Generals finally speaking up; where were they when needed?

[dajoki]

WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041001027.html?nav=hcmodule

Vietnam's Forgotten Lessons

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Back when Hugh Shelton was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he sent all 17 of his four-star generals "Dereliction of Duty" by H.R. McMaster and asked them to a Pentagon breakfast to discuss the book with the author. The book charges that the U.S. military was derelict in its duty by meekly allowing duplicitous and inept civilians from the president on down to lead the nation into a war (Vietnam) that it then fought unsuccessfully. Shelton vowed that this would not happen again.

We all know the cliche about generals fighting the last war, but in Iraq it is not the tactics that were duplicated -- certainly not compared to the Persian Gulf War -- but the tendency of the military to do what it was told and keep its mouth shut. Shelton, who retired in 2001, cannot be blamed for this and maybe no one but Donald Rumsfeld can, but the fact remains that the United States fought a war many of its military leaders thought was unnecessary, unwise, predicated on false assumptions and incompetently managed. Still, no one really spoke up.

Now, some have -- although from retirement. In recent days, three former senior officers have called for Rumsfeld to be sacked. The most recent is Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who does not stop at faulting Rumsfeld but blames himself as well. "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat -- al-Qaeda," he writes in a Time magazine article this month. He joins Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi security forces and who has also called on President Bush to fire Rumsfeld. "President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once," Eaton wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece.

The third retired general is Anthony Zinni, a four-star Marine with vast experience in the Middle East. (He was Bush's Israeli-Palestinian negotiator for a while.) He goes further than (merely) recommending Rumsfeld's political defenestration. He also strongly suggests that something is broken in the American military, that its priories are misplaced. Too many senior officers put their careers first and candor or honesty second. One who did not, the then-Army chief of staff, Eric K. Shinseki, was rebuked by Rumsfeld and his career essentially ended. After that, the brass knew that the path to promotion was to get with the program. They saluted Rumsfeld and implemented a plan many of them thought was just plain irresponsible.

[MadMaddie]

1. They were upholding their oaths...and following orders...

Notice Zinni like many other retired military brass are only speaking out after retiring or getting kicked out of the military...

If they would have openly challenged the * cabal they would have been swift boated and destroyed....

Sad state of affairs isn't it....?

[dajoki]

6. Yes it is n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Zinni and Newbold have been retired for some time

I don't know about Eaton.

But Newbold retired in 2002. I read somewhere he retired precisely because he didn't support the Iraq war, but he didn't speak out until now because Condi Rice's remark about "a thousand tactical errors" pissed him off. He sees that as an indictment on the military, as opposed to the strategic errors that were made by the President (and his National Security Advisor) and the civilians in the Pentagon.

Zinni also retired some time ago. 2000, I think. I know he was Bush's envoy to the ME in 2001, but I think he was out of uniform by that time. In fairness to Zinni, he has been speaking out about how stupid it was to invade Iraq, and how screwed up it's been since, altho he has been gutless about placing the blame where it belongs--on the President. Zinni is an avowed Republican.

Point is, you can't say they were upholding their oaths and following orders.

Isn't it interesting that this article leaves out the Democratic generals? Wes Clark has been speaking out against the war since 2002. So has Hoar, Crowley, Odum, Shalikashvili, Kennedy and a number of others.

[Donna Zen]

15. Excellent point

I've been following this story with gritted teeth as the MSM etal ignores that the generals that stood on stage at the DNC. Of course Clark has been there since before the IWR vote and has never quit.

I guess it only counts if your a republican.

[Adelante]

30. Not to mention in September 2003

Clark said Rumsfeld should be FIRED. Forget this resignation bullshit.

[babylonsister]

2. Please don't diss them if they're speaking up. The situation

in Iraq has changed. That's enough for me to get the hell out.

[bdamomma]

3. these generals are

the only ones, who could probably rein in Rummy and Cheney with their sick sick plans. More these generals have to come and speak their minds. They are tired by these sick bastards especially Rummy.

[dajoki]

7. It's their duty to speak out n/t

[skyblue]

26. These Generals Are Heros

They are our best chance of getting the attention of those who still believe this is not just Bushco's war, but God's War and Armageddon is upon us and we must fight or suffer the flames of eternal hell fire. And believe me there are alot who favor our staying there. It is not easy for others to see the mistakes when they're being fed messages from the pulpit and the bully pulpit that we are being Saved.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I would be completely shocked to hear a serving flag officer speak out

That simply is not what they do.

And it is rare for them to speak out after retirement, too, for that matter.

To hear so many of them speaking out now is truly remarkable. Rest assured ... if that many are speaking out, things are EVERY bit as fucked up as you think they are ... and maybe worse.

[MadMaddie]

5. I think you are right...things are worse than they appear.....

[dajoki]

8. That is the point...

it IS that fucked up.

[agincourt]

9. Stalin sacked all but the toadies,

it the years before Barbarossa. Now which God was it that appointed Bush to lead us children?

[dajoki]

10. SCOTUS

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Only Now? What about General Wes Clark speaking out in 2002?

CREDIT FOR THIS COMPILATION GOES TO FrenchieCat. I am only PARTLY reposting it here:

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002,
in which Clark wrote:

Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them. Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm


In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/


U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ
Hearing Before the
House Armed Services Committee

Sept. 26, 2002

...CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).

(FROM LATER IN THE SAME HEARING TESTIMONY):

...we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC


10/10/02: Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq
www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html

University of Massachusetts at Boston
Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq (October 10, 2002)
By Michael McPhee

Wesley K. Clark, retired general of the US Army, was the distinguished guest of the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs on October 10. Over seventy-five people came to hear the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe discuss his reflections on the US policy towards Iraq.

Edmund Beard, director of the McCormack Institute, introduced Clark and gave an account of the general’s impressive military career, which includes command at every level from company to division. Clark is both a soldier and scholar, graduating first in his 1966 class of the United States Military Academy at West Point and holding a master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

Clark, who was the NATO commander in charge of the effort to stop the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, spoke of his experiences in Bosnia, where he learned first-hand about the chaos of unleashed ethnic hatreds. It is exactly this chaos that has led Clark to raise a voice of concern over possible conflict with Iraq. Clark believes that a military war with Iraq could be over in as little as two weeks. He is concerned with the lack of a long-range plan for the chaos that would ensue among the Kurds, Shiites, and those factions loyal to Saddam Hussein, which Clark believes would play out on a much larger scale than what took place in Bosnia.

Clark spoke of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, seeing it as a time when the U.S. lost its adversaries and failed in its foreign policy strategy. At that time there were two groups in Washington debating the role of the military; one group saw the military merely as the fighter and winner of wars; another group, led by Madeleine Albright, saw the military as a useful tool in aiding third world countries.

In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration’s preemption policy and striking out.

Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.

Clark stated his view that terrorism is the problem, not Iraq. He also voiced concern that Americans not blame Islam, and spoke of his belief that US interests are best served in reaching out to those who do not embrace the ideals of radical Islam.

[gratuitous]

12. If you're looking for courage, don't go to a general

Career comes a long ways ahead of every other consideration. And, since it takes a couple of decades of work to get those stars on your shoulders, it's probably no big surprise. I don't know what I'd say or do if I had to choose between telling the truth and flushing my life down the toilet, or keeping quiet and continuing to draw a fat paycheck and all the other perks and benefits that go with being a general in the military.

I know that I'd have a tough time sleeping at night, though, knowing that by my silence and complicity thousands of young men and women under my command were being killed or maimed because I had too much fealty to my pension and not enough to them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. It's not quite that black and white

Obviously some career military people have a lot of courage, some have demonstrated it in combat situations where it was their actual lives, not just careers, at stake.

It's complex as are most things. Some might feel that they are better off fighting from the inside in private, perhaps thinking that the person who may replace them would be even more compliant than they are. Some are really committed to the military as an institution, and are hesitant to potentially abandon it to crazies who may do greater damage. Some might have been hoping that Kerry would beat Bush, so they could avoid making that hard personal choice.

Sometimes we don't know about the battles fought inside the military and with the Secretary of Defense until far later, if at all. Clark tried to get the U.S. to send forces into Rwanda to stop Genocide there, and when that failed he vowed to fight harder and longer if genocide ever happened again. It led him to tensions with some Superiors over how to handle Kosovo among other things. Shelton got back at Clark with a public back stabbing smear in 2003.

The Generals speaking out now are getting some praise, but part of the left went after Clark when he started speaking out in 2002, they didn't trust him. Clark commented during that campaign that he lost a lot of long time friends when he started speaking out against Bush in public. They can get it from both sides.

[Texas_Kat]

19. Highly ironic

That Shelton made noises about 'speaking up' all the while complaining and dissing Wes Clark because he spoke up against genocide in the Balkans.

Here's what Clark said about the responsibilities of the General Staff on MTP in August of 05:

...When generals are given senior command positions and they've had their entire lives and professional education in the military, they're expected to have a body of professional knowledge and character that lets them stand up for what they believe.

So we have a principle of civilian supremacy. No one doubts that the secretary of defense is ultimately in charge. He's going to make the right decision or he's going to make the right decision as he sees it.

It's up to the generals. If they feel he's making the wrong decision, they fight it. If they feel it's that significant, then they retire or resign from their position. Nobody's done that. So whatever the thrashing around was, they are complicit in that decision, in those decisions. Whether they turn out to have been bad or not, that was military advice.

Now, we've all been in positions where we've disagreed with our bosses, and it turns out, you know, bosses normally don't like that, so it's a pretty unpleasant thing, and you've got to have people of character in uniform at high positions, and then you've got to trust the process. In this case, I don't think the answers that came out of that process were good.

Fighting for what he believed in got Clark 'retired' early by Shelton and William Cohen (not Richard Cohen the WaPo columnist)-- William Cohen the Republican Defense Secty under Clinton).

[Donna Zen]

16. Maybe that's why so many in congress held their tongues?

After all they have perks, about the same pay, and don't have to work as hard.

BTW, Newbold did resign because of this war.

[ShortnFiery]

17. That's TRUE, but I was not made aware of it by the

Corporate Media. Does anyone know of a General from the Pentagon resigning out of protest?

I'm so proud that he claimed "point blank" that he resigned because he did NOT what to own this.

Did you hear that Powell!!!

If Powell would have blown the whistle, or even refused to give that "pathetic vial" presentation at the UN, would it have STOPPED the war?

[dajoki]

20. BINGO!!

[cassiepriam]

18. They all voted for Bush, what did they expect?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You sure of that statement and can you prove it?

After all, I know of officers in the US Military who did NOT vote for bush... soem of them fairly senior too... broad brushes and all that

[cassiepriam]

23. Can you prove it? Start naming names of senior military men

who did not vote for Bush in the first and second "elections."

[Lars39]

27. That is debatable if these generals were in the last couple of Pentagon

purges.

[blm]

21. Some did at the time, and the corporate media MUTED their voices while

pumping up the claims of Tommy Franks and his Bush loyalist crew. They totally downplayed the generals and commanders siding with Kerry while giving Franks and his gang of liars unlimited airtime to refute Kerrry's charges against Bush's military strategies before the election.

It was alot easier for more to come out post Fitzgerald indictments and postKatrina - it was more difficult for media to cover for more Bush lies as they did throughout his first term.

[dajoki]

24. whatever the reason it's true n/t

[IndianaGreen]

25. with the exception of Zinni who retired long before the war

and General Eric Shinseki, one of the most honorable Army Chiefs of Staff ever, the others acted like Hitler and the Kaiser's generals, cheering their leaders while the war was going well and damning them when things turned sour.

[0007]

29. How true.

[bklyncowgirl]

28. I think this Iran talk has these guys worried

They're looking at the same groups of blithering idiots invading another country on flimsy evidence for the most suspect of motives.

If you devoted your life to making the US military the finest professional fighting force in the world, you would hate seeing it destroyed.

[dajoki]

31. you make a great point n/t