April 21, 2006
The more I learn, the more of a Rumsfeldian I become..
Penraker has an interesting historical summary of the campaign to "get Rumsfeld." It started long before Iraq, and well before 9/11...
Here's one item I didn't know:
...About Five days after the war began, there was a flurry of media reports claiming that we did not have enough troops, that because of that, we had gotten bogged down, and now were in danger of losing. Only Five days in!
The media howled for a while, and got slammed for doing so. Then, they revealed their sources: "retired generals" were feeding them this stuff. "We have all these retired generals coming to us and telling us that the whole operation is in jeopardy. What are we supposed to do, not report it?"
The retired generals strike again. It even seems this time that they did not care what effect this had on the men in the field, they were out to use every blip in the news cycle to complain about things. Very, very disturbing....
I remember slamming the media for those utterly disgusting accusations that we were "bogged down," and "in danger" five days into the campaign! Now I discover it was the "retired generals" sabotaging our forces. For them to do it is ten times worse than for the media. They know better.
Posted by John Weidner at April 21, 2006 01:11 PMThe conceit that retired generals are somehow above politics is pretty damn comical...hell, the conceit that active generals are above politics is comical - and especially when it comes to discussing their former boss, it's ludicrous.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at April 21, 2006 02:23 PMIt's my understanding (mind you, I never moved in such exalted circles, being a lowly lieutenant)that once an officer gets promoted to colonel (or captain, in Navy-speak), any further promotions are more a matter of politics than merit. That's not to say that an utter bozo who knows only how to slap backs will make general (or admiral), but a lot of good-quality officers no doubt get passed over in favor of glad-handers.
If that is the case, then is it any wonder that our three- and four-star generals pay more attention to career advancement (even if it can only take the form of tearing down someone else) than they do to the substance of their oaths to the Constitution?
Posted by: Hale Adams at April 21, 2006 05:14 PMIt's worth mentioning that the number of troops used in the initial invasion was limited by logistics. Until Basra was captured and brought into operation, everything had to be supplied through Kuwait's only large port, which also had to supply Kuwait.
Any general would know this. So they were lying when they said Rumsfeld made the wrong choice -- they knew there was no choice.
The other sad and sorry thing is that when they see these senior officers ignoring the long accepted civil silence, they start criticizing as well, which is an approach to objecting to civilian control of the military.
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at April 23, 2006 05:14 AMThe other sad and sorry thing is that when they see these senior officers ignoring the long accepted civil silence, they start criticizing as well, which is an approach to objecting to civilian control of the military.
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at April 23, 2006 08:41 AM
