The Generals - Stepping up, or protecting *?

[Doctor_J]

Do you think the Generals defections and calls for Rumsfeld's head are their attempt to do the right thing for the country, or are they trying to circle the wagons around *, due to their friendship with Poppy and Dick, and other non-altruistic motives?

[saltpoint]

1. Voted for your first choice. I trust the generals' voices a lot and

deeply distrust Rumsfeld's account.

[Doctor_J]

3. But why not call for *'s resignation?

He's the CINC and despite his best efforts to pass the buck, it falls at his door. :shrug:

[saltpoint]

4. They don't much have to, since their denunciation of Rumsfeld implicates

the Commander-in-Chief's judgment.

Their loud and public calls for Rumsfeld's head almost instantly suggests poor judgment on the part of the man who appointed him.

The generals are loyal to the chain of command. They aren't storming the castle with torches and pitchforks, but they've earned their keep and want their voices heard.

Bush loses big when high-ranking generals tell the world that the Sec. of Defense is an arrogant jerk.

[Virginia Dare]

2. An interesting observation yesterday...

On the way home I was riding the metro through Arlington Cemetary. A large group of Army brass got on, in dress uniform, looking very subdued. Obviously, they had just come from a funeral, something our Coward-in-Chief has never done to my knowledge. This has to hit home for them.

:cry:

[Dhalgren]

5. I distrust these generals. I am not saying that they are being

dishonest, but none of them (that I have heard or read) has said anything but that Rumsfeld has "mismanaged" the War Against Iraq. I have not heard one say that the war was wrong or criminal, only that we went into it ill prepared and without enough men and equipment and that it was Rumsfeld's fault for doing so. None of these generals had a problem with the concept of invading Iraq, only with its execution. If one of them has said differently, then I will reconsidered that general's trustworthiness; but it seems, as a group, that they are making a case for (once again) the Dictator being out of the loop...

[pretzel4gore]

6. something's going to happen....

soon. maybe geeb (that's bush family's nik for the elder brother of john ellis bush, or 'jeb' gettit) will be diagnosed with some fatal disease, cancer or some terror event will make striking iran necessary asap, or....or....or....orrrr...well you get the idea. the bushevik gopigs are running scenerios through their nasty lil heads and focus grouping/reaction testing some of them, and whichever one works best they'll flog like a dead horsey (their pigmedia does that good) rush limbah-humbug is the voice of the ship o state, so pay att'n to the ouinks coming outta that arse ;)

[kenny blankenship]

7. They are limited/programmed to critically respond to only their immediate

superior, who is Rummy. He tells them what to do, on behalf of the President, and in his own capacity, he tells them how to do it. They are instrumentalists and technicians of war, not philosophers pondering the division of world civilizations. So if they have something stuck in their craw they've got to spit out, their dissent is going to center and confine itself to the instrumental side of things: the "howto" problems of implementing a war policy. (By implication this may reflect discredit on the war aims, but indirectly) Criticizing the underlying aim of the mission, which is set by the President, who is elected by the people, is just not in their set of responses. They reluctantly criticize the President's cabinet officer who from their point of view set the parameters for their application of force in a flawed manner. It has taken time and a great overcoming of internal resistance for them to do even this much. Waiting for them to start criticizing the President's overall "strategery" and reasons for going to war--that's just asking them to think in ways they've spent their lives avoiding. They are not supposed to spend time doubting wars they've been told to fight and win; and as professional soldiers they also will tend to see any war that the U.S. can win as inherently justified and good for their careers.
(William Odom is an exception to this rule--he questions the mission itself and was a very early critic among the former brass, but I think the rule will hold true for Generals who've been part of this latest war on Iraq--they will just criticize the parameters set on achieving the war aim, not the aim itself).

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I voted your first choice ........ the good of the country ........

I think this is a big deal. It is unusual. These are men who, for their entire careers, have been trained to support the chain of command and the civillian leadership. To speak out as they're doing is a big decision for them. I knoe there are some here on DU who will take this as a sign of something else ... some nefarious scheme. I see it and take it at face value.

I also ask, as this is being considered, to look at other retired top brass who have made the choice to somehow or other take a place in the public eye. Look back to the Democratic convention leading up to the 04 election cycle. Anyone remember all the retired top brass standing on that **Democratic** Party stage?

Look at the list ....... just from memory ..... a few of them ..... McPeak, Shinseki, Shalikashvili, Clark, Crowe, Shelton ...... others. Where was the counterbalanced Republican contingent at their convention?

No ..... the military is not a four square Republican domain. That's a myth of long standing.

And even wioth that, the ones speaking out now may well include some Republicans ... or they may well all be unaligned. But they're speaking out for what they believe in. They see where the military is headed. They see the junior officers leaving at the first opportunity. They see that the only ones remaining are the ones like Powell .... go along to get along types.

It could also be asked why these guys didn't speak out against the invasion in the first place. Actually, I suspect some of them did or considered it. But at that time it would have been very difficult. As we on the outside were branded traitors if we spoke out in opposition, imagine what the pressure inide the military was. And then there's the underlying notion of the military's being there to serve at the will of the civillian leadership. It could arguably be called treason for a man in uniform to speak out. I'm not all that up on the UCMJ anymore, but it might well say in there what they can and can't say.

In any case, I think these men are doing what they see as the right thing and I would bet next week's paycheck with anyone that they're speaking on behalf of MANY who are still on active duty.