Rumsfeld…Please Retire…
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, WarWhen Major Generals from THIS war are saying you should go…you should go…
The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary’s authoritarian style for making the military’s job more difficult.“I think we need a fresh start” at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. “We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork.”
Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. “It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense,” he said earlier yesterday on CNN.
Yep, more evidence of the arrogant and dangerous “my way or the highway” approach that our leaders in Washington are using.
And by the way, Batiste wasn’t some guy who was forced out. In fact, he turned down a promotion to become the number 2 military guy in Iraq because he just couldn’t abide by Rumsfeld’s leadership. That’s pretty damning.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 13th, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 13th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
should Rumsfield retire? Isn’t on the President to decide that things are going poorly, and remove Rumsfield? I don’t care if you’re my dad, if a fraction of the problems would come up during my job compared to what has happened in this war, I’d Can my Dad. Don’t dump all this on Rummy. Look to the guy that thinks he’s doing a Heck of a Job. Whatever happen to the Buck stopping at the Top.
April 13th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Of course, the buck stops there…but Bush isn’t going away. Rumsfeld can.
And trust me, it’s extremely frustrating to think that Rumsfeld still gets high marks from the President, and he translates that to thinking he’s actually doing a good job. But what can one do except keep beating the “Retire Rumsfeld” drum. Eventually he might get it.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:27 am
The president gives high marks to anyone who is completely loyal to him. It’s a well documented weakness of his. Why should Rumsfeld be any different?
April 14th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Retired Gen. Newbold wrote in Time Magazine:
Sounds like the opposition to Rumsfeld is mainly political, rather than based on strategic and tactical operations on the ground. It is not up to the top military brass to decide what is a threat and what is not.
The Army, I believe, does not want to try its hand at nation-building…it prefers WWII and Desert Storm, clean, popular victories. Rumsfeld is forcing the miliarty to do things it is uncomfortable with. If the SecDef is to put into action the President’s vision of Mid-East geopolitical change, he has no other choice but to use the Army to fight a messy urban insurgency.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:49 am
I think the president’s loyalty to Rumsfeld has exacted a high cost; he should have been replaced some time ago, in my view. However, given the type and philosophy of civilian leadership that the Bush White House seems to prefer, I’m a little skeptical as to how much of improvement his successor would be.
With regard to the military, I just this week skimmed through the recently released Quadrenniel Defense Review (QDR2005) in connection with some foreign policy articles I was editing. Jimmy and others, you might find it interesting to see the plans afoot for shaping the military to handle situations other than the traditional “clean” wars, such as those you reference. I’ve had some problems putting links in the comments section here before, but you can download the QDR (94 pages plus appendices! Ouch!) as a pdf from the DoD’s website.
In case you need some light reading … lol.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Folks! You ain’t getting it!
People are asking why the generals are coming forward now to complain about Rumsfeld’s decision three years ago. The reason why is that historically insurgencies take 10 to 12 YEARS to resolve (win or lose). Folks, we are just starting our fourth year of that time line. We have 7 to 9 years to go! We are averaging 2.3 deaths per day! Multiple that daily death rate by 7 to 9 years! These generals are coming forward now because there has been a fundamental loss of confidence in Rumsfeld. The confidence loss is due to the fact that Rumsfeld would not approve the forces needed to occupy the county after the war. Those forces were needed to lock that county down after the invasion in order to PREVENT an insurgency. What is amazing to me is that everyone is now saying we got it right in Iraq when it should have been right three years ago. What other mistakes is Rumsfeld going to make in the next three years?
Bob Weimann
LtCol USMC Ret.