You’ve heard of the “amen” chorus? Well, in the case of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld there is clearly now an ever-increasing “resign” chorus — and it’s made up of respected retired generals:
The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.
“We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores,” General Swannack said in a telephone interview. “But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq.”
And, the New York Times goes on to suggests, if there aren’t more generals that’ll be forthcoming soon there are apparently a lot of military bigwigs behind the scenes wondering whether they should come forward:
There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Mr. Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.
Some, the Times notes, are clearly AFRAID:
Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Mr. Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles is often viewed as inappropriate.
The White House has dismissed the criticism, saying it merely reflects tensions over the war in Iraq. There was no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was considering resigning.
It’s strictly tensions over the war?
Then it’ll be interesting to see if some pundits or historians can dig up a situation:
- similar in World War II.
- similar in the Korean war.
- similar in the Vietnam war.
We’re not talking here about one or two generals — but what clearly seems to be a TREND.
One report on a cable channel noted that one active general is condemning the retired generals’ criticism, arguing that the generals should have raised questions quietly and privately while they were on duty. The problem with that: these generals are saying that Rumsfeld was not the kind of boss who allows his existing ideas to be questioned.
In fact, there doesn’t seem a precedent in American history that matches up to this parade of retired generals saying the man in charge of the Pentagon needs to go because (a) he hasn’t succeeded and (b) he won’t fully consider the views of military officials.
And the White House? It’s keeping to its prevailing characteristic of hanging tough, seemingly believing (as usual) that if it responds to criticism and eases Rumsfeld out it will be viewed as wimpish. The argument is also being made that if Rumsfeld left amid criticism it’d send a bad message abroad. But those who want Rumsfeld out will argue that his remaining in office despite criticism means he has less legitimacy in that post.
Another casualty: President George Bush has said he listens to the military. But clearly there are some military types now who are saying that in order to run a more efficient war Bush needs to dump Rumsfeld and get a new person for Secretary of Defense.
So does Bush only listen to military he agrees with — or does he listen to all military? Or only to military who are still in their jobs (who are unlikely to question Rumsfeld due to the problems mentioned by those who are calling for him to resign)?
NET IMPACT: No matter how the White House spins or defends it, it’s yet one more image of an administration seemingly not just only in over its head but unwilling to change — and refusing to adapt by imposing no-nonsense standards of managerial quality control.
UPDATE: Can there be any more doubt that Bush thinks “denial” is this? Just read this story:
“Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation’s history,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
UPDATE II: Another Times piece puts it into perspective. If you read it, it’s clear more than ever that Rep. Jack Murtha’s controversial comments about the war and the military reflected a view among a segment of the military — and were just not ideas that popped into his head:
An expanding group of influential former military officers is calling for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation in a public rebellion that has become a significant challenge to the Pentagon’s civilian leadership.
The uproar is significant because for the first time the criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld is coming from some recently retired generals who were involved in planning or execution of Iraq policy.Though their critiques differ in some respects, a common thread is that Mr. Rumsfeld’s assertive style has angered many in the uniformed services as he has sought to establish more clear-cut civilian control over the Pentagon and at times involved himself in the details of war-planning more than his predecessors.
The outcry against Mr. Rumsfeld also appears to be part of a coalescing of concerns among military officers that, three years into the Iraq war, the effort is taking a mounting toll on the armed forces, with little sign that the American troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.
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.