Military Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation

[Marvelous3]

I don't get it, Bush said he was doing a "fantastic job"? Are we still going to listen to the generals on the ground or are we going to burry our head in the sand on this one?

lol @ volhoe or whatever his name is.

:owned:

Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=10582

[JHEIII874T5M]

Can you not see the political forum?

[gdizzle]

Can you not see the political forum?

apparenlty not, at least he didn't post it in the performance forum.

[Plan_B]

They have been asking him to resign for years, and Bush is an idiot, you really think he is going to admit that he is a failure?

Edited November 4, 2006 by Plan B

[HomesickPirate]

he posted it in the tbricks forum, which is usually where he posts these things.

mods moved it to ot

you have a politics forum? cool...

[Marvelous3]

Sorry, I missed your OT board...there's only like 500 sections to sort through on VS.

[Che'_Moderator]

he posted it in the tbricks forum, which is usually where he posts these things.

mods moved it to ot

you have a politics forum? cool...

Yes but its supporting members only for replies. It keeps the people suppressed as we like it

Sorry, I missed your OT board...there's only like 500 sections to sort through on VS.

And yet you somehow found it.

[Zappo]

I don't get it, Bush said he was doing a "fantastic job"? Are we still going to listen to the generals on the ground or are we going to burry our head in the sand on this one?

Bush does that a lot. He did it with Brown, then forced him to resign within a week.

I don't see Rumsfeld resigning though, and I don't see Bush forcing him to. Rumsfeld believes he is running things the best that can be done, and Bush believes it also. Neither of them seem to listen to the military commanders.

[Che'_Moderator]

Neither of them seem to listen to the military commanders.

What commanders? You mean the politicians that compose all the top level brass?

[USMC850T]

I don't get it, Bush said he was doing a "fantastic job"? Are we still going to listen to the generals on the ground or are we going to burry our head in the sand on this one?

lol @ volhoe or whatever his name is.

:owned:

The magazines you qouted have no official affiliation with any of the branches of service.

[starfish]

B)-->

QUOTE(Plan B @ Nov 4 2006, 10:48 AM) ←

They have been asking him to resign for years, and Bush is an idiot, you really think he is going to admit that he is a failure?

But first you have to recognize who the "THEY" really are. Whenever Rummy shows up to meet with the troops he is greeted with cheers. In this case the "THEY" is Gannett Co., owner of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times. Gannett Co. maybe more familiar to many of you as the owner of USA Today newspaper. This is nothing more than a cleverly diguised pre-election political hit piece by another liberal media member. Go figure?

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

[///RonalT5]

Bush does that a lot. He did it with Brown, then forced him to resign within a week.

I don't see Rumsfeld resigning though, and I don't see Bush forcing him to. Rumsfeld believes he is running things the best that can be done, and Bush believes it also. Neither of them seem to listen to the military commanders.

+1. I will reiterate this again... DEMOCRACY WILL NOT WORK IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

It doesn't take a genius to realize it. Bush has his own ideology but will not look at the facts. When has forcing a democracy actually worked on a country who had just had a dictator in power for the last thirty or so years. It took the U.S. a long time to perfect democracy (which is a little sketchy now), but we have a good idea how to put it into effect. Here in the U.S., we have a seperation of church and state, and in the middle east, everything is related to religion. the religious sects will fight each other no matter what, and they will assasinate the commanders who they don't like and there will always be corruption. We need to realize that and come up with a new stratagy. We all make mistakes, but we need to realize when we do it and change course to make the outcome better. And USMC, I agree that Terrorists are not included in the Geneva 'conventions,' but the definition of 'terrorist' is pretty wide in bush's mind. We take people into torture places that have nothing to do with terrorist organizations. They have no power to defend themselves with an attorney or anything. How would you like to be picked off the street and tortured for three years without a fair trial or anything? Don't know how it would feel, ask Majar Arar, the Canadian... It is a disgrace what this country is comming to, and we need to change our policies for a GOAL, not just fighting random insurgents...

~Mike

P.S. Thanks for opening the forum up to the regular members. :)

[USMC850T]

+1. I will reiterate this again... DEMOCRACY WILL NOT WORK IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

If democracy will not work in the middle east, what explains Saudi Arabia's recent democratic reforms?? They are taking steps towards a democracy under mounting pressure from a growing democratic movement, but pfff.... that will never work

And USMC, I agree that Terrorists are not included in the Geneva 'conventions,'

No you don't, otherwise you would not have brought up the "geneva accords"

but the definition of 'terrorist' is pretty wide in bush's mind. We take people into torture places that have nothing to do with terrorist organizations.

Wrong. I believe it is quite focused, as the people whom conduct the interrogations are probably quite busy, and don't have time to just interrogate anyone off the street.

How would you like to be picked off the street and tortured for three years without a fair trial or anything?

That doesn't just happen, and the torture you cite occurred in a Syrian prision. You are also going to have a fairly difficult time trying to make an arguement based on the exception to the rule.

ask Majar Arar, the Canadian

Maybe you mean Mahar Arar. Yes he was detained an interrogated by us, until he was deported to Syria. All his torture occured in Syria.

And now for the kicker:

t is a disgrace what this country is comming to, and we need to change our policies for a GOAL, not just fighting random insurgents...

Wait a goal? I think those have been pretty clear from the start. And random insurgents? By random you mean the Syrian, Iranian, and ethnic death squads causing our problems in Iraq? So we should change our goal of trying to train up the Iraqi police and army so they can take control and we can leave? Should we no longer resist the insurgents?

You really aren't listening to anything anyone is saying in this debate, and you keep blundering around bringing up random examples that are at best loosley based in facts, if not nothing more that conspiricy theorist paranioa. YES EVOLVE, THEY WANT TO WISK US ALL OFF THE STREETS AND TORTURE US!!!1!11!1!1 YOUR DAY WILL COME NIAEVE ONE!1!1!!!111

Edited November 6, 2006 by USMC850T

[robert213]

From http://www.militarycity.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=549

Old 11-04-2006, 01:40 PM

Robert Alan_guest

I read the editorial, and found its conclusion to be absurd, to say the least.

So some retired generals don't like the way things are going. BFD! Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not gospel, and are of no more merit than anyone else's.

And if they were so convinced that they are right, then why do they not have the courage to stand up and let us, soldiers and citizens alike, know just who they are? Why do they hide behind a cloak of anonimity?

They are in no danger of being court-martialed, demoted, losing their pension, or being punished in any other way, are they? No, of course not. Then why the cowardice? And that is precisely what they are, cowards.

If they had the courage of their convictions, they would come out of their closet, and say what they think in public, for all of us to see.

If I can do it, (and I often do), then why can't they? Are they afraid of being ridiculed, and ostracized by their buddies? Probably.

Now that I had had my say about the retired cowards, er, generals, on to the media.

The mainstream media has, since President Bush took office, accused him of just about everything except child molesting, and rape. And the Gannett group, which publishes the Army Times, is no different. In fact, after the New York Times, Gannett papers are among the most critical of everything the president says, or does.

This hatchet job on Mr. Rumsfield is just another effort by the media to chip away at President Bush, and the GOP in general. It is, simply put, politically motivated.

This editorial is, IMO, a misrepresentation of the truth.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

It seems to me that what Gen. Abizaid was doing was pointing out a possibility, not a forecast of things to come.

If I were to say, "I believe that the rising hatred of Islam in this country is probably as bad as I've seen it... and that if not stopped, it is possible that the US could move towards mass killings of muslims."

That viewpoint is no more, or less legitimate, or accurate than the generals view of Iraq. Of course, his statement was edited, and I have to wonder just what the writer of this editorial left out.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

"Losing control"? I think not. America is one of the very few nations where a military leader can disagree with political policy and not have his head handed to him. I suggest that the writer go back to the late 1970's and see what the generals then thought publicly of Jimmy Carter. Or what they thought publicly of LBJ, and Robert McNamara. Or even further back, to Truman, and FDR.

There is ample historical precedent of generals openly disagreeing with official policy. In spite of that, they did their jobs anyway. Which is what the generals today are doing. Their jobs.

I defend Mr. Rumsfield not from partisanship, but because I believe that he is honestly trying to do the best possible job, under the worst possible circumstances. The media, the far left, and the Democrats have harped on him since day one. Not only is this not "fair", it's ethically wrong.

President Bush has stood by him, as well he should, knowing that it is unlikely that there is anyone else who could do the job half as well.

I have a child serving in Iraq, and if I thought for one minute that there was anyone who would make a better SecDef that Donald Rumsfield, I too would be demanding that he step down.

The sad part of this is, we are now victims of our own success. Since the end of the Vietnam war, the US has won every conflict it has been involved in. Our victories were quick, and the cost in lives was small.

Now, the public, and many in the media, as well as our politicians, have come to expect that this will be true of all conflicts. And when it does not go according to their wishes, they howl like banshees, demanding someone's head on a platter.

This is wrong. I believe that the Army Times Publishing Co., the Gannett Group, and the convieniently anonymous author of this "editorial" owes Mr. Rumsfield an apology.

They all were, and are, quite wrong.

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

11-04-2006, 01:48 PM

mad_cow_guest

A grand total of one military leader was quoted in this editorial and he did not call for Secretray Rumsfeld to be fired. Is this all you've got?

Using the military and the war in Iraq to make a political statement is beneath contempt.

This is an election Hit Piece. Period.

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

1-04-2006, 01:59 PM

mad_cow_guest

I don't see how you can support Rumsfeld when almost no one serving in the military does?

Where did you get your facts? How do you know "almost no one serving in the military does"? What did you do, take a poll?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think our men and women in the military need or want you to speak for them.

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

11-04-2006, 02:06 PM

Robert Alan_guest

Originally Posted by FotF

I think you are missing a point of the article. The war has failed. The leadership's failed plan caused it to fail. This point is not contended by anyone in the military. I don't see how you can support Rumsfeld when almost no one serving in the military does? Perhaps you are blinded by the desire to believe that your son's military service was not wasted.

No, I don't believe that I have missed the point of the article at all. The war has not failed. Not yet anyway. That won't happen until the democrats regain power in congress, or the White House. THEN it will fail.

Your statement that "This point is not contended by anyone in the military" is not only ridiculous in the extreme, it is not even remotely true.

THe vast majority of those now serving in the military support Mr. Rumsfield. Where you ever got the silly notion that they don't is beyond understanding. I suggest that you try reading something else besides the NYT, or watching CNN.

My daughter's service in Iraq has not been, nor is it being wasted. She was wounded on her first tour, and after rehab, returned to Iraq, voluntarily, because she believes in the job that we are doing there. And if you will notice, there are more than a few of our people signing up for additional tours in Iraq voluntarily.

That bespeaks of how important they think the job in Iraq is.

What will cause their service to be wasted would be to pull out of Iraq, before the job is done.

Then, and only then, will there be any valid comparison to Vietnam. Now there was a wasted effort.

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

[robert213]

11-04-2006, 03:17 PM

jameskbachman_guest

It is not Mr. Rumsfeld who must go, but rather the failed strategy of training Iraqis to take over for U.S. troops. In some areas of the country, such as Kurdistan, the local militia is sufficient to defend the people. In others, the militias will have to have at it until a peace agreement is reached. In other areas, the training strategy may be working. It is counterproductive, at any rate, to keep expending lives and money on police and military who are not loyal to a unified Iraqi government, as the article implies.

James K. Bachmann

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

11-04-2006, 03:27 PM

M Short

30 plus yrs ago, I was a VP in the NY Times organization. Today, The Gannett Publishing organization makes the NY Times look like the John Birch Society.

Guest # 9 has it right. Read him again and again.

USA Today and the Gannett org are shameless. And remember they own The AF Times, The Army Times, The Armed Forces Journal, The Defense News, The Federal Times, The Marine Corps Times, The Military City, The Navy Times and the Nursing Spectrum.

Members of the US Military, you are being brainwashed by your own media.

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

11-04-2006, 03:28 PM

Unregistered

I cannot believe how blatantly political this editorial is. To take a pot shot at the SECDEF this close to the Nov 7th election is clearly motivated by partisan politics. Notice how all the Bush haters post their cheers to this editorial. It is absolutely tasteless.

I will never purchase another times paper so long as I live. I recommend that anyone who believes we should win this war should do the same. I think there is a time and place to have an honest debate about how much the SECDEF has mismanaged, if at all. However, it should not happen less than a week from an election and not without some representation from the other side. Clearly the military times is a partisan paper and has lost all credibility as an objective source of news for military members.