November 04, 2006

Editorial
Time for Rumsfeld to go

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld —

“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://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

Our Armed Forces are a bunch of Surrendercrats!!

We probably should have alerted Iraq that our mission had been accomplished.

I have no idea just how much Rumsfeld is to blame for lapses in progress in Iraq, but if he shoulders the blame then they probably should look into replacing him. I know President Bush has said that he is standing by Rumsfeld, so this editorial is a bit pointless. The Bush Administration has a solid plan in regards to Iraq....they didn't forsee the sectarian violence and how disruptive the terrorists would be. Is this Rumsfeld's failure? I don't know.

I think our troops and their commanders, based on what I've read, want to finish what they've started and still have a firm belief that the mission will be successful. I know former Generals have come out against Rumsfeld and the plan, but this is most likely a case of sour grapes. For every General who is against Rumsfeld you could probably find 2 that will say he is doing a great job.
Who knows who wrote this editorial...I don't see who wrote it so there's a question of the politics of this individual. I do know that, right now, the Democratic legislature define the term "Surrendercrat." Just a day or two ago I saw Murtha on the news spewing his Cut and Run defeatism again.

Robert Hodierne, Senior Managing Editor of Army Times

... and he addresses your accusations of politicization here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6435503

This statement speaks volumes about you.

He is the Secretary of Defense, a position formally known as the Secretary of War. This position should be the most important assest for a president's knowledge of when and if going to war is the best option, as well as the best way to carry it out..

So, yeah, he should be considered very much responsible for how Iraq is going.

edit- When a president picks the members of his Cabinet, he has two choices. The first is to pick his friends, and the second is to pick the best people for the job. Bush has invariably chosen the former and disregarded the latter.

Really? Hopefully they'll decide to eventually share it with the rest of the world. I know that executing it within the first four years of the conflict and occupation was a little bit optimistic.

Even worse, he chose his Daddy's friends.

This is what i found the worst.

Even worse, his daddy's friends chose HIM.

Actually, America chose him.

Actually, the Electoral College chose him.

I know you sometimes need things explained to you, but Bush did not choose his cabinet. Those guys were a "crew" long before George W. Bush came along. As if they weren't instrumental in getting the largely inexperienced and slightly stupid son and namesake of a former President to the top of the ballot in the first place, Bush needed a VP, so he gets his dad's old pal, Dick, to head up his search committee, and goddamned if he can't find anyone better than himself for the gig. And guess what, George. He's got some great ideas for people to fill some other positions too, including his boy Donny to be Secretary of Defense.

It was just a joke. Too bad I had to explain to you how true is actually was.

Well I appreciate your pompous attitude in stating that I "need things explained" to me, but please don't, especially when you are parroting stale Bush-bashing nonsense. First, the "largely inexperienced" George W. Bush was Governor of Texas. He may not have had the White House experience that Al Gore had, but let's not get carried away with the inexperience thing. Second, I don't think anyone who attended Yale and Harvard could be considered stupid, even if you pad your comments with "slightly."

You do know that the Governor of Texas is one of the most powerless positions of state government in the country, right? The Lieutenant Governor has a LOT more actual power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gove ... rial_Power

As for America choosing him, just like every other president, they had very little to do with deciding who the president would be, and I'd say that his dad's friends had a FUCKLOAD of a lot more to say about the matter than you or I did. Besides, we don't really need to get into how this man was "elected" in the first place again, I'm sure.

Somebody in the admin. should have given me a call before they went in; in the entire run up to the war pretty much everybody I discussed this with agreed with me that the entire venture was going to turn into a shit storm. And just to go one step further, if Rummy, W, & Co. couldn't forsee the sectarian violence and how disruptive the insurgents would be, I suggest they might need to get a better prescription for those rose colored glasses they wear.