Comments on: Revolt of the Generals?

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

These are also the same Generals who have been fighting with Rumsfeld over changing the structure of the Armed Services since he took office. Rumsfeld has publicly stated that he wishes to change the services to being smaller and faster, and the Generals hate the change to their bureaucracy. They may be saying this to get kill Rummy now when he is weakened.

I would hazard a guess that the same Generals whom the Post are going to for comments on Iraq are also the ones they went to regarding the changes to the Pentagon...

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

It is a good point that Rumsfeld's other policies, aside from Iraq, have been a source of anger from the Military.

But it is also naive to think that this is not just the way things work. Check out the variety of stories of how the military went behind Clinton's back and set him up for failure. The fact is that the Generals are an interest group and have to be kept happy. This applies to all Presidents, and Bush has been able to avoid it for a long time because of the quick punishment of previous critics and the historical bias of the military towards Republican Presidents.

By: Marty Heyman

Marty Heyman — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

It is difficult to balance the individual's right of Free Speech and the needs of Command And Control. All subordinates find themselves in a conflict of interest when they disagree with those who they can not talk directly to in private but who control their future destinies.

By: Zayphar

Zayphar — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

There has always been a majority of Army officers who didn't like Rumsfeld, didn't want to change the structure of the Army, and preferred the Army was never used unless to protect North America. (See my previous comments about an unwillingness to see the Army 'broken'.) Until 9/11, the anger at Rumsfeld was so severe that there was significant talk among his enemies that they wanted him to resign. But after 9/11, those voices were silenced temporarily, but their opinions about 'transformation' have not changed. This opinion can be most clearly heard among the retired officers who are interviewed on TV. Officers who were promoted under the principles of the old system are biased by their life experience to oppose fundamental change in that system. Army officers hating Rumsfeld isn't new. They have always hated him, and still hate him. Rumsfeld has always been the most hated Sec. Def. by the military bureaucracy. The voices quoted in Ricks' Washington Post article are basically reactionary. Basically, they are a bunch of blowhards who donât want their lives and careers disrupted. I donât take them seriously. They were saying the same thing back in the summer of 2001. When these people begin to be willing to resign their comfortable jobs, and speak out publicly against the Presidentâs policies, then I will begin to take them seriously, not until then. Bush and especially Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are completely committed to modernizing the US military. Even if Kerry is elected, many of those changes will still go forward. More importantly, any policy based on the supposition that Iraqis and Arabs are unsuited to democracy is fundamentally racist. In many ways it is the kind know-nothing political opinion the media elites might expect from career military officers. Choosing a friendly dictatorship over an unfriendly democracy is exactly the kind of political victory our enemies in the Middle East are hoping for. It is fundamentally a betrayal of our ideals, and will be used to discredit American foreign policy for generations to come. In any case, it is too late now to make any other policy choice. Once the choice to invade Iraq was made, our policy course was set in stone. As I have said before, from that moment we were commiting ourselves to a 10+ year occupation of Iraq. We have incurred debts and responisbilties and we must pay them. To allow innocent Iraqis to die so that we will not have to make sacrifices will be seen by the world as what it is - pure cowardice. To hesitate now would be exceptionally childish. Iraq must become a peaceful, free and independent country. Even if that means that the government is anti-American like most of the other Arabs countries (with the exception of small countries such as Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Morocco and Tunisia). The US no longer has the freedom to choose fascism over liberty. Leaving behind an anti-American democracy in Iraq would be a clear victory for the US. Peace and Freedom for an Independent Iraq!

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I am so sick of the WaPo's Unnamed Sources. Seriously. Does anyone actually use their name in a quote in washington D.C.?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I take this story with a LARGE box of Kosher Salt.

Every week we hear about who hates rummy or Bush and how there is growing discontent in the ranks. Then when it comes time to reenlist, people do in record numbers. (or whatever empirical models can be used that disproves the story of the week before.)

Maybe these Generals did this and if they did, as James says, they are wrong for it.

But the media has been announcing that the sky is falling on troop moral for over a year. We ain't seen it yet.

By: Dodd

Dodd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I'm not all that concerned about what the Generals think of Rumsfeld except insofar as the degree to which they dislike him suggests that he's doing his job well. No, my thought when reading this was, "I'm glad I'm not in the 82nd Airborne being led by a General who thinks we're losing."

By: delta dave

delta dave — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I hope we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but frankly, that is not my top priority....fighting terrorism is and if Iraq serves as the magnet to attract the full attention....and we beat them tactically every time, then we win.

So if we don't win their hearts and minds, that's too bad, we just occupy them instead and stop spending money on the infrastructure and social programs and use those fund to blow up and break things like we normally do during the time of WAR.

---