Night Of The Generals

It is increasingly troublesome to me that some number of retired Generals are calling for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. And, no, I don't think for a minute he should resign because of it. I'll explain below.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Let's look at what else this General had to say. What nerve the Left will display when they prop this General up, as I am sure they will. Were he in command of things overall, the Left would only be screaming more.

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Ah, I see General. Apparently your issue is not enough collateral damage, not enough American slain burning Iraqi bodies lying in the street. I understand what the General is saying here - and that's why he is a general and why he should think that way.

It's also why the founding Fathers had the tremendous wisdom to place ultimate control of our military into the hands of civilians and not soldiers. On the battlefield, this General doesn't have to answer to a United Nations or a press corps. No, his former bosses have to do that.

And I would not be surprised if much of this grousing by retiring Generals has as much to do with little military kingdoms and force structures as power centers for career military officers. It is well known that Rumsfeld went in to shake up the force and command structure and that some of that was to be done in a manner which many in the military might resist. I can't say how much of this treason we are seeing now has to do with that, but I would bet more than some. Military officers are by nature very territorial.

As a civilian any retired General is welcome to his point of view. But it is never a clean equation when a Senior officer retires. He is speaking as a civilian, but it is his uniform which gives him weight. That creates a terribly difficult problem. Uniformed officers Constitutionally owe their allegiance to the President and his staff, including the Sec Def. Sure they can retire, but really they are speaking a Generals as much as they ever did when they do.

It is that blurring of the lines between the soldier and civilian government which bothers me most. As far as I am concerned, these now complaining Generals should either make their thoughts known privately to their former peers and even bosses, or they should all take a page from MacArthur and simply fade away.

Retired officers of such high rank have no business entering in our political discourse in such a public manner during a time of war. And that goes for whether they have a book deal or future political ambitions, or not. They betray the public trust in and around separation of the military and civilian points of view they agreed to abide by when they put that uniform on.

And I think it's that and not their previous Generalship or who they are as individuals which signifies their disgrace.

Comments

[Captain Joe]

I always thought that General Shenseki had it right- that is, it would require several hundred thousand troops to win the Iraqi war. He was right. Instead, Rumsfeld chose Tommy Franks, an OCS graduate like me, not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, to plan and run the war. Rumsfeld was shopping for a general who would fight the war on-the-cheap and one who didn't have enough sense to challenge Rumsfeld about his dubious ideas for warfare. First of all, a war without a draft puts handcuffs on the commander. Yeah, the commander knew there were no more troops, so there was no need to ask for more. There weren't any more troops. If the theatre commander asked for more troops, he would be fired and he knew that. The lack of a draft tells our adversaries that we are not serious in our resolve. It is much cheaper to use drafted troops at $78 a month than privates making $1200 today. A war fought with drafted troops spreads the war over the entire population and makes the war much easier politically to wage, especially if it is a declared war. Secondly, Rumsfeld had monkeyed with the structure of the Army, forming boutique brigades and dismantling our army divisions. Much of the support forces were done away with. We had to use reserves and national guard forces that were built on the old army division models to accomplish what we did accomplish. Rumsfeld has done similar things to the Navy and Marine Corps. Many of my old Army buddies and Naval Academy chums have complained about Rumsfeld's transformation of the forces. My old branch, the artillery, has been decimated. Fort Sill, the site for artillery training has been turned into a basic training site. Rumsfeld would rather use helicopter gunships or air forces and expose pilots to danger instead of using safe, stand-off artillery in pounding enemy targets.
I believe Rumsfeld's days are numbered. I only hope he has not done too much damage to our force structure so that a challenge from China or North Korea will turn into disaster. I predict the return of the draft, soon.

[Geek, Esq.]

Did you denounce Tommy Franks' campaign stumping for Bush in 2004 as 'treason' as well? How about the current head of the Joint Chiefs, who was praising Rumsfeld to no end today?

Or is it okay just as long as you don't criticize the Dear Leader and his apparatchiks?

[Laura Lee Donoho]

One of these generals was a roommate of my husband's at West Point and a groomsman in our wedding. When I told my husband what he said on CNN he said, "Just because he's being disloyal it won't cause me to also be disloyal by telling you what I really think about one of my classmates." Suffice it to say, this makes us sick.

[Captain Joe]

I never said Tommy was treasonous, just not very sharp. I suspect at that level most generals are politicians to get where they are. It's a rare general that tells a truth that goes against the Secretary's plan like Shenseki did and doesn't expect to get canned if they are on active duty. It's amazing how retirement makes some of the grow balls.

[Dan]

Did you denounce Tommy Franks' campaign stumping for Bush in 2004 as 'treason' as well?

Supporting the CIC is hardly treason. Your points make no sense. It is whata General is trained and paid to do. You really donrt get it, do you? All it takes is enough Generals to decide they don't like the civilian authority enough to do what they say and you have a military Coup D'etat.

Like it or not, the military command structure is subservient to the civilian authority per our Constitution for some extremely good reasons. And there it will, hopefully, always remain.

It is NOT their responsibility nor their inherent right to question it. They knew that when they signed on. This is America, not the Goddamned old Communist Block.

[Geek, Esq.]

Supporting the CIC is hardly treason.

I see. Exercising one's free speech right is only treasonous if one criticizes Bush. Gotcha.

It is NOT their responsibility nor their inherent right to question it. They knew that when they signed on. This is America, not the Goddamned old Communist Block.

Civics lesson for you: It IS their inherent right to speak out once they retire. See United States Constitution, 1st Amendment.

I'll throw in a history lesson for you: Macarthur was fired for insubordination. The irony of citing Macarthur as a role model for respecting civilian authority is almost as dense as breaking out the "this ain't the Soviet Union" rhetoric while at the same time engaging in Stalinist rhetoric that equates dissent with treason.

[Dan]

Exercising one's free speech right is only treasonous if one criticizes Bush

Look, you are wrong. I would be just as troubled if Generals started questioning Clinton and his admin when he was in. I simply don't feel it should be done. This is civilian versus military authority, not right versus left. If you can't see or accept that as my position, too bad.

[Dan]

citing Macarthur as a role model for respecting civilian authority

Now you're just full of chit. I didnt nothing of the kind. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with his speech - before COngress I believe, which is the only context he was brought into this.

[xxx]

Did it not occur to you Dan, that these guys almost certainly tried to be heard in the normal chain of command, tried to tell Rumsfeld that his entire strategy was crap, that they needed more troops and a real plan to manage the country after the invasion and that have been saying the same for years.

Maybe they are fed up to see that troops are dying, things are still not going well, morale in the military is terrible and we are stuck in a morass that we can't get out of.

But, GOD FORBID, anyone criticize Bush or Rumsfeld for making a mess of the entire situation by failing to listen to the military.

I never heard of deciding that a bunch of neocon civilians who never served day in any army should be believed over career military officers who served in the first Iraq war and just might know more about war than the neocons who spend their time writing articles about how criticizing them is treason.

[Geek, Esq.]

I am fully aware of the context re: MacArthur--he gave a nice speech after being fired for engaging in subordination.

He made the kinds of comments these generals are making--WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

If these guys were to be like MacArthur, they'd have committed gross insubordination and then made a nice speech. I prefer their approach.

And regarding the whole questioning of civilian authority--again these guys are no longer in active duty. They are civilians. If they view Rumsfeld's leadership as disastrous, why should they keep quiet? The only way to penetrate the bubble surrounding the C-I-C is to generate publicity.

[annie]

If most of the people in the US had to go on public transport every day and be surrounded by people dressed in Muslim garb, carrying bags, or whatever, and wonder whether you were going to get blown up any second, I think it might focus their minds about what they are up against.

Whether they like it or not, war was declared against the US on 9/11, and they need to get behind whoever is in charge of fighting it and trying to keep the US safe.

Trouble is, people have very short term memories.

This Retired Major General may think he has something really valid to say, but until the threat is over, he should keep his mouth shut and let the people in charge fight the war they are commissioned to fight the way they want to fight it.

Perhaps he could put his opinions in his memoirs later!

[xxx]

Huh?

I think the point the generals are trying to make is that the military, generally 'the people in charge of fighting the war' were ignored and overrulled by Rumsfeld and his cohorts who were more interested in proving an ideological point about quick war, moveable strike force and low troop levels than they were about doing what was actually most conducive to winning the war.

I fail to see any relationship between the Iraq war and 9/11 since it has been thoroughly proven that there was no link between Saddam and Al Quaida, other than being Arabs who don't like the USA, but if that is all you need to make a link then I guess the entire muslim world really does deserve to be sent to Gitmo.

Personally, when several retired generals say the war is a disaster, and they have devoted their entire lives to serving their country and the military, I think what they have to say is very valid.

A lot more valid than a bunch of ideological conservatives who haven't left the Beltway in 30 years.

Oh, and exactly who declared war on the US? The entire muslim world? Al Quada, a terrorist organization? Iraq? Iran? Who?

[annie]

xxx

Who declared war on us?

Radical Islamic terrorists, that's who.

And they have support in high places!!

Israel is their favourite target, but the US and UK are also in there.

Whether we like it or not, they don't like us, that is, Isreal and the West collectively. In fact, they UTTERLY HATE US, and that is no understatement.

[JustDoIt]

It is one thing to be loyal to your civilian commanders in the heat of battle or in an ungoing war, even when your better judgment tells you otherwise, but it is another to remain silent if you feel the current administration got it wrong and is continuing on a course that is heading counter to the intended results. These generals have a right, just as you and I do, to speak freely about their own opinions and very credible beliefs about what has happened.

General Zinni feels the same way, it is not just the recent ones cited here.
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

[JustDoIt]

General Batiste said this week that the United States needs "a fresh start" at the Pentagon.

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes," Batiste told "American Morning" on Wednesday.

"When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril." (Watch as the Iraq veteran criticizes the Pentagon's decision-making -- 1:30)

In addition to commanding the 1st Infantry in Iraq, Batiste also was a senior adviser to former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the U.S.-led invasion.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said.

Zinni, who also appeared Thursday on CNN, blamed Rumsfeld for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning."

Those plans "had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq," Zinni said.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said. "When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."

[xxx]

Whether we like it or not, they don't like us, that is, Isreal and the West collectively. In fact, they UTTERLY HATE US, and that is no understatement.
_____________

There are some legitimate reasons why they don't like us.

The number one reason being the United States support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people, and our refusal to use our leverage and financial contributions to Israel, without which they would have a hard time maintaining anything, to bring them to heel and force a resolution to the issue.

Another reason they hate is would be our support of the Shan of Iran, another first class dictator who tortured and abused those Iranians whno did not agree with his plan to westernize Iran. We would do well to think about this specific issue when contemplating any kind of military incursion into this country.

They also hate us because they think we are immoral, corrupt, materialistic and sinful and are infecting their world with our culture. I don't find this last reason valid, but that is what they believe nevertheless.

The Palestinian suicide bombers are not 'radical Islamic terrorists' and if they are simply dismissed as such, then the situation is never going to be solved...they are viewecd by their own people and most of the Arab world as freedom fighters, much like the French Resistance in WWII, they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Israeli's have taken over their country, degraded, imprisoned and kept them in virtual slavery.

I would have thought that HAMAS being voted in by the Palestinian people would be a wake up call to anyone that the "hard line" has not worked, is not working and is not going to work. The hard line got rid of the PLO, well congratulations, now you have a group that won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist...that is only progress if the goal is a neverending bloodbath, and frankly there are too many Palestinians to be massacred, and while we might stand by and let the Israeli military attempt to eradate them, Europe would never allow it. So the world is stuck with the Palestinians.

[annie]

xxx

I believe it goes much deeper than radical islamic terrorists.

I did say they had friends in high places, and I am not necessarily meaning other Muslims!

The plot is far more sophisticated than that!!!

The real threat is from Europe.

[annie]

xxx

I believe it goes much deeper than radical islamic terrorists.

I did say they had friends in high places, and I am not necessarily meaning other Muslims!

The plot is far more sophisticated than that!!!

[annie]

Like, try this New World Order which is a very real concept, and well under way!!

[Major Mike]

One officer's perspective: If you as an officer have a principled disagreement with those over you (including the civilian authorities) to the extent that you cannot in good conscience continue to serve under those conditions, you resign your commission and then speak your peace. The hope is that the final bight blaze of the ending of your career will make someone pay attention to the greivous problem you are protesting. OTOH, retiring in safety with full pension intact and then shooting your mouth off while the bullets are still flying is dishonorable. Accepting payment for it is beneath contempt.

[Dan]

There are many grounds to oppose what the retired Generals are saying, and even more reasons to question their motives.

But one criticism that doesn't fly is that Rumsfeld should be kept in place, otherwise our Generals would go out and slaughter at will.

The problems we are having in Iraq, and increasingly in Afghanistan, is PRECISELY because we haven't done to our enemies, what our forefathers did to Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, et al. We've allowed ourselves to wage politically correct war in a post-modern age.

And I don't much like our odds so long as we wage war in a manner that is almost designed to make sure that it is protracted, and indecisive.

[DownSouth]

I voted for the President but I have no faith in him. I am a career miltary officer who always argued that war in Iraq was a bad idea. Not because i love Muslims or because I'm sensitive. Iraq can only be run by a dictator. There are too many natural issues that would make political consensus typically unreachable. This always unwinable without ruthlessness and will remain so. To win this you would have to turn off the tv cameras and suppress the oppostion with extreme prejudice. Rumsfeld and his ilk are arrogant assholes which I saw firsthand during Katrina relief. I can't say that anyone can fix this now but he should have fired a long time ago. No general would have retained his command if he had the same track record as Rumsfeld. The President will probably keep him because they are two hard headed peas in a pod. Add Cheney to the mix and we have our very own Axis of Bad Decisions.

I don't have to support these people to be called conservative or Republican but I shudder to think who I get to vote for next...John McCain...I can hardly wait.

[xxx]

One of the many, many mistakes that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld group made is they seem to think Democracy grows like a weed...it will sprout up anywhere if given the chance.

The truth is, it takes a lot of cultural, societal and economic underpinnings to make a democracy work. Even many so called 'democratic states' like India don't really function as democracies, they are too hamstrung by corrupution.

The idea that the U.S. military was going to depose Sadam Hussen and then say "abracadabra' and magically, a country w/no democratic tradition, living in poverty, with no infrastructure or economy to speak of, rife with ethnic and religious conflicts, even without any real legitimate national identity as "Iraqis" was madness.

There is a reason why the most democratic countries in the world are also the richest, have the most secularized government [I will hope that our current quasi theocracy is a blip on our screen], high levels of education and generally strong economies, strong national identities and HUNDREDS of years of some form of citizen participation in government.

Because that's what it takes to grow a democracy, it is rather more like a flower than a weed that takes some cultivating.

History is not going to be kind to Bush.

[annie]

Forget democracies, and get up to speed!

The 'coming' New World Order is the name of the game, and it is already well on its way.

Europe is already being controlled by an unelected man with athiestic, Marxist, persuasions, named Javier Solana, who has given himself the title of The High Representative of the European Union, who also happens to be the Secretary General of the ten nation Western European Union, which is a military defence alliance, and most people have not even heard of him or the power he already has. Probably more powerful than President Bush, and I don't say that lightly.

The people of the countries of the European Union no longer live in democracies, as everything can be overidded by the European Union. Even the people in Europe don't know what is going on, because we have been sleep walking into all this for so long.

These people eventually want centralised control of all the countries in the world, which is merely another way of saying a World Dictatorship!

And instead of coming back at me with 'that must be a load of rubbish', why don't you go check it out!!

[annie]

I don't believe President Bush is part of this, and that is why I hope that he does not fail because there are many people around who are really hoping he does, because they have their own agenda.

[xxx]

Is the Trilateral commission and the UN also involved in this conspriracy to rule the world?

You just lost every shred of credibility you ever had.

The EU is running the world now, is that it? And their goal is the destruction of the United States? Who the hell are they going to trade with if there isn't any US? Who is going to foot the bill for defending and dealing with rogue states? It aint going to be the EU that is for sure.

Bush has already failed,, forget about it. He has done more to arouse hatred of Americans and new recruits to islamic terror groups than Osamma bin Laden ever could have done on his own.

[annie]

xxx

You may not understand what is going on, but I can bet you there will be plenty of people that do.

The plans behind the NWO are well known, and I am not spouting anything new, just reminding people to take an up to date look at how far they have gone, and to figure out for themselves the consequences for the US.

The proponents of the New World Order have never made any secret about their goals, in fact, President Bush's father was buying into this at one time, but hopefully the Bush family have seen the light!

[annie]

xxx

You ask who Europe will trade with? They will trade with each other and whoever becomes a subsequent member.

You also don't understand, there wont be any rogue states, that is the point of the NWO, all states (countries) will come under one government.

The countries who are said to be in the European Union look as though they have a democracy because we make much of voting, etc, but when push comes to shove, the ultimate say in our affairs (and I mean ALL OUR AFFAIRS) is at the say of the powers of the European Union, which all countries who are members must conform to. They can change any of our laws they want, and these laws are the ones that have been made by our sovereign parliament. We no longer have autonomy, our sovereignty has been given away to the powers that be in the European Union.

The leader of the European Union is an UNELECTED man called Javier Solana. He has been given these powers under European Union Declaration No.666. He is also the leader of the ten nations Western European Union, which is a military defence alliance.

The European Parliament is simply a mouthpiece. All the decisions are made by a select few, the Commissioners (again unelected), who have Javier Solana over them.

If you studied what is really happening within the European Union, you would not be questioning what I am saying. The people of my country were told it was just a trading organisation, but it has now turned into a body that is imposing all kinds of rules and laws on us. Every time another country joins that means that the people from that country can go and live in any other member state it wishes, and after a year is entitled to all the benefits as a person born there. The equivalent of that would be if the US decided to join some American Federation and all the countries in North and South American could become part of it, and go live wherever they wished in any of the other countries. I don't think we have to think too hard to imagine where most would be headed, and you would have to take them in. They would not be illegal immigrants, but entitled to live in the US legally.

The idea behind the NWO is that ALL COUNTRIES will eventually become a one world federation of states, and this will ultimately become a dictatorship, which is what is happening in Europe, and the thing is, the people wont even be aware of it, until all their rights and freedoms will have suddenly disappeared.

Can't swallow that?, but in this case THE TRUTH IS HARDER TO BELIEVE THAN FICTION, which is why the people behind the NWO are finding it so easy to carry this out.

[JustDoIt]

Can't swallow that?, but in this case THE TRUTH IS HARDER TO BELIEVE THAN FICTION, which is why the people behind the NWO are finding it so easy to carry this out.

Posted by: annie | Sunday, April 16, 2006 at 08:28 PM

Hello Annie,

As a Christian, I too see the relevancy of what you have written here. This European Union is Bible prophecy, if you look at the book of Daniel, Chapter 2, verses 41-43, he writes about a revived Roman Empire. The resolution no. 666 also is of no coincidence, since most know what those three numbers stand for. Non-believers will say this is all a bunch of religious, theocratic hogwash, but I remain steadfast in my beliefs and the fact that we are not far from the Rapture, the declaration of the anti-christ and the seven years of tribulation before the second coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The book of Daniel also writes about the ten kings in the revived Roman Empire and that Israel will be under a "peace" agreement with this new world order until such time as this leader (anti-christ-false prophet) deceives the world into worshipping him and will have the authority to kill those who will not. A mark will be required to be able to buy and sell anything. Jews and tribulaiton-era Christians will be persecuted during this time, all leading up the armies of the world gathering together at the mount of Megiddo in N. Israel before launching a massive attack against Jerusalem (Armageddon). This is no fairy tale or fiction, it is bible prophesy. Many people will be deceived into thinking that this "new world order" is the peace that we all strive for, when in all actuallity, it is the sign of the end of days.

[annie]

Thank you for posting that JustDoIt

Yes, all that I am saying is true about The New World Order, and you are verifying this is also prophesied in the Bible. Strange, how this man has been doing this under the eye of the whole world, yet has never even been seen, not even by most of the people who live under European Union rule.

Javier Solana is a major go-between for Israel and the Palastinians, trying to bring peace!!, so he is already involving himself in all of this.

Trouble is, he is so utterly charming it will be hard for people to believe that he means anything but good things for those who deal with him.

However, when he first put up his website, he had a drawing of himself dressed as a Roman emperor, and that just about sums up what he is about!!

The New World Order also have their own religion 'United Religions' that they wish to replace all other religions. Soon we will not be allowed to read certain portions of the Bible without being arrested, in fact, although it has not yet been tested, I bet they could already do that. We are already being silenced about about voicing certain moral principles by being accused of 'hate crimes'. All this stuff is going to hit Christians (and Muslims, incidentally) very hard. There will be no freedom of speech, except some left wing liberal, wishy washy, anything goes, stuff, (immorality, that is), which will probably suit most of Europe.

The people high up in this Organisation have Marxist, athiest, homosexual backgrounds. Check out a guy called Mandelson, who was kicked off the front bench Labour party for misdeeds, but hey you know what, was then rewarded with the position of a Commissioner in the European Union!! He is a homosexual with a young boyfriend, all courtesy of the tax payer, and we cannot say a word about it, because all these homosexual laws have been pushed through so quickly, none of the ordinary people have gotton to vote on any of this. These guys do what they like. Why?? BECAUSE THEY CAN!! They are now virtually unstoppable.

I don't think that people in the US have a clue as to what is going on because most people who are already living under this in the European Union don't have, we have been sleep walking into all of this!!

The only hope we have is for some party like the UK Independence Party to win, and win big, as they, for the most part, are former Conservatives who can see what is happening 'in a political sense' and want to pull the UK out of the European Union, otherwise the future for freedom in this country just gets bleaker. Tony Blaire is well and truly a paid up member of the European Union, and it was he who proposed his good friend Mandelson for the job of Commissioner. Things, and people are not as they seem!! A few years ago I would have been able to come on here and say just whatever I wished, not so now, I actually believe I am in danger of getting somebody knocking on my door!! Imagine having to live in fear in the country you were born and bred in, and your forebears died to protect,and for people to live in freedom, and we have given it all away!!

[JustDoIt]

A charmer, great orator, deceiver, peace maker, all the traits believed to be of the one who will lead the NWO. Where are you from Annie?

[rwilymz]

"XXX" sez:

"Did it not occur to you Dan, that these guys almost certainly tried to be heard in the normal chain of command"

And? They *were* heard, "X". They're generals. The stars don't mean they pump gas at Texaco.

They WERE heard. It was called "policy planning", and not eveyone has the same notions of what the future policy should be. That happens. SOMEone has to be in charge, and that someone makes the decisions. As stated before, the US committed to undertaking a military action of 'x' scope with 'y' resources ... we've had the discussions on what the scope should be, and what resources we can muster. The time for that discussion is OVER.

We are now implementing that policy, and having people sit back and take "tolja-so" potshots isn't helpful, it IS damaging, and it's uncalled for until someone starts writing the history books.

They gave their input, their input wasn't the blockbuster that their egos thought it should have been, the decision went in a different direction. happens every day, in all kinds of ways.

"tried to tell Rumsfeld that his entire strategy was crap"

"Crap"? Invading and conguering a nation of 25 million in, what, 5 weeks with remarkable loss of civilian and military lives -- ours AND theirs -- is "crap"?

Napoleon should have been so lucky for this crap; the entire European continent would be speaking Froggish right now.

"that they needed more troops"

None were available. Can't change that. Quit trying to change it after the fact.

"and a real plan to manage the country after the invasion and that have been saying the same for years."

It is a generally conceived falsehood that US response to conditions in Iraq haven't changed; most people are not privy to information that goes into the decisions and they simply don't know what they're talking about. But funny how owning a vote makes many of those people believe that their opinion on "what should" is synonimous with "what is".

If you don't like it, vote for someone who'd do it differently or not at all, but don't sit there saying what is; you're invariably wrong.

That scold given, one valid criticism is that the State Department should have understood an age-old maxim of occupation politics: you don't create a government from the top down. If people on the street don't have water and electricity, then the government is a failure. We absolutely refused to allow ex-Baathists to hold their previous bureaucratic jobs providing basic services to the population. This did two things:
1] deprived the population of basic services and added to their discontent;
2] freed up the ex-Baathists to become insurgents.

Congratulations.

"Maybe they are fed up to see that troops are dying,"

Troops die in military actions; part of the landscape. Unavoidable. Historically, this is a cakewalk.

"things are still not going well"

Historically, considering the methods used etc, things are going great.

"morale in the military is terrible"

Morale in the military is exceptional. Morale among those who might be cajoled into joinging the military is not. Don't wildly extrapolate.

"and we are stuck in a morass that we can't get out of."

What is this morass of which you speak? Don't tell me you're part of the microwave generation: put a foreign policy in the microwave, nuke it on high for 45 seconds and out pops piping hot peace and stability...

That can't be, can it?

"But, GOD FORBID, anyone criticize Bush or Rumsfeld for making a mess of the entire situation by failing to listen to the military."

You are positing a premise that is simply false: the administration "failed to listen to the military". Cow-caca.

Bush won by 50.5% to 49.5% or something, right? So people who come away from the voting booth dissatisfied with the results can say "the election didn't reflect the will of the people" ..?

Wrong. It reflected the will of the majority.

The policies chosen in Iraq reflected the military consensus. The fact that there are and always will be dissent among the advisors does not mean that consensus was denied.

Get down off your cross, please, there will be no martyrs today.

I never heard of deciding that a bunch of neocon civilians who never served day in any army should be believed over career military officers who served in the first Iraq war and just might know more about war than the neocons who spend their time writing articles about how criticizing them is treason.

[rwilymz]

Pardon for forgetting this bit:

"I never heard of deciding that a bunch of neocon civilians who never served day in any army should be believed over career military officers who served in the first Iraq war and just might know more about war than the neocons who spend their time writing articles about how criticizing them is treason."

You should be introduced to the Constitution of the UNited States of America, then, for it holds that civilians are SPECIFICALLY required to be in command of the military and therefore hold superior authority over that military.

The fact that this nation now exists in a time in which military service is the exception rather than the rule only means that we have been uncommonly successful in our survival. Having more and morepoliticians without [meaningful] military service is nothing more than an expected offshoot of that reality.