Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is increasingly under fire — from retired generals who are criticizing the way he’s conducting the war in Iraq, causing one general to openly call for his resignation. The bottom line is: they all want change at the Pentagon’s top.
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.”
The implication (all but flatly stated) is clear: he’s charging that that Rumsfeld represents jaded leadership, doesn’t show sufficient respect for the military and is more of a Lone Ranger, a feared manager, than someone who fosters and engages in 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.
Batiste’s comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.
Batiste said he believes that the administration’s handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle — ensuring there are enough forces — helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.
What he’s essentially saying is that there should be responsibility in government when things go awry. However, the hallmark of this administration (except for a few cases) has been strong loyalty demanded (of administration officials) in exchange for strong loyalty shown (people are seldom just tossed overboard which is why there have not been mass resignations in the wake of 9/11, Katrina, the ports issue or Iraq policy).
The Post further notes that these comments come on the heels of recent high-profile attacks on Rumsfeld by three other retired flag officers, amid indications that many of their peers feel the same way. The LA Times picks up on the same trend:
A recent surge in public criticism of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by retired military leaders is the culmination of months of intense but largely private debate among active duty officers about how best to voice dissent over Bush administration policies, according to officers involved in the discussions.
A number of officers have been critical of Iraq policy — mostly anonymously — since the administration’s early days. But the calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation are an unusual step for members of the military, who are acutely sensitive to the appearance of challenging civilian leadership of the armed forces.
Displays of public dissension are especially controversial while troops are at war and morale is a concern. In recent months, however, a growing concern that the war’s setbacks may have been predictable as well as avoidable has spilled into public view.
The officers said that challenges to civilian policy were not new — similar opposition flared during the Clinton administration, particularly around the issue of gays in the military. But many of the latest condemnations come from officers who served in the Iraq war, and the controversy has split the ranks over whether attacks by those officers so soon after retiring are appropriate.
That is indeed a separate debate: what if this is the new trend? As the Times piece notes, what impact would that have on how civilians choose political leaders? On the other hand, this is in-essence military “whistle-blowing” — a step obviously taken after intense and difficult soul-searching.
If you cut all of it away, it’s basically saying: “We are largely managed by the executive branch but they are not listening to us or giving us an optimum environment to do what we need to do our jobs most effectively.”
Meanwhile, the growing chorus of military criticism seems to underscore something else: it suggests more than ever that Rep. Jack Murtha’s controversial comments were likely to have been what some analysts at the time suggested….comments that didn’t just pop into his head but comments that likely reflected some views in military circles that the well-connected Murtha was articulating for them.
Now the key questions become:
(1) Is this the end of the military criticism for a while, or will more come foward? In his article on Iran, Seymour Hersh also suggested some top military is upset with the administration due to Iran contingency plans that include a REAL nuclear option.
(2) Will Rumsfeld finish out his three years? Or will he resign to take a big corporate job, or spend more time with his family? The hallmark of this administration is not to give critics what they want on personnel changes when they demand it but eventually give them something, which is always explained as the person leaving on their own volition.
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE IS A CROSS-SECTION OF SOME OTHERS:
Rumsfeld must go because his time has passed. He helped design and execute Iraq War II. He supported what history will record as the most brilliantly executed invasion of all time. The drive to capture Baghdad was mind bogglingly fast, and in a narrow sense the invasion worked.
But Iraq War II is at an end. Sad to say, and with great respect to the brave military and civilians who paid the ultimate price, the Iraq war has simply failed. Iraq is mired in internecine sectarian infighting that may well lead to full on civil war.
—Daniel Drezner has a long must-read post. A tiny taste 4 U: “The official position here at danieldrezner.com has been that Don Rumsfeld should have resigned about two years ago…. The general has a point…. but then again, don’t Batiste and others have a point as well? Question to Rummy-supporters: how can this kind of criticism be ignored? Why should Rummy still be the Secretary of Defense?”
The revelatory aspect to the generals’ outspoken criticism of Rumsfeld has got to be alarming for the administration. No single group has the power to affect the public’s mood more than the military. The generals are seen as people beyond reproach or question, especially since many of the generals asking for Rumsfeld’s resignation served in Iraq and have concrete reasons for asking for it.
—Ice Station Zebra: “I’m no great enthusiast of Donald Rumsfeld, but I find the growing chorus of recently-retired generals calling for his resignation to be a little troubling–even though I think it should have been accepted years ago.”
—Midtopia: “Of course, Bush didn’t listen to these guys when they were in the military. Why would he listen to them now?”
—Stygius: “The other day, in a rare moment of proximity to a television, I caught former SACEUR Gen. George Joulwan on Wolf Blitzer’s “Situation Room.” Joulwan deliberately pulls back from calling for Rumsfeld’s removal, but his diagnosis of the Pentagon’s dysfunction makes it clear he’s making a case for the president to do the right thing. CNN apparently hasn’t put up the transcript, however.”
—Faithful Progressive: “Many retired generals have urged him to resign. But now it’s clear that some of our best military leaders HAVE resigned because of this stubborn misguided autocrat. However, one of the “known knowns,” as Rumsfeld would say, is that this criticism won’t make a difference. Because The Secretary knows everything and doesn’t need to listen to anyone else.”
—Blue Crab Boulevard: “The media, in it’s frenzy to get the president, is creating a new Praetorian guard. They’re teaching lower ranked officers who will one day be generals how to meddle in the government to get what they want. How long until generals decide to demand what they want?”
–Kevin Robertson at his Beyond The Punchline has a cartoon (we’ve run it above) and writes this:
You know things look bad for Donald Rumsfeld, when retired Military Generals are openly calling for his resignation; but it looks even worse when these Generals are actually retiring, just so they can openly call for Donald Rumsfeld to resign.
Even Colin Powell has decided to re-emerge and start speaking out against Rumsfeld; and you know he wouldn’t dare speak out against this Administration (his former employer) unless he felt confident that he was “safe” to do so (or unless he just signed a lucrative book deal).
—The Carpetbagger Report: “Bush has said on multiple occasions that he is careful to heed the advice of his generals. Now might be a good time to prove it.”
—Slate’s Fred Kaplan has a piece that must be read in full. A small portion:
It’s an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence. Not that an actual coup is pending; still less is one desirable. But we are witnessing the rumblings of an officers’ revolt, and things could get ugly if it were to take hold and roar.
The revolt is a reluctant one, aimed specifically at the personage of Donald Rumsfeld and the way he is conducting the war in Iraq.
Over the past few weeks several recently-retired generals have spoken out about how they didn’t get all the resources they asked for. They said they weren’t listened to. The said Rummy is an incompetent Rummy and should resign. They said this whole Saddamistic adventure has been a fiasco from the get go. That these proud military men would openly speak such things, even if they did wait to retire first, is the rough equivalent of, “Sir, bite me. I’m not going to take your asshattedness anymore.”
They may be a little late. They may not have resigned when they should have (although we’re sure some seriously considered it). But now they’re speaking out for the good of the country and if our sorry-ass politicians had the balls to do the same, we could wrap this whole sorrid affair up and get on with the true business of being a democracy. Sa-lute!
It is important to look at what they are actually saying rather than just whooping it up that someone is gunning for Rumsfeld’s head. I tend to look at the events that have transpired in Iraq and think that Rumsfeld should be gone… but I also have enough experience with the military that I recognize how intensely political the upper ranks are- there is a reason Colin Powell managed to win so many of his behind the scenes street fights- he had years of experience with bitter political infighting from his days working in the Pentagon and in the upper echelons of Army leadership.
That doesn’t mean that what these folks are saying is wrong- it means that as a reader you should look at the actual criticisms themselves, rather than simply count the number of folks speaking out and think there is a trend. Additionally, remember that Rumsfeld’s intent when he took over was to radically re-structure the military… so there is some ingrained ill will amongst more than a few individuals.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.