| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
What stinks about the whole “retired generals speak out” issue
I’ll probably be accused by some of the hardcore lefties who read this blog of “questioning the patriotism” of the six retired generals who’ve called for Rummy’s ouster, but before I get started let me be clear: that is not what this post is about. It’s about questioning the wisdom of the generals in question as to the timing of their criticism of Rummy. I wrote this tonight at a message board I frequent, and am resposting it here:
[Regarding the issue of a possible court martial or removal for speaking out]: if these generals felt the level of DOD incompetence was bad enough to the point that we were risking lives unnecessarily, don’t you think instead of waiting 2- 3 years after the war started while the problems that started happening shortly after the fall of Baghdad that they have alleged only got worse as a result of that incompetence that they’d have risked removal or court martial in an attempt to stop anymore unnecessary bloodshed?
That is what stinks about all of this. Yes, these retired generals have the right (and obviously the experience) to speak out about where they believe the bulk of the blame should be placed, but what’s essentially happened here is that these generals, who now claim to have had serious reservations and misgivings – reservations and misgivings that they kept quiet about while they were serving – about how the post war plan was being carried out and the decisions Don Rumsfeld made chose to keep silent about it until they were safely retired. Instead of standing up and saying “something’s not right here – our troops are needlessly dying and they’re doing so because the Defense Sec. screwed things up” they chose to keep quiet about it. Now that they are retired, when they have nothing to lose, they speak out?
Whatever happened to standing on principle? Standing on the courage of your convictions? If you’re a military general and you think that the post war decisons made by the Sec. of Def. have been that bad while you’re still serving, and you think that our troops are dying unnecessarily because of the alleged gross incompetence of the Sec. of Defense, what do you do? Do you risk it all to try and prevent more bloodshed, or do you keep quiet about it and allow it to continue without speaking out until your career with the military is over (via retirement)?
Is that asking too much? I don’t think so. Because no matter who you are, whether you’re in the military or you work in the corporate world or a hospital or wherever, if you stand by and keep quiet while your gut feeling is telling you that what your superiors are doing is wrong simply because you’re afraid that either you’ll lose your job or be retaliated against, then you (general you) are part of the problem because you’ve chosen to put your career ahead of doing what your gut is telling you is right. If these generals had that big an issue with Rumsfeld, they should have said so while they were serving because it would have given them a lot more credibility because they’d be putting their careers on the line to try to right what they perceived to be wrongs. Some people would say “well that’s a pretty big risk you’re asking them to take” – and the response to that would be “the military is all about risk.” If you believe that the men and women under your command are dying unneceessarily due to an incompetent Sec. of Defense you say so *then* – you don’t let the bloodshed continue until after you’ve safely retired all the while the men and women you think are being forced to take unnecessary risks are still doing so, in part, because you refused to speak out about it.
This would like if I was a doctor in the hospital and believed that bad hospital policy was hurting patients and in some cases costing them their lives – and said nothing about it until I retired because I was afraid I’d lose my job and/or be retaliated against by the hospital management. What kind of doctor would that make me look like in the eyes of the community? One who sat around and turned a blind eye to what was happening, because I was too afraid to stand up and do what was right because I didn’t want to risk my job. And in the process, countless lives are harmed and in some cases lost unnecessarily.
You (general you) simply do not stand around and say nothing while you think those around you are losing their lives because in your opinion the Sec of Defense is an incompetent a**. You say something THEN because if you don’t, the problems still keep going on all the while you wait until you’re safely retired (and in some cases preparing to release a book about your experiences) in order to speak out about them.
When you look at things from that perspective, it doesn’t make them look like the ‘brave mavericks’ that people are making them out to be, does it?
Update: Just catching up on blogosphere opinion on this and I see the Godfather of the blogosphere made a similar point earlier:
If things were so bad before, they should have resigned in protest instead of complaining publicly once they were safely in retirement and, in some cases, had books to promote.
Yep.
Expose the Left has video of Rummy commenting on the suggestion that he should retire.
Others talking about this issue: Hugh Hewitt, Tony Blankley, Junkyard Blog, John Hawkins, Dean Esmay, Flopping Aces, Outside the Beltway (good link roundup there), Judith Apter Klinghoffer, chez Diva, Don Surber, Jack Kelly, Kim Priestap at Wizbang
Update: Kevin Drum, someone I rarely agree with, makes some great points in this post. Snippets:
Two things. First, Newbold isn’t just complaining that Donald Rumsfeld ignored professional military advice. He’s saying he thought this was an ill-conceived war and the uniformed military should have spoken out about it. Second, he’s plainly claiming to speak for some active duty generals and he’s encouraging them to go public.
There’s really nothing to like about this. Whether the war was “unnecessary” or not, that’s a political decision, not a military one. And if active duty generals follow his advice and start to speak out whenever they think the president is going to war unwisely, we’re going to have a serious problem on our hands.
There’s no question that military leaders should forcefully offer their best advice in private and should testify honestly in public on operational matters. When General Eric Shinseki gave his opinion that the invasion of Iraq required “several hundred thousand” troops, he was acting properly. That was a professional military opinion, and the way he was treated for expressing it was shameful. But that’s quite a different thing from speaking out simply because you think a war is a bad idea on policy grounds.
He’s right on that last point regarding a general speaking out to oppose a/the war simply on policy grounds. That’s an aspect I hadn’t considered. It’s bad enough, while serving, for a general to stay silent when they’ve got issues with the way a war is being managed. It’s another thing altogether to be a general opposed to the war in and of itself.
Wed. AM Update: These two gentlemen are also saying their complaints should have been voiced while on active duty :
The retired general officers who have recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld want to convince the public that civilian control has silenced military wisdom regarding the war in Iraq. They have chafed at Rumsfeld’s authoritarian style and they may even have legitimate differences of opinion with his decisions. But, while their advice and the weight of their experience should be taken into account, the important time for them to weigh in was while they were on active duty.
The two of us have experienced many of the circumstances confronting Rumsfeld. Our experience and connections at the Defense Department tell us that these generals probably had numerous opportunities to advise and object while on active duty. For them to now imply otherwise is disingenuous and quite possibly harmful for our prospects in Iraq. And it misrepresents the healthy give-and-take that we are confident is widespread between the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the capable military hierarchy. A general officer is expected to follow orders, but he is also entitled to advise if he thinks those orders are flawed.
Who wrote that opinion piece?:
Melvin R. Laird was a Republican representative from Wisconsin before serving as secretary of defense from 1969 to 1973. Robert E. Pursley, a retired lieutenant general in the Air Force, was military assistant to three secretaries of defense.
Read the whole thing. (Hat tip: Betsy Newmark)
Wed. Update II: In my initial post about the war on Rummy, I linked up to this post written by McQ, who was an active duty officer in the Army who shared his story of being in the position of refusing a direct order that he thought unnecessarily risked the lives and safety of the troops in his company. It’s well worth mentioning again (hat tip: Jon Henke):
I left the Army because I refused a direct order that I thought unlawfully and unnecessarily risked the lives and safety of the troops in my company if it was followed. As it turns out, the investigation that followed my refusal agreed that my refusal was proper and exhonorated me. But because of the culture within the army, my career was finished (wave makers and boat shakers need not apply), and I ended up resigning (and entering the reserves). Unfortunately, that same culture survives to this day and the above is the result.
But you know what, had one of my troops been killed or injured because I didn’t take that stand at the time, I’d have had to live with my moral cowardice for the rest of my life. It was one of the hardest decisions I ever made in my life. It cost me my career in the army. But it was the right decision and one I’ve never regretted. I was an RA infantry officer who had a career in the army guaranteed had I just kept my mouth shut and gone along with the order.
Wed. Update III: CavalierX weighs in with his thoughts.
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
52 Responses to “What stinks about the whole “retired generals speak out” issue”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Well since you are a Marine, uffda, then I’m sure you read about this story on the opinions of some Marines on extra body armor.
I’m antiwar, and bush’s war in Iraq was stupid,unnecessary,illegal, pre-emptive and based on lies and half-truths. It was brought to us by the Karl Rove marriage of the Christian conservatives also known as the armageddonists, the neo-cons and the Zionists. BIG oil funded the enterprise, that’s why gas costs $3.50 a gallon. It took awhile for the Generals to figure it out and now they are trying to show you folks the way. Peace
“I am anti- incompetent warplanning.”
The Pentagon is who plans for war. They have over 1,000 plans. Doesn’t matter who is in the administration. The Pentagon is working on plans for dozens of countries as we speak. This is what the pentagon does. I’m sorry you think they are incompetent.
“I don’t give any credence to your ill-informed comments”
You my attacking acquaintance are not a very well-mannered dissagreer. There is no place for your view of Sev’s comments just because he did or didn’t serve. People from all walks of life have opinions and it would be up to you to treat everyone well. Though I point out that you are making false allegations and not comprehending other people’s messages I don’t say that your opinion is worthless because you are or aren’t in the military.
Deal with the substance of arguments not the person. Deal with the content of what is written.
“when asking for accountability and competence. “
Again, A difference of opinion with someone does not point to their incompetence. Nobody called Zinni incompetent for wanting to go city to city with a 300,000 troop force. It’s a different view. What decisions have been made have been made. All in all we have suffereed far less casualties than all other wars except those fought from 15,000 feet in the air.
“I don’t like losing people when it can be prevented.”
Who does?
“But I guess that really caring for the welfare of our Marines and soldiers, as opposed to wearing a flag on one’s lapel, makes one a leftist.”
Oh yeah. I’ve seen this argument before from leftists. Pretty incompetent stuff to be saying stuff like this
I get tired of dealing with the tactics of the left, just like you get tired of us but guess what, I keep soldiering on. 
Stop making your disagreements with others turn you into someone with such hate.
- You left the eeeevvvvil Zionists out of your rant steve(fn). Got to be eeevvvilll Zionists in there somewhere. You’re slipping….
- Bang
He had it in another thread today Bang.
Baklava,
I guess Uffda is blaming all the guys at CENTCOM for the “incompetent” war planning. They are the guys who plan operations in the Middle East. So, it looks like Rummy dodged that bullet. He can’t be held responsible for incompetent war plans.
I doubt uffda is a Marine. Hummers were not designed as a armored vehicle. They were replacements for the vererable jeep which wasn’t armored.
Marines fight with what they have, not what they see in video games. If I were President, first thing I’d do is give the Marine Air Corps all the A-10s and then upgrade them. You think the A-10s were effective before, try them in the hands of a Marine close support pilot.
Yeah.
I think leftists think each president and secretary of defense plans wars. They come into office and draw up all the scenarios. Thousands of them.
BTW, Why are they leftists? Because of their views and sources of information that help them form their views.
It’s not a BAD thing. I was once one. But I saw the light. And when I did it was over a year’s worth of visiting the library 3 times a week (during my 6 year enlistment) in 1991.
Uffda could do the same research I did.
A Marine and an Airman walk into the latrine and take a leak. The Marine washes and washes his hands, while the Airman just walks out.
The Marine looks at the Airman and says “In the Marines, they taught us to wash our hands after going to the bathroom!”
The Airman replies “In the Air Force they taught us not to pee on our hands.”
“give the Marine Air Corps all the A-10s and then upgrade them. ”
Not a bad idea, unfortunately the AF is overly enamored of high tech toys and dislikes the A-10 because it’s not sexy enough, despite its effectiveness.
Actually, the Army should have them, but there’s this little doctrinal issue about the Army not being allowed to fly fixed wing combat aircraft (dumb, but it’s a turf war between the AF and Army, exactly the kind of thing Rumsfeld has been attacking and PO’ing the military brass by doing). The Marines would be an OK substitute, but they have their own attack aircraft and infrastructure. And often the Army fights where the Marines don’t, and in larger formations/numbers, and is usually in need of more close air support.
The A-10 should be upgraded with a decent FLIR pod and targeting system. It is, to this day, perhaps the finest ground attack aircraft ever made.
Uffda, a very apt name since something just plain stinks about your claims.
You say you’re a Marine officer. I have no way to tell, you could be. Or not. I will say this, you do not write or communicate in a way that sounds genuine. You write like someone with a liberal arts education and a very leftist viewpoint.
You claim to have been an officer, yet you dispute that general officers running around saying the things they are endanger the troops. Any damn thing that can negatively effect morale or support for the troops can endanger the troops. An officer would know that.
My son is a soldier, and he noted that not enough armored vehicles had been available at the start. But it’s also quite evident that military planners did not expect the need for it or that they failed to say they needed it. To blame it squarely on Rumsfeld is disingenuous at best, a flat lie at worst. An officer would know that.
The Marines are resisting the “extra armor”. It makes them a nice bullet-proff target since they can’t move worth a damn in it. An officer would listen to his troops, not pontificate.
So, uffda to you uffda.
A retired Read Admiral speaks. I was in the Navy. Admirals were in my chain of command.
In it is:
Believe it or not, there are sodliers, people who have served in the different branches of the Armed Forces, that are regulars and post here, including myself.
US Army, 1st duty station Korea (Cmp Edwards, 9 miles from the DMZ), 2nd duty station Ft. Campbell, with a small stint in Panama for Jungle Training. After which I spent 6 years in the Army National Guard.
I was not a soldier, I was a Marine.
Symmantics. If you are a Marine, you were a soldier, whther you believe it or not. You would have served in one of the branches of the Armed Forces, and deployed where your commanders told you to.
You are just using symmantics. Whether you want to believe it or not, you were a soldier as soon as you signed on the dotted line.
“Believe it or not, there are sodliers, people who have served in the different branches of the Armed Forces, that are regulars and post here, including myself.”
Yep, and I will back you up on that. In addition to the people who post here who’ve stated their military experience on the blog, there are any number who haven’t stated so in this blog but whose email addresses tell me they’re military.
Ray-gun, is the President responsible for the mess in Iraq. Before Ray-gun, we did not start pre-emptive wars. He did that in Grenada. Pre-emptive war and retribution are a part of the Zionist philosophy and when that philosophy enters into the foreign poicy of America, as it has, “we the people” are in trouble. Peace
“Pre-emptive war and retribution are a part of the Zionist philosophy”
Got a link where that is stated? Till then….
Those of you who are computer savvy, might want to link the link at Michelle’s site. “Themarine” has a very well written and respectfuly submitted post worthy of reading, regarding General Zinni.
Rumsfeld may be a demanding son of a bitch but at his level you have to be. Just like any private would look at the General as the demanding bastard that he must be.
Someone shared a quote with me this morning that is appropriate here.
“I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit, and to mothball his opinions.” —General Omar Bradley