Lt. General Gregory Newbold's Disgrace

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique -

So begins a retired Lt. General's critique of the Iraq War via Time. He's absolutely free to do so, I can't begrudge him that. And I have no comment as regards what I hope was a past distinguished military career. For that he deserves respect.

His disgrace is now playing the politician while couching himself in a Marine uniform he removed some four months before the war even started. Where were you then when it mattered Lt. General Newbold? And why is it that, only now do we find that your insight matters so much? And we only learn that because you tell us it's so.

Well, congratulations on expressing your opinion, albeit years too late, according to you, that is.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Newbold offers nothing new in his arm chair assault on the politicians in Washington. He simply repeats items which have been in the public discussion for months.

Equipment, troop numbers, so on and so forth. Yes, we know, Lt. General Newbold. But really what is it you are telling us new, other than you didn't and obviously don't support the war in Iraq? I see nothing there ... but, okay, that's fair enough. After all, you are a civilian now.

Not every Lt. General gets paid to think about Geo-politics, the broader GWOT, or why Iraq needed to be confronted and why in the end, it will prove smart. No, that is actually often above even a Lt. General's pay grade, Mr. Newbold. The way our government works, those are ultimately civilian decisions, Mr. Newbold, do you by chance wish it wasn't so?

To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting.

You appear to have abandoned your position when it came time for you to follow civilian orders you didn't like. Nothing wrong in that. You did it honorably. But as you appear to want to play in the political arena, pardon me for pointing out that when you mention those resolute in fighting, that subset doesn't include you. And you seem to have an issue with civilian leadership, more than anything else.

Apparently you had nothing to offer them, so you quit. But you seem to have nothing new to offer now, Mr. Newbold, except for your tossing off the same old political rhetoric dressed with the weight of a uniform you long ago chose not to wear. What is it, exactly, that is so noble in that? Thinking perhaps good old Wes Clark could use a challenge as a possible VP?

Congratulations for capitalizing on the uniform you once wore to contribute to Time and assist the press in their incessant beat down of the war. How in God's name, if all you say is true, could you do that at a time when braver men than you are as it stands today still fight and die? You must really make the Marines proud.

I don't know many Generals and didn't know General's Eisenhower or Schwarzkopf, Mr. Newbold. But I certainly can tell you aren't close to being either one of them. I can only conclude that the best thing did happen when you chose to quit - and you know full well that, in the final analysis, Mr. Newbold, that's precisely what you did.

Sorry Mr. Newbold, but if I want to listen to quitters, who ultimately always wind up losers, I'd just listen to Liberal Dems.

Comments

[Laertes]

Why do the Marines hate America?

[Sgt. York]

FROM A PURELY MILITARY PERSPECTIVE

The combined land-air blitzkrieg was very effective and prevented the enemy from implementing a coherent defense. The down-side of a blitzkrieg attack is our mechanized forces outrunning the supply chain (which happened), the enemy attacking our supply convoys (which happened on a minor scale), and enemy mechanized forces employing a pincer-movement to the flanks of our advancing forces (which did not happen due to complete USA air dominance).

When Bush announced the end of major combat operations he was correct. The war was won - it was won quickly and decisively. The war is over and the USA is now conducting police-operations involving searching of residences and arrests of suspects (aka, an occupation).

-------------------------

[Retired LTC]

The blogger is just one more chickenhawk with no real respect for the military.

[Laertes]

If your "respect" evaporates the instant the guy says something you don't like, it's not respect--it's convenience.

This guy is a $^%! General in the #&^! USMC. Recognize.

[Dan]

no real respect for the military - This guy is a $^%! General in the #&^! USMC. Recognize

BS - Now he's a civilian engaged in a political debate. Get the fog out of your eyes and your heads out of your asses.

[Laertes]

The respect a man earns by wearing the uniform doesn't vanish when he retires. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. First of all, it's not "Mister Newbold," it's "General Newbold." Secondly...no, you know what? No second. Let's see if you can man up and handle that first.

[richard mcenroe]

As a veteran, I ask:

This man quit just before the troops he led were sent into battle. What respect is due him?

[chris]

Let's avoid personal attacks in favor of constructive dialogue. Clearly, there are times when one has to step outside "the system" to voice a principled position, often times, after having exhausted all appropriate courses of action to influence policy and activities within the system. This is often the case with the military and, presumably, reflective of the circumstances involving General Newbold. Military officers, while on active duty, should voice their professional opinions in the appropriate forums (unless the officer is a risk-averse careerist with an absence of moral courage), but once a decision is made and a lawful order issued, the focus must be on the execution of the plan and acheivement of the mission. General Newbold, as a retired Marine General, subject matter expert, and witness to the war plan development, is simply exercising his right to free speech. I hope that General Newbold's comments promote productive dialogue leading to a reassessment of our strategy in Iraq. Events are fluid, errors are made, responsibility must be asssumed and, individually and collectively, we must be honest, responsive, flexible and adaptive (and ultimately, accountable). This starts at the top.

[Laertes]

"This man quit just before the troops he led were sent into battle. What respect is due him?"

I won't presume to lecture a veteran about the respect due a General officer. You know it better than I do, I'm sure.

I WILL, however, presume to chastise a fellow civilian such as our host. It's typical of right-wing idealogues who pretend to revere the service, but instantly change their tune the instant a retired flag officer says anything they don't like.

I don't imagine that Gen. Newbold's politics line up with my own. I'm a great big liberal, and the guy was a General in the USMC. Recognizing that Bush and his claque of incompetent cronies have made lots of mistakes doesn't make one a Liberal--it just shows that you're using your head. By no means do I mistake Gen. Newbold for a political fellow-traveler. But my respect for retired flag officers isn't circumscribed by their alignment with my political convenience of the moment.

Unlike, say, our petulant little host.

[Dan]

If he believes what he said in that article, where is the nobility in remaining silent for years? He could have written that the day he retired. Instead, he waits for an election year? And he himself acknowledged that others in the military disagreed with him.

His non-active duty status makes it a political position and that's exactly how I approached it. I suppose only a General can question a General in the view of some. Not me.

[Laertes]

I'll also point out a snotty little catch-22 that our host no doubt imagines to be terribly clever: His "respect" for military officers lasts only as long as they're bound by law and by honor to support the policy of their civilian leaders.

As soon as they're free to speak their minds, they're not entitled to a shred of respect. No personal respect is earned by a lifetime of service to country. No respect for a highly experienced professional speaking to his area of particular expertise. It's typical wingnut loyalty-test politics: Cross dear leader and you're scum. Scum wearing the uniform of a USMC general, but scum nonetheless.

Craven, shameful, disgusting.

[Laertes]

"He could have written that the day he retired. Instead, he waits for an election year?"

More catch-22.

Had the General written it the day he retired:

"He didn't even wait until the ink was dry on his retirement papers!"

Or if he'd spoken his mind two years ago:

"Instead, he waits for an election year?"

Or two years from now:

"Instead, he waits for an election year?"

What if he hadn't retired until just now:

"Why wait so long to retire if he thought the policy was foolish? Why agree to lead his men into what he saw as a mistake?"

So tell us, kind host. When IS the correct time and place for a retired officer to criticize the President? One suspects the answer is "any time but when he actually does."

[mike]

Military history, our own and other countries, is filled with generals and admirals who were mere political hacks. No skills, no leadership talent, no genuine concern for the soldiers/sailors under them. In the United States, after the first star is given through a regular promotion, the successive second, third, fourth and the rarely given fifth must be awarded by a vote in the US senate. Read the careers of some of our past generals, Wes Clarke, George Marshall, Alexander Haig in particular and you will see where "political reliability" comes into play. Newboldt is clearly of this ilk. No matter what branch uniform he wore, he is not beyond question.

[Laertes]

mike: What?

Did you seriously intend to suggest that generals Clark, Marshall, and Haig were "hacks" with "no leadership talent" and "no...concern" for their men?

Marshall is, of course, a giant and a more significant figure than a great many Presidents.

Clark and Haig, while not figures of Marshall's legendary stature, outstanding officers. The two, together, probably represent an excellent test of one's real respect for the service, since both tend to be polarizing political figures from opposite ends of the spectrum. If you can't honor both and really mean it, your so-called "respect" for the service is a lie.

Your tone suggests that you mean it as an insult when you write that Gen. Newboldt is of the "ilk" of Marshall, Haig, and Clark, but if that's your intention then your shot lands wide of the mark.

[Dan]

The man got as much respect as anyone else bashing a war while others are fighting it. If he had something to contribute, would you think he'd contact his old friends one ot one and pass his great advice along? Instead, what does he do? He grandstands while other men remain in harm's way. He was given all the respect he deserved.

[Rick]

"This man quit just before the troops he led were sent into battle. What respect is due him?"
Posted by: richard mcenroe
That was the most intelligent statement in this thread, quitters in the face of the enemy used to be hanged. More sissification of America. Anyone who ever studied global conflict knows that Iraq is a no win situation and the General has every right to speak his mind. Then again, retired officers are considered inactive reserve for ten years, subject to recall anytime. So there goes the "he's a civilian" discussion.

[Laertes]

"This man quit just before the troops he led were sent into battle."

"That was the most intelligent statement in this thread, quitters in the face of the enemy used to be hanged."

I've got opinions about this, but they aren't worth much. Are there any current or former officers in the room, anyone who could answer the question: Is it honorable for a commander to resign rather than carry out what he believes to be foolish orders?

[Rick]

If the order is lawful, as in given by a vote of the congress, it doesn't matter how "foolish" it is.A few thought Washington was foolish for crossing the Delaware, McClellan thought it foolish to chase down Lee and destroy the Confederate army in 1862, SOme thought Halsey was foolish to go up against a superior Japanese fleet at Midway and after the French and Brits had been chased off the beach at Dunkirk, many thought it foolish to land in Normandy. One of my favorites though is MacArthur's foolishness at Inchon. What's truly unfair is that the 17-25 year old enlisted folks that were sent in first DID NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF QUITTING!

[Davebo]

So if I'm understanding you, your complaint is that he didn't publicly make his feelings known until after he retired in protest.

This reflects a staggering ignorance of the UCMJ and military protocal in general.

Add in your "clap louder" strategy and what we have is a clueless demogauge pontificating on subjects in ignorance and slandering one who is ball all accounts a great American in an attempt to help you sleep at night.

Pathetic.

[Laertes]

It's funny, Rick, how every move you cite turned out to NOT be a gigantic clusterf**k. Unlike, say, the move you're defending.

Also: WHO thought Washington was foolish for crossing the Delaware? It wasn't a controversial move. Gimme a name or a cite. My bet: You're just assuming that someone must have, without having any actual idea.

Finally: You're not an officer, nor do you appear to bring any special expertise on the subject to the table, so it's hard for me to describe just how little your opinions about an officer's duty matter.

All I hear in here is a bunch of schoolyard-quality chop-logic and catch-22 bullshit that leads to a preordained place--no criticising the president--by any route neccesary, however tortured and artificial.

An officer is bound by honor and by law to support his civilian leaders. And yet, when he takes off the uniform, you guys think his opinion is suddenly worthless. "He's a civilian now! What does he know!?" or "if he really wanted us to take his criticism seriously, he would never have left the service...er...so that he couldn't say anything!"

Real bunch of rocket scientists, you guys.

[craig henry]

So this is the quality of warbloggers? They think George Marshall was a political hack and that Halsey was at Midway? (Hint: Nimitz made the decision to fight at Midway; Fletcher and Spruance were the tactical commanders. Halsey was in sick bay).

[Rick]

Well actually one of the events I cited turned out to be a CF. Had Little Mac destroyed Lee's army in Maryland the ACW would have ended sooner. As for the others, yes they were succesful but there was a chance to fail also. Most of congress was getting tired of Washington losing and Charles Lee had to be cajoled into helping him at Trenton. At least one account says that Lee thought Washington was not competent. NO army at any time in history, ever went anywhere that was not questioned. Had you ever been in the military at all. You would know that.

Furthermore you have no idea about my military background so STFU. I'd like for you to show one comment where I EVER supported this unwinable war. That'll keep you busy for nothing. I also NEVER said this General's comments were usless or whatever. I did say that as far as I am concerned. He has shown cowardice in the face of the enemy, a luxury the enlisted men under him did not have.

Craig; You are absolutely correct and I thank you for catching that mistake. Jolly good show!

[Laertes]

Me: "WHO thought Washington was foolish for crossing the Delaware? It wasn't a controversial move. Gimme a name or a cite. My bet: You're just assuming that someone must have, without having any actual idea."

Rick: "At least one account says that Lee thought Washington was not competent."

Lee despised Washington. He was captured by the British before the plan was hatched, though, and I'm not aware of any report that he expressed any opinion about it.

"Charles Lee had to be cajoled into helping him at Trenton." Somewhat true, but not relevant to the point at hand. Lee had to be cajoled into moving his army to join Washington in Pennsylvania, which would have led to their participation in the attack on Trenton, but that doesn't get you to Lee saying "your crossinog the Delaware is madness!" You're trying to paint the Delaware crossing as some controversial move where Washington pressed on despite the resistance of the naysayers, and the facts just don't back you up. This wasn't Longstreet and Lee and cemetery ridge. Or, to use an incendiary example, Hitler ordering the invasion of France against the near-unanimous advice of his generals.

Washington's crossing was a brave and desperate maneuver. But there's just no evidence that people were sitting around clucking about how crazy he was to try it. "It's about damn time" would be more like it.

"I did say that as far as I am concerned. He has shown cowardice in the face of the enemy, a luxury the enlisted men under him did not have."

And _I_ said that unless you're an officer or have some other related expertise, you don't know any better than I do what duty and honor require of an officer who finds himself in Newbold's shoes. You're trotting out a convenient and arbitrary interpretation that suits your whims of the moment, but I'm more interested in hearing from an actual officer who can speak to the question. Surely there's one around. What is an officer's duty when he thinks that the lives of his men are about to be wasted on a fool's errand? I don't know, and I'm sick of hearing opinions from others who don't either.

[Rick]

" I'm more interested in hearing from an actual officer who can speak to the question" Well I guess our conversation is over then. I will suggest that you do as I did. Go back and read the article again. This time put your "I hate Bush....period" attitude in your pocket and actually read what the general says. Then ask your question again. Then ask of yourself...If you are some 17 year old Marine with a 16 yo pregnant wife on food stamps in Jacksonville, NC......WOuld you support the general's waiting years to go to the press? Or would have preferred that he be honorable enough to scream his opinions from the roof tops?

[Rick]

One last thing. Like most DoD documents, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)can be found online

[Laertes]

I'm not the one casually tossing incendiary charges like "cowardice in the face of the enemy."

People are moved to speak when they're moved to speak. Maybe I'd have liked for the General to come forward sooner. Maybe our host would have liked for the General to come forward much later or not at all.

Neither of us is entitled to an opinion on the matter. It's Gen. Newbold's call. I don't know how I'd feel if I was one of his men. That's too far outside my experience for me to even speculate.

From his remarks in the article, it seems that the General thought it proper to hold his tongue even after he resigned, and that the ongoing clusterfuck and the SecState's remark about thousands of tactical failures were just too much for him to endure in silence.

I'm not prepared to call him "dishonorable" for speaking so soon, or so late, or so forcefully, or whatever other reasons people may give, and who can keep up with how fast they change. "Honor" is a word a lot like, say, "entropy." People to whom the concept is a matter of professional interest use the word with a lot more caution and a vastly more thorough understanding than those who sit on the sidelines and kibitz. A civilian lecturing an officer about honor is like a layman lecturing a physicist about the second law of thermodynamics--whatever error the layman thinks the professional is making is probably a result of the layman not really understanding the concept.

[Rick]

So what you're saying is that since you are not, and never have been in a position to send people into deadly situations. Presumably you have never been in the position to be sent into such situations as well. That you feel unqualified to offer an opinion? Is that right? I can accept that but I question whether or not you are an honorable person in you personal and professional life. One should not be so hard on themselves.

Let's step back to Gettysburg a moment. Both Longstreet (as you mentioned)and JB Hood were adamantly opposed to Lee's orders yet complied to their personal loss. Of course being -IN- battle and before going to war are vastly different. Twas a very good analogy though.

[Laertes]

That may be overstating the case. I try to conduct myself with honor. What I'm saying, though, is that the concept has a far more precise meaning to an officer. I gather they take CLASSES in it. Honor and duty make very precise demands of officers.

I guess the simplest way to put it is that I think a question like "what did duty and honor require of General Newbold when he chose to retire" require a real expert to answer. My amateur understanding is that an officer has a duty to his men that can require him to refuse certain kinds of orders, and I don't know if retiring/resigning is an appropriate response to a sufficiently screwed-up situation.

[Rick]

They do take classes on duty, honor and ethics. I truly think in this case it is a judgement call, not a legal one. Let us all know if I'm wrong. I did note one big incorrect statement in the article. He is quoted as saying that enlisted people swear an oath to their officers while officers swear the oath to the constitution. The oath for EVERYONE is to "protect and defend the constitution". Think about it. Some general does not like the way things are being done and decides to attack the capitol with a division SWOrn to serve him rahter than the constitution.Scary thought.

[Laertes]

I thought that was an interesting distinction too. Here's a link that looks solid:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

Officers and enlisted, at least in the army, still take different oaths. Both swear to support and defend the constitution, but the oath of enlistement also has this bit which the officer's oath lacks: "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"

Other links suggest that all the services now use the same oaths, but none that I found are as authoritative as the army one linked above.

[Rick]

May be new or may be service specific.It definately is not the one I took long ago. Your link is a good one though, I use that site often. Spend some time poking around, you'll like it.

[Heli Pilot]

My gut reaction is this man is a farce - a loser - due no respect or quarter. He is a coward. He should have kept his mouth shut. A real USMC retiree would have done that out of a sense of HONOR, DUTY and REPSECT for his still serving comerades.

General Greg Newbold is a CLASS A loser- a political hack.

Sepmer Fidelis - Always Faithful - except for General Greg Newbold

[Alexander Wolfe]

Heli-

Or a real soldier would realize that there comes a time when you speak out against what you feel is wrong, and it does no favor to your comrades to watch them die in a war you disagree with.

[bill gaffney]

MARINE LIEUTENTANT GENERAL Newbold (three stars) cares about the Marines and other
service men in this trumpted-up war. A MARINE officer is taught to take
care of his MEN FIRST AND FORMOST. General Newbold is not the first MARINE
General to speakout against this BUSH war. It appears that the MARINE
GENERALS care more about the servicemen than do officers in other branchs of the military.General Pace jcos must take-up for rummey. Rummey is his
senior officer and Pace is an active duty MARINE officer, would you expect
General Pace to attack rummey in front of the press. I believe that most of you if not all of you have never spent a day in the military on active duty. I will give you something to get upset about and perhaps you can do some good by calling BUSH and ask him why he cut $1,000,000,000.00 out of the 2005 VA budget and why is he cutting another $1,000,000,000.00 out of the fiscal 2007 budget! Instead of sitting around mouthing-off do something to truly help the troops make BUSH give the money he has taken back to the VA!!!! Or better yet SIGN-UP and do your part in IRAQ! It is easy to sit
in front of your computer and mouth-off about a General that none of you could EVEN TAKE HIS SHOES TO THE SHOWER!!!!!
SEMPER FI!!!!!!"ONCE A MARINE ALWAYS A MARINE!"

PARIS ISLAND MARINE.

[MARINE SERGEANT MAJOR]

Rick, Heli Pilot, Dan, Richard

You guys are a bunch of Eiensteins. This country can not take nor should it take an open revolt from our active duty uniform personnel. We have a civilian leadership chain of command, that is supposed to be the representation of the people through their elected official(s). In this case that would be knucklehead(a.k.a. W.) Professional Military personnel are taught, and the Marines especially so, that you participate in the planning process, voice your concerns, regrets and disapprovals during that process. After the decision is made you carry out the order as if it is your own. This concept is what has made the Marines, well, the Marines. It is essential to good order and discipline. Imagine if you will, what would happen if you had the active duty military in open revolt against their civilian leaders. This country would look more like Russia, China, Pakistan, Chile or any of the other nations that faced this division some years ago. What we have is special and forth fighting to keep. It was criminal for this administration to go to war with the misused, not faulty, misused intelligence. It was reckless that they failed to take the advise of those now retired Generals, that warned them of the dangers of engaging in the conflict and the requirements needed to protect the young men and women sent to fight the war and secure the peace. This includes former Sec of State and Chairman of JOCS Colin Powell. Please go back and look at his comments pre war(2002). He understood and was overruled by the gang from the Pentagon. The slogan "Support the Troops" has been highjacked by the chicken hawks to support their pathetic execution of this war. For those of you that really want to support the troops, make sure not another serviceperson will die over there because the administration cherry picked the intelligence to support this war and failed to provide what was necessary to win it. That is how you should support the troops, by making sure they stay alive. They did not join to die for their country. They joined to support it and defend it, in that lies a grave difference.
Semper Fi Mac, Semper Fi...

[MARINE SERGEANT MAJOR]

To our ill-informed host. I pasted a copy of a Article written on the Military.com website. The article is dated June 2004. If you get your head out of the seat of your pants or out of the seat of W's pants you may have noticed the General's (NEWBOLD) views on the war. By the way since the article was published 1590 American have been killed. If you and your comrades had attempted to stop and think for yourselves for a minute we may have been able to save some of those brave people..

H. Thomas Hayden: A Matter of Honor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Thomas Hayden was formerly the President and CEO of First Communications Company (FCC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a joint venture between Raytheon and a Saudi Company involved in Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) Systems for the Ministry of Defense and Aviation, Saudi Arabian National Guard and Ministry of Interior. Before retiring from the US Marine Corps, assignments included Commanding Officer (CO), Headquarters and Service Bn, 1st Force Service Support Group, which deployed to the Gulf War, CO Brigade Service Support Group – 9, which deployed to Somalia and CO MAU Service Support Group – 33, which deployed to The Philippines and Korea. He was Branch Head, Headquarters Marine Corps, Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC), and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC with assignments to Central America. He has participated in combat operations or contingency operations in the Republic of Vietnam, Central America, Gulf War, Somalia, and Columbia. Tom has a MBA, MA in International Relations, and a PhD candidate in Business Management. He is the author of two books and is currently writing a third: SHADOW WAR: Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; WARFIGHTING: Maneuver Warfare in the US Marine Corps. He has published over 40 articles and has been awarded the Navy League’s Alfred Thayer Mahan award for literary achievement.

June 4, 2004

[Have an opinion on this column? Sound off in the discussion forum.]

George Tenant did the honorable thing. Now it is time for others in the Administration to follow his example.

The failures of the CIA under George Tenant’s watch are enormous. Many claim that before 9/11 he was telling everyone that would listen, that something big was going to happen. He reported that Al Qaeda may have been planning a major attack on the US.

The 9/11 catastrophes were a failure of the CIA, FBI, and the National Security Council. Mr. Richard Clarke’s recent discovery that he was the point man and did not do enough is almost laughable if it were not so serious. Up until 9/11, the only thing I remember about Clark was his "Chicken Little" approach to the anticipated, so-called "Y2K (2000) emergency." Clark was telling everyone that the 2000 millennium would bring major disruptions from terrorists, economic and business unreadiness, and technical glitches in our worldwide computer networks.

The CIA failure at 9/11, followed by the misunderstanding of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the recent announcement that Ahmed Chalabi is an Iranian spy, is too much incompetence to be overlooked.

In a recent discussion with Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, USMC (Ret), former J-3, Director of Operations for the Joints Chiefs of Staff, I asked the general what happened to the WMD in Iraq. Everyone thought they were there.

General Newbold said he thought they were there, but this was almost irrelevant to the case for going to war.

I asked him to explain.

He said that there were three basic tenets listed in the rational for going to war: (1) Saddam Hussein a threat to the region, (2) he had WMD, and (3) he was aiding and abetting terrorists that posed a threat to the United States. Newbold’s analysis was that Saddam was no threat to the region. He was totally bottled up, his army had decayed to the point of ineffectiveness, and Coalition aircraft ranged far and wide all over Iraq. Newbold also said that it was also widely known then (and subsequently proved by post-war analysis) that Saddam had maintained no real connection to terrorists for at least five years. Terrorism should have been the number one issue for the security of the United States, but Iraq wouldn’t have made the "top eight" list of countries who were supporting it.

As for WMD, Newbold’s view is that the issue was not whether Iraq had WMD, but rather, were they likely to use it on other countries or provide it to terrorists who might? The truth, according to Newbold, is that there were several other countries, or groups within countries, more likely to provide WMD to terrorists, and Iraq was not likely to either provide it, use it internally (again), or against neighbors because they were watched so closely, and the punishment for use would be so swift and sure. Saddam let the world believe he had WMDs for the prestige and the world attention he received. The Americans made him bigger than life and, in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, only Saddam Hussein stood up to the Americans and the UN.

It is known today that while Iraq appears not to have possessed large stores of WMD, Saddam did maintain the capability to produce it; his scientists did bury some small amounts of chemical and/or bio weapons, and some conceivably may have been moved to other countries.

I then asked the general about the planning that led up the invasion of Iraq from a perspective of his position as the J-3 Operations Officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

How many troops were in the original military campaign plan? He replied 500,000 total in the region. This was based on the former Regional Commander-in-Chief’s (General Tony Zinni, USMC (Ret)) estimate, to successfully complete an invasion and the secure the country until a new form of government could take control of security and a stable government.

The Department of Defense leadership rejected the original plan and said to plan for no more than 125,000 maximum. It took many weeks of debate and strong military leadership to get the number to 220,000 total in region for the invasion.

I offered to LtGen Newbold that, in my opinion, the problems we have today stem from four failures:
The failure to keep a major portion of the Iraqi army intact
The failure to keep employed the massive Iraqi government bureaucracy that existed before the invasion
The failure to work with the established Muslim and other religious leaders that were in place
The failure to adequately plan for an “end game” after the war was over
He agreed, but added that now we are faced with the following circumstances in Iraq today: "The single most important reason for the opposition to the Coalition forces today is the image of the US occupation. When US and Coalition forces defeated Saddam’s army, we created a vacuum and we permitted chaos to go unabated because we did not have a post-Iraqi defeat plan. We were first viewed as liberators, but now we have been seen as a conquering power for too long. Our forces are intended to provide stability (which they do magnificently in large portions of the country), but they also are a rallying point for violent opposition."

I asked LtGen Newbold what do we have to now.

He stated that the most important thing we must do is to leave Iraq with the image of an American victory - it cannot be seen as a Mogadishu-like withdrawal. We have to establish a legitimate Iraqi government, we have to convince/compel the Iraqis that it is up to them to defend their new won freedoms, and we have to plan a deliberate and sequential return of American forces to our home bases. To the eyes of the world and the U.S. public, we must show that we are retrograding on our terms, and therefore it would probably be smart to announce our schedule publicly. LtGen Newbold added that the Iraqis must understand that they will succeed or fail based on how much attention they give to their new political, economic, military and social institutions. It is up to them to stand up for a new Iraq, or watch their country fractured.

We both agreed that it was critical for the long-range future of the United States, as a participant in global affairs, that the US is seen as bringing the Iraqi enterprise to a successful conclusion.

[Ben]

So you respect for him disappears as soon as he retires after years of loyal service? Merely because his opinion doesn't tow the line you seem to say it isn't valid, yet you start out saying "He's absolutely free to do so, I can't begrudge him that.". I think his experience does and will continue to speak for itself, and if anyone is launching an armchair assault it is you, because he's the one with field experience. Let's not forget this is soldiers' lives we are talking about, and I don't think it should be left solely to politicians to decide what's right and wrong.

[Tom Tankreedo]

All of you asswipes who are supporting Rumsfeld and Bush need to wake up. You're backing a couple of inept clowns, and rather than admit it, you're attacking the people who are trying to help this country extract itself from the mess that our Cokehead-in-Chief created.

[Col Jeffrey Powers, USMC (ret)]

I had better not come face to face with any of these idiots who have the balls (on a computer) to badmouth the greatest man I ever worked for, Greg Newbold.

[Comte de Rochambeau]

As time passes the true meaning of honor and duty are challenges that change with the situation. The constant in this flux is the human concept that right and wrong may be approached from different viewpoints and still arrive at the same conclusion. This may be hard to convey but still has its value. Somewhere above a comment reads that
the troops are sworn to the Constitution and not the men and women of the government. At this point of history it is obvious the current military action was caused for the
enrichment of the privet sector contractors and lobbyists. The duty of the troops is to protect the Nation and the Citizens. To question the actions of the criminal class that
inhabits the elected branch of our government is paramount to fulfilling that sworn duty. Any person with any ability to discern the difference between common bullshit and
informed dissent will agree that the time has come to speak out.

[huihui]

我是一名GOOGLE左侧排名爱好者，欢迎进我的网站去看看。
google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名
我是一名GOOGLE排名爱好者，欢迎进我的网站去看看！
google排名 google排名 google排名 google排名 google排名 google排名 google排名 google优化

[huihui]

may choose in the below stand to carry on the friendship chain welcome with me to contact with us, extremely thank！翻译公司北京翻译公司短信群发 条码工业设计 中央空调 中央空调 外汇外汇iron oxide iron oxideever prettysummer dresscocktail dressTin box wow powerleveling wow powerleveling wow powerleveling wow power leveling wow power leveling wow power leveling wow gold euro WoW gold wow gold wow gold wow gold world of warcraft powerleveling world of warcraft powerleveling world of warcraft powerleveling world of warcraft power leveling world of warcraft gold World of warcraft gold world of warcraft gold world of warcraft gold water sports towable warcraft gold vending machine may choose in the below stand to carry on the friendship chain welcome with me to contact with us, extremely thank！tube swg credits streaming media server star wars galaxies credits speaker manufacturer sodium percarbonate slot machine shoes roll forming roll forming replica watch replica watch replica rolex replica rolex Powerleveling powerleveling Powerleveling power leveling power leveling power leveling pinball machine Photo paper outdoor camping equipment nike shoes nike Marble fireplace Lineage 2 Adena lineage 2 adena Lee & Lee Associates l2 adena Keyboard Manufacturer jordan shoes jordan gumball machine guild wars gold guild wars faction game machine final fantasy XI powerleveling final fantasy XI Gil Final Fantasy XI Gil final fantasy xi gil final fantasy 11 Gil ffxi powerleveling ffxi gold ffxi gil FFXI Gil FFXI Gil ff11 gil Everquest Plat Everquest 2 platinum eve online isk eve isk EQ2 platinum eq2 plat eq2 plat eq2 gold Digital video recorder may choose in the below stand to carry on the friendship chain welcome with me to contact with us, extremely thank！computer mouse manufacturer chinese dress chinese dress chinese clothing chinese clothing cheap wow gold cheap world of warcraft gold casino machine car sun shades car sun shades car floor mats Canned peaches Canned fruit Canned fruit camping gear and equipment Buy WoW gold buy wow gold buy world of warcraft gold Bamboo veneer Bamboo veneer arcade machine aloe vera air force air bed manufacturer may choose in the below stand to carry on the friendship chain welcome with me to contact with us, extremely thank！

wow powerleveling wow powerleveling World Of Warcraft powerleveling World Of Warcraft powerleveling world of warcraft power leveling world of warcraft power leveling world of warcraft power leveling World of Warcraft gold World of Warcraft gold Stone Flowerpot Stone bathtub Sandstone tile Polyfunctional Aziridine Polyfunctional Aziridine Peach slices Peach halves pc camera manufacturer oil purifier oil purifier NingBO international school Marble statue Marble sculpture Marble pillar Marble lions Marble gazebo Marble fountain Marble fireplace surround Marble doorway Marble columns Marble bench Marble bathtub L2 Adena EverQuest 2 Platinum EQ2 Platinum Dungeons and Dragons Online Platinum DDO Platinum covering machine covering machine China Wholesale cheap wow gold Cheap world of warcraft gold Ceramic rollers Ceramic rollers Carved fireplace Canned yellow peach Canned pear Buy World of Warcraft gold Blue limestone tile

[wowgold]

wow gold site offers free world of warcraft gold guides, that will help you make over 1000 fast and easy
No Waiting, No Bidding. http://www.wowgoldsupport.com - Direct Sale Service offers you the best and fastest way to buy world of warcraft wow gold from game developers directly. You will have the best buy , lowest and unbeatable price.

[sfsf]

wow gold
wow powerleveling gold
world of warcraft power leveling gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
guild war gold
url=http://www.eing.com wow gold/url里的故
url=http://www.mygamestock.com gold/url事是一本
[url="http://www.oforu.com wow gold"]Purchase wow gold[/url]没有写
[url="http://www.eing.com eq2 gold"]wow gold[/url]完的书

[gyyy]

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl

[wow power leveling]

http://www.game-win.com
http://www.high-replica.com
http://www.hzgames.com
http://www.paper-cup-machine.com/cn/index.html
http://wwwclickra.com
http://www.topowerleveling.com
http://www.paper-cup-machine.com
http://www.rajayj.cn
http://www.smokershops.com
http://www.gowowpowerleveling.com
http://www.bags-replica.com
http://www.high-replica.com
http://www.east163.com

[viagra]

With regard to http://www.viagracare.com viagra and http://www.viagracare.com/what_is_ed.html erectile dysfunction, it is already apparent that Viagra was first developed as a treatment for angina but later the drug emerged to be a suitable cure for male impotency but far more striking news is presently capturing the attention of the whole world. Seems Untrue! Well, it is doubtlessly true that oysters fed with the anti-impotency drug Viagra has shown effective results against erectile dysfunction and George May, the Australian farmer who created Viagra oysters became thoroughly popular after the news relating to the efficacy of his Viagra oysters leaked out. Guys! If http://www.viagracare.com cheap viagra can make oysters so powerful against erectile dysfunction then why won’t you be able to combat your impotency successfully after you http://www.viagracare.com buy viagra online? Opt for Viagra via http://www.viagracare.com viagra online and once you http://www.viagracare.com buy viagra and administer the drug in accordance with the instructions of the doctor, you would instantly get cured of erectile dysfunction!

[rs-sky]

rs-sky is an professional store for runescape

gold,items,money,accounts,powerleveling,questqoint,runes and some other goods with fast

delivery and world class service.

http://www.rs-sky.com runescape gold
http://www.rs-sky.com runescape money

[gogo]

http://www.runescapegogo.com
http://www.runescapegogo.com/Runescape-gold-USD.html
http://www.runescapegogo.com/Runescape-gold-GBP.html
http://www.runescapegogo.com/runescape-items.html
http://www.runescapegogo.com
http://www.runescapegogo.com/Runescape-gold-USD.html
http://www.runescapegogo.com/Runescape-gold-GBP.html
http://www.runescapegogo.com/runescape-items.html