Not content with trying to taint their arguments by association with Clinton, you now say (with as little evidence) that they are in essence, traitors.

It might be worth asking how it would be possible for such men to rise to any positions of authority in the military, let alone commanding estimable US Army units. How could it be that the Bush administration offered promotion to Lt. General to someone who seeks the defeat of the forces he has taken an oath to lead?

Finally, as for retired generals not criticizing President Clinton, your memory is slipping.

Do you recall the chorus of criticism - from both retired AND SERVING military leaders - on gays in the military? Do you recall the public political opposition in a well-orchestrated campaign involving retired general officers against the comprehensive test ban treaty? Do you recall the criticism on the conduct of the Bosnian war?

Move back in time: do you recall the campaign by the Committee on the Present Danger involving some 170 retired senior officers over the SALT II treaty?

If you want examples of very well-orchestrated political campaigns by former generals criticizing sitting presidents, look to those examples. I've seen political campaigns, and this ain't one!

Get some historical perspective and calm down. You might, if you took the chance to listen, even learn something from one of the six that could improve how the war is being fought.

1ifbyland

Let me spell this out for you.

Zinni was CentCom commander from 1997-2000.

During this time the following occurred:

He FAILED to enforce the UN resolutions against Iraq and saw inspectors thrown out. Likewise, he FAILED to keep credible the "no fly" zone.

He FAILED to deal with AL Queda and let it in Afganistan.

He FAILED to deal with the Taliban and let it fester in Afganistan.

He FAILED to respond to Kobar Towers and the African Embassiees. Hint: Killing deserted terrorist camps, aspirin factories, and janitorial staff can not be construed as overwelhming force.

He FAILED in convincing states like Pakistan and the UAE that they cannot support terrorist regimes.

I personnally do not think of him as a Clintonista. He is the living poster child for the "BlackHawk Down" school of military leadership.

Since history will judge him on his tenure as CentCom commander; he is destined to be judged as a do nothing incompetent commander who contribution to the country was 9/11.

His only way to justify himself to history is to undermine our troops and efforts in Iraq. His historic reputation rests on his ability to see Iraq through to failure.

Why do you play credence on the guy who failed in training Iraqi forces in 2003-2004?

Get some historical perstective, "Don't ask, Don't tell" and SALT II were during times of peace. The little cabal you so admire was undertaken during a time of war and when our troops are engaged in active military operations. If you cannot comprehend how pathetic this is; please review the history of Vietnam and the effect the anti-war crowd had on NVA strategy.

Better yet study this period and forward it to these chuckleheads you so admire. It's obvious they never learned it.

I don't read blogs often, but if this is what passes for intelligent argumentation in the blogosphere, then the intellectual life of the Republic is in dire straits indeed!

When you can't argue on facts, go for the ad hominem attack. When you can't argue on ad hominem grounds, change the subject: You've made a number of assertions about Zinni's career, which are interesting as far as they go - I might even agree with some of them - but not exactly on point, since I said nothing to defend Zinni in any of my posts. These have been resolutely focused on your response to the six generals, including your effort to extend to these six your accusations that Zinni is a traitor. Focus on the issues at hand and you'll be more persuasive.

As for the "historical perspective," it was you who laid down the original challenge:

Did you see any top generals who retired during Clinton's administration call a press conference to denounce him? We know a great many thought he was the worst Commander in Chief since Jimmy Carter. Yet they held their silence, knowing it would be inappropriate and overstepping to do so.)

I answered this challenge, pointing out a number of instances where officers indeed denounced Clinton (and Carter), did not hold their silence, and in your phrase, "overstepped."

Now you change the terms of the challenge:

Get some historical perstective, "Don't ask, Don't tell" and SALT II were during times of peace. The little cabal you so admire was undertaken during a time of war and when our troops are engaged in active military operations.

You did not originally ask: show me examples of retired senior officers questioning the president during times of "active military operations." If this is what you meant you should have said so at the outset.

If I respond, I fear you will simply find some other qualifier to hold on to your position.

But here goes, the criticisms of Clinton's Balkans operations occurred DURING "active military operations." And those of the SALT II during a rather dangerous period in the escalation of the Cold War - not active military operations, but certainly not exactly "peace time": what with the Iranian hostage crisis, standoffs in Poland, Nicaragua, etc.

However, this qualifier about criticism during peacetime doesn't really help your argument. Indeed, given your arguments about civilian control of the military, it is probably more alarming that retired officers feel free to criticize the President during peacetime, when the stakes are - as you imply - rather lower.

Still, the record shows that they felt free to criticize Clinton before, during and after "active military operations."

Next qualifier, please?

Finally, your invocation of the anti-Vietnam War movement is rather bizarre. The generals I quoted seek to find better ways to kill insurgents. Doesn't sound like any anti-war position I've ever heard. It may be anti-Rumsfeld, but that's not nearly the same thing.

It is hard to see how the insurgents are going to be aided and comforted by the comments of ex-generals who are trying to find better ways to kill more insurgents. The only people who might have something to fear from these comments are those responsible for the prosecution of the war. And judging by the level of vitriol and subject-changing going on in your's and others' comments, sounds like you have a lot to fear!

Final comment - your obsession with General Shinseki borders on the pathological.

First, you've got many of your facts wrong. Shinseki did not "go 'over Bush's head' to Congress to predict dire consequences if the Rumsfeld plan were followed." He appeared at a normally scheduled meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where his written testimony on the day in question didn't even mention Iraq.

He was pushed in questioning for an opinion about the size of the force that would be necessary and gave his opinion. He didn't predict "dire consequences," then - or as far as I can see, on the public record - afterwards, and certainly didn't voice opposition to "Rumsfeld's plan."

Nor did he mount a public campaign in support of his views. Far from it; indeed, this morning General Myers - in a genuinely diplomatic and gentlemanly assessment of General Shinseki's testimony - said Shinseki didn't even return to this topic in private.

You rather glibly write "This is exactly what Douglas MacArthur did, trying to undermine President Truman's Korea policy because he thought it would lead to disaster...and for which MacArthur was rightfully dismissed."

Well, what did MacArthur do? In some of the darkest moments of the Korean war he publicly criticized the president's limited war aims and advocated ramping up the conflict, including extensive nuclear bombing of Chinese cities. Second, he moved to undercut publicly Truman's effort to begin armistice negotiations.

I'm not defending Shinseki - just questioning your judgment, command of the facts, and the worthiness of your opinions. It takes a hyperactive and warped imagination to suggest a parallel between MacArthur's madness and Shinseki's congressional testimony, much less that they were exactly the same.

I guess the point of your blog is political vitriol rather than honest persuasion, but you'd really be more convincing if you developed your arguments in a more careful and measured fashion with a tad more (and better) evidence.

Final, final comment, but one too good to pass up in the interests historical accuracy.

You invoke the old TV show "Branded," and aside from misspelling the star's last name, you miss the point of the show entirely. Chuck Connors' character, Jason McCord is unjustly accused of cowardice and drummed out of the Army.

The show is entirely sympathetic to McCord and paints the Army brass as desperate and vicious fools.

You remove any doubt - just in case we had any, as to how you'd have voted if in some fictional past you sat in judgment of McCord:

God, is Shinseki lucky that Bush is a gentleman and chose not to do so. I would have had him drummed out in his underwear."

By suggesting a parallel between McCord and Shinseki, you reinforce a meaning that completely undercuts your stated argument. But your wording goes further: Cultural critics have commented on the degree of sado-masochism inherent in the scripts of early TV westerns; judging by your appropriation of this theme, I'd say this remains a problem in the right-wing blogosphere, as well!

1ifbyland:

I actually wrote a lengthy response to your thirty or forty comments; but when you decided to accuse me of being a sexual deviant, like all of us here in the "right-wing blogosphere," because I watched Westerns as a kid -- I realized response was futile.

Dafydd

Readers:

One comment deleted for obvious violation of the comments policy.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)