However, what about the idea that his leaving might not, in and of itself, instigate as much change as people think?

RJ, I haven’t heard one of these generals speak the word “panacea”. I have heard them articulate that what we keep doing over and over is not working. We are “standing still” in terms of strategy and philosophy ….. sometimes when we are stuck, we just need to do something different … as a catylist for solution seeking.

Also, to Brian, “This is about Rumsfeld changing the strategic focus of the Army from a maneuver force of armor and artillery to a lighter, rapid response force. ” No, sir, “This is about Rumsfeld changing the strategic focus of the Army from a maneuver force of armor and artillery to a lighter, rapid response force, and not being successful.
It is one thing to change focus …. it is another thing altogether to bang your head against a wall because it will feel good when you stop.

As for transforming the military from cold war style armor and artillery to fast response. I don’t blame the generals for being upset. The cold war style armor and artillery crushed Iraqi resistance only 3 years ago, with very limited casualties. The heavy armour and massed artillery would propably also come in handy in a potential war against Iran.

Iran is a smokescreen. The Army generals have had it in for Rumsfeld for years, now, and they’re just venting their spleens. This is all about Strikers vs. M1-A1s, not about Iraq or Iran.

“They’ve all spoken out, because they’re concerned about the direction of the national security choices the country’s making. They believe that one way or another, somehow that the military’s influence, the common sense that comes having boots on the ground working with the troops, somehow that common sense hasn’t percolated its way up the chain of command. And they’re speaking out about it because the results of the operations in Iraq haven’t lived up to the cakewalk billing that the administration predicted.”

This complements Ascap’s point–what’s going to happen in Iran, if the leaderships’ judgement and predictions are as poor as it was with Iraq? Even the average person recognizes Iran is more of a threat than Iraq was, and this highlights both the danger in running into Iran half-cocked, and the folly of being so distracted by Iraq in the first place.

I support the Generals’ actions.

The Generals have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, first and foremost. One can safely argue that not letting the simian lead us into a nuclear exchange for nothing qualifies.

The Armed Forces have been put upon, unnnecessarily and almost brutally, for 3 years now, and the cracks are showing. I think the people that are cheering the Generals on have the same concern the Generals have-that something must be done now to rein the Chimperor in. I am concerned about how the military might ultimately decide this should be done, but I will not fault them for their concerns. The word “leadership” means responsibility, and right now we don’t have responsible leaders.

They see the what’s coming down the line, they know how they were complicit in the Iraq debachle, and they can project what will happen in the next war with the same team running the show. They see the same manufactured/stovepiped evidence, the same rush to war, they see that Bush won’t be going back to the UN or congress to get approval to launch a Nuclear attack on a country that has not attacked us.

The last time, the generals knew Saddam was no threat. We had daily fly overs that constantly provoked Saddam and he couldn’t mount a defense if he tried. We smacked him down hard in Gulf War I and kept a boot to his neck. The generals knew there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, yet because Saddam posed no real threat to our forces, and because we had the cover of UN decrees, there was little resistance to the civilian leadership pushing this loony farce.

The next war will be different. The generals can see that. Now, with our forces tied up in an excercise we can’t win, bleeding a little every day, the military is being asked to fight an honest-to-god actual nuclear war that WE are about to launch, not because there is an iminent threat, but because BushCo wants to!!

And al-Qaeda remains unchecked.

Billmon has three good posts up. Read them.

http://billmon.org/archives/002389.html
http://billmon.org/archives/002390.html
http://billmon.org/archives/002392.html

In and of itself, wanting to play tug of war with Rumsfeld wouldn’t disprove the criticisms, anyway.

I think it would be fascinating to sit down with not these just these particular generals but also with others to find out what type (or hybrid of types) would be to their taste.

Don’t you?

However, what about the idea that his leaving might not, in and of itself, instigate as much change as people think?

2. I don’t believe that any one of these brave men want to usurp civilian control … they most certainly, and correctly, are trying to cause some conversation and assessment by the PUBLIC, and civilian lawmakers of what is sytematically becoming a attrition ofour “Military capacity”. They are being forthright and clear with their criticism because they concerned.

3. Civilian control has always been the strenghth of our country where the military is concerned, as designed. The Military code of Ethics for a career officer does not get folded like the retirement flag and put away for use on holidays. Part of the Code directs any soldier to do all he can within the bounds of protocol to prevent bad results from bad orders. Those individuals who are supportingRummy are following protocol and Honor Code regardless of their personal feelings(which could be on either side)

4. Rummy has been an executive for all of his career and may have served that capacity well in corporate and government service, but he is dismissing hundreds f years of military experience as if it were non- agenda malarkey. that does not smell like civilian control … that smells like ego …period.

%. He is a lame duck SECDEF … and Cal, if it looks like a duck … and it wals like a duck … it ain’t no armadillo!

To put it bluntly, the politicol end of this argument is coming from the administration … cold, hard facts are coming from these retired heroes.