I can't find a clip of Gen Joulwan's commentary on The Situation Room, but I'm sure it'll be available soon.
I can say - now - I told you so. Even before I left DC in 2001, the Pentagon was in turmoil over the SecDefs autocratic, dictatorial management. Gen Shinseki was all but run off from the Pentagon because he dared to share a different opinion about the direction of the Army. Dumsfeld so heavily brow beat senior leadership in the Pentagon that no one - not one single Active Duty 4 Star - would take the job when Shinseki left. Had to bring a man out of retirement.
I've said it before - I'm saying it again: Rumsfeld must go.
I can only hope this is the beginning of the end of this Secretary of Defense.
Are you going to try and deny that Mr. Clinton slaughtered the US military?
That aside, I've very rarely commented here on my opinion of other facets of his administration so I find it hard to believe that you could guess much about my thoughts in that regard.
Alas we sidetrack... but since we three all seem to be in agreement that Rumsfeld needs a footwear induced trip to the curb, we will have to wait for a Rumsfeld supporter to chime in before getting back on track.
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Here is another article where JSC Gen. Pace defends Rummy. Just for argumental reasons. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
That being posted, I agree %100 with Newbold, this has been a failure at the highest levels of government and that the troops have done a great job for the most part, despite being put into a most difficult situation, for Bush, Rummy and Condi to minimize thier roles in the mishaps is tragic IMHO.
My question is, if he goes...who takes over? I know the Powell wasnt really interested in the job of SecDef, but how much would he have done differently? Especially with combat experience which Rumsfeld never had IIRC, I know he was a navy pilot, but in between Korea and Vietnam.
What I see in this administration is an eagerness to put troops in harms way, when they werent willing to do the same themselves. I dont think combat experience should be needed for a PoTUS, but between SecDef, VP and PoTUS, one of them should have seen thier buddies get hurt before they send folks in, especially under false pretenses.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
I posted that bit from Gen Pace above. Pace is doing exactly what he needs to do to keep his job . . . .
Interesting note here: All these retired Generals that are now speaking out are doing so only now because of the law. They are still bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a time after separation from the military. Furthermore, they have friends and associates in the Pentagon that they have to protect as well . . .
If Rummy were to get replaced it'd be a hard call as to his successor. No one I can think of at the moment makes me happy. Colin Powell of course, but he burned his bridges. Besides, why would be want to be SecDef having been SecState already?
No one else comes to mind. And ANYONE could be a failure, especially if selected by PotUS . . . he has proven less than stellar in his staff selections in some cases . . .
Agreed 100%. Saw Ann Coulter once on Fox stating that Rumsfield was the greatest SOD in the history of the USA. I almost threw up my dinner.
In my humble opinion, he has seriously harmed the military with his management style, (its my way or the highway). Iraq is a perfect example of a mess. I recalled staff asking for more soliders, and he refused the request, and the rest is history.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 18): Good thread ANC. Many high level officials have been saying this for quite sometime. You know as well my distaste for Rumsfeld from previous threads I've posted.
On this issue TBar we unequivocally agree . . . always have.
Top Brass in the Five Sided Funny Farm have bailed out on careers because of Rummy. In this single aspect - the Vietnam era is replaying itself right on the shores ofthe Potomac. Civilian Leadership (read that : Rumsfeld) is not, will not, cannot listen to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines trained in the Operational Art of War and it's continuing to cost us gravely.
Quoting JamesAg96 (Reply 20): Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 18):
On a sidenote, it was the army that Clinton created that won the war Afghanistan and the initial round of combat in Iraq.
One could argue that those occured in spite of what was "created" rather than because of.
I would agree with your assessment James . . . the US Military, in it's current form - that is post Clinton era drawdowns - is great out of the gate, but has no staying power. It's too damned small, stretched too thin, and inadequately equipped. And the fault begins with Bush 1, accelerates with with Clinton and continues with Bush 2.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4349 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6): we will have to wait for a Rumsfeld supporter to chime in before getting back on track.
Are there any such creatures, even among the hardcore Bush supporters?
No matter what you think of Bush, Rumsfield's arrogance has been an issue from day one. While reports similar to those posted above, from civilians and lower level military brass, have been appearing almost since the beginning, at last there are some truly top level brass in positions to expose the situation. I only hope that Bush's demonstrated blind loyalty doesn't lead him to categorically dismiss it all.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
"He never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of," said Rumsfeld. "An awful lot of people around here were not shy about giving their views. ... But in terms of why he would come up with this now, I just can't speak to that."
I can speak to it . . . the answer is simple: Lt Gen Newbold didn't want to have his ass handed to him and be forced to retire like SHinseki and a dozen others . . . that's the answer to that.
I watched Gen Joulwan yesterday on CNN (The Situation Room) where he made this comment (paraphrasing), "We need more Generals to stand up and take issue with this Secretary of Defense. Plenty of junior soldiers already do, but if you're a general, you ought to act like it". Very well said IMO.
Having been stationed at the Five Sided Funny Farm I can assure you it's nothing more than a politicians haven . . . very few REAL soldiers there.
Occasionally, you'll see Brigadier General David Grange on CNN. He retired as a one star, although - he once wore two stars! Now there is a top notch general. Why one star now??? Well, it's like this. He was the Division Commander (I believe it was the 82nd) as a 2 star, but was a junior 2 star. Once his command time had expired, he was told he would be transferred to the Pentagon. He refused the assignment stating, as I have, that it's not the real Army in the Pentagon. He wanted to stay with the troops. He was summarily retired. Since he hadn't held the 2 star rank for the prescribed minimum time, he was reduced in rank to a single star upon retirement.
Quite a shame that our DoD (my Army) allows that crap. Rummy could have stopped that too, but he didn't.
Gen Peter Pace, C-JCS, said, ""We have sufficient personnel, weapons, equipment, you name it, to handle any adversary that might come along," he said.
IMO - utter nonsense. Standing next to Rummy today (yesterday actually), defending his boss. Honorable to defend your boss - but only if he's right. I've lost a great degree of respect for Pace.