fayfreethinkers.com

There is an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, although President Bush said Friday his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld's leadership of the Pentagon was "exactly what is needed at this critical period."

Rumsfeld has come under increasing criticism from retired generals who find his management style and leadership of the war in Iraq lacking.

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste said Friday he thinks the clamor for Rumsfeld to step down is "happening for a reason."

Batiste, interviewed from Rochester, N.Y., said on NBC"s "Today" show, said there was no coordinated campaign to get Rumsfeld fired, saying a recent series of critical statements about the Pentagon chief were "absolutely coincidental."

"I have not talked to the other generals," he said.

Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division forces in Iraq, said he declined an opportunity to get a promotion to the rank of lieutenant general and return to the wartorn country as the No. 2 U.S. military officer because he could not accept Rumsfeld's tough management style.

He said he does not believe Rumsfeld has been sufficiently accountable for the plan that led to the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, although he also said that "we have no option but to succeed in Iraq."

"I support civilian control (of the military) completely," Batiste told interviewers on CBS's "The Early Show."

But, he added, "we went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."

Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance." And retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN that Rumsfeld micromanaged the war. "We need a new secretary of defense," he said.

Military experts say the parade of recently retired military brass calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is troubling and threatens to undermine strong support that Bush has enjoyed among the officer corps and troops.

Republicans in Congress have offered Rumsfeld little in the way of public support.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said Thursday that Rumsfeld has not talked to the White House about resigning — and is not considering it.

The whole article is here http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_armed_forces

Non-time sensitive link here.

DAR
Here is another take on this:

***
Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian - Comment
Friday, April 14, 2006
By Greg Palast

Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals,
safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them
have called for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.

Well, according to my watch, they're about four years too late -- and
they still don't get it.

I know that most of my readers will be tickled pink that the bemedalled
boys in crew cuts are finally ready to kick Rummy in the rump, in
public. But to me, it just shows me that these boys still can't shoot
straight.

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who stood up in front of the UN
and identified two mobile latrines as biological weapons labs, was it,
General Powell?

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who told us our next warning
from Saddam could be a mushroom cloud, was it Condoleezza?

It wasn't Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who declared that Al Qaeda and
Saddam were going steady, was it, Mr. Cheney?

Yes, Rumsfeld is a swaggering bag of mendacious arrogance, a
duplicitous chicken-hawk, yellow-bellied bully-boy and Tinker-Toy Napoleon -- but
he didn't appoint himself Secretary of Defense.

Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of Defense you didn't read
in the New York Times, related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our
president placed in Baghdad as the US' first post-invasion viceroy.

Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working under the mistaken
notion that when George Bush called for democracy in Iraq, the
President meant the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding
the President's true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold
elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of
the cities to a desert base. "It's their country," the General told me
of the Iraqis. "And," he added, most ominously, "their oil."

Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed Garner a 101-page
plan for Iraq's economy drafted secretly by neo-cons at the State
Department, Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for "privatization" (i.e. the
sale) of "all state assets ... especially in the oil and oil-supporting
industries." The General knew of the plans and he intended to shove it
where the Iraqi sun don't shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big
Tent" meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections. By helping
Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic government -- and this was back
when Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get
the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation" turned
into a hated "occupation."

But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition government would mean the
death-knell for the neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.

On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the very night General
Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got a call from Washington. It was
Rumsfeld on the line. He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack, Jack,
you're fired."

Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of on-the-ground experience in
Iraq, with green-boots Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger
Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of Iraqis and
postponed elections for a year; then he issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot
pasha, selling off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators, just as
Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.

Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the six generals' call
for Rumfeld's ouster. Forget it.

For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can't shoot straight.
They're wasting all their bullets on the decoy. They've gunned down the
puppet instead of the puppeteers.

There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked General Garner from
Baghdad without the word from The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or
spits in the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl of approval.
And ultimately, it's the Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.

Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't give them enough
troops -- was ultimately a decision of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by
the way, the problem was not that we lacked troops -- the problem was
that we lacked moral authority to occupy this nation. A million troops
would not be enough -- the insurgents would just have more targets.)

President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the
intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner, looks like the game's up." And Cheney
replies, "Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he's
taken all their ammo."

When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld's resignation
today, I can just hear George saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."

Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's
the President, stupid.
***

http://www.gregpalast.com/blog.cfm

I understand that Rumsfeld is not the leader of the pack but I believe that each brick you can remove from the wall weakens it. Bush is not in charge of anything. Talk about a puppet.

Unfortunately the generals that are speaking out now after they retire sounds like- to little, to late- but being on active duty you are required to follow lawful orders. And the neo-cons had the paper work in order! Congress voted to invade Iraq. Resigning your military post in protest never works. The leadership weither civilian or military is still in place and they can always find someone to do what they want. Either because of ambition or because they just do not understand the long term implications. I am hopeful that there are several generals coming out against Rummy at the same time and maybe independently which I believe would give more credibility.

Having spent several years in the military I know this whole thing stunk from the begining. I studied military stratagy and planning when I was in the service and in college. There are a few books that the military use for planning world stratagies and the war in Iraq never even made it past the first page.

Alfred T. Mahan wrote a book call "Naval Power and Influence on World History". It was written in about 1890 and is still used today by the military. I doubt that anyone in this administration read the book except Collen Powel and you notice he is not there any more. Two things that Mahan's book brings out is the "will of the people" and "control of land".

First if the people do not have the will to fight then going to war is not or should not be an option. Even at the best of times this war only had about 50% support of the American people. But very quickly the opostion to our occupation of Iraq by the Iraqi people increased as rapidly as support for the war dropped in America. So rule #1 broken.

Second being able to control the intended target. To control Iraq or Afganistan for that mater, you have to control the entire country. That is how we got in so much trouble in Vietnam. Not only did we not not control the ground but we violated rule #1 with the will of the people. This administration had not intention of controlling the ground it was all just wishful thinking that they could get control of the oil.

I never made it past sergeant and if I know these simple rules I know the generals knew this as well. I know that several of the general followed the orders since they were lawful order even though they may have known it was a mistake. Then the mission changes to a more personal level. You do the best you can, when someone else has handed you a very crappy situation and try to keep as many troops out of harms way as you can. Why do you think re-enlistment are up? The soldier does not want to leave anyone behind. It is a matter of honor.

If we get rid of Rummy that will weaken the wall by one brick (head)!

JamesH wrote: Why do you think re-enlistment are up? The soldier does not want to leave anyone behind. It is a matter of honor.

DAR
Boy enlistment sure is being hit. I understand it has gone up some since September, but they have also lowered their goals so it doesn't look so bad:

***
Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades
By Robert Burns
The Associated Press

Friday 30 September 2005

Washington - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.
***

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/093005E.shtml

Darrel,

Your are correct that first time enlistments are down. In other word the recruiters that are out there in the public trying to get people to join up for the first time. The people that I am refering to are those that are already in and either extend their enlistment or re-enlist.

I have a very good friend of mine that was getting ready to ship over to Iraq in 2004 and because of his rank and how long he had been in that rank he did not go. Well the unit he was in got hit and lost 2-3 people and he felt very bad because he was not there to help. He said he felt he had let his unit down. He had been with this unit for several years and you form very strong bonds with those people you serve with.

There are many reasons people serve in the militar. But I do believe that for the most part those of us that served beyond that first enlistmen do it more out of duty/honor to our fellow soldier/sailor than any political idea.

Sorry it is very hard for me to explain in written words. I have read enough stories of individual experiences in war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc and the individual almost never mentions some grand political idea it is almost always about serving/helping your friends, your team.

JamesH wrote:Your are correct that first time enlistments are down. In other word the recruiters that are out there in the public trying to get people to join up for the first time. The people that I am refering to are those that are already in and either extend their enlistment or re-enlist.

DOUG
Although the military is offering huge bonuses for reenlistment, the numbers are not very encouraging. (The marines are offering a bonus of $30,000 for those who reenlist.)

Slightly dated, from January 2005:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805J.shtml
===
The U.S. force in Iraq of about 150,000 troops is composed of a "volunteer" Army that came into being with the end of military conscription during the Vietnam War. More than 40 percent are National Guard and Reserve members, most having completed second tours of duty and been sent out again. The force level has been maintained by the Pentagon only by "stop-loss" orders that coerce soldiers to remain in service after their contractual enlistment expires - a backdoor draft. Reenlistment is collapsing, by at least 30 percent last year.
===========

Another source, April 28, 2005:
Leiterreports.typepad.com
===============
Tom Reeves, author of The End of the Draft and longtime observer of draft policy, reports that 40,000 soldiers have already been retained by using the notorious "stop-loss" system, which allows the Army unilaterally to keep soldiers for up to 18 months beyond the date their enlistment is scheduled to terminate....

Such military efforts were augmented by what may be the ultimate sign of military desperation: the call-up of 5,500 members of the "Individual Ready Reserves." As Reeves notes, these are "older men and women whose regular reserve duty has ended -- including grandmothers and grandfathers edging toward retirement…who have no idea they would be recalled to duty." It is hardly surprising that nearly one-third of these superannuated reserves have refused to report....

... Re-enlistment levels in both the Army and the Guard have now slipped below quota, and Reuters reports that this shortfall can be expected to get dramatically worse once larger numbers of soldiers reach that 18-month stop-loss limit.
============

DOUG
Some reenlistment bonuses are as high as $100,000, for those with certain specialized training.

And the reenlistment bonuses are tax-exempt.

My son is in the Coast Guard and has assured me there's virtually no way he's going to get sent to Iraq. There's a waiting list to go! When he was in boot camp, one of his bosses (don't know the rank) got called up after being on the waiting list for two years. The ones who go get big bucks, which is why they want to do it. Of course, if this drags out too long that will change, but that's the way it is now.

Doug refered to the "stop loss" and one thing that they are not explaining and I may not have all of my facts on this but I will do some asking before I get to carried away.

When a person enlist for the first time the contract is for a total of 8 years and the clock starts ticking the day you go to boot camp. Coast Guard may be different since they fall under the Dept. of Transportation unless they have been moved over to Dept. of Defense since 9/11. When I was a recruiter and in the service up to 2000 this is they way it worked. You would enlist for 8 years and of that 8 years you would either be on active duty for 2, 3, 4, and 6 years. If you went in the reserves you would be on active duty until you completed you job training they you would spend the balance of 6 years in reserve unit doing the one weekend a month two weeks a year thing. When you have completed your active duty time or obligated reserve time you would be placed in the IRR or Individual Ready Reserve. If during a national emergency, like neo-cons wanting to invade a country for make believe reason, then people that are in this IRR status can be called back to active duty for the remainder of the 8 year contract. This is were I may not have all of my facts correct but I do not believe that a soldier can be forced beyond that 8 year contract except if war has been declared. I was thinking the Iraq was more of your Korean type "police action". Did we actually declare war on Iraq?

I now that at least part of the "stop loss" retention are these people that are fullfilling that 8 year obligation. As Gommer would say "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" I know that when I was a recruiter I would explain this stuff to these kids and I'm sure that it did not make any sense at all to them at the time and besides what were the chances for someone that enlisted prior to 9/11.

Just so you know I was a losy recruiter and I only had about 4 or 5 kids that made it through boot camp. After two years I was fired. There are a lot of Marines that pray (sorry) that they will get fired from the Marine Corps. Well I did it without praying!

It is hard to explain the commaradiery of the military and it does not go away easily. I'm just a little long in the tooth to be a sergeant again and I have other responsibilities that I left the service for, family and job. But if I did not have those obligation I think I would have volunteered to go back in and not because I support the war but just the opposite. I oppose the war but I still feel that obligation to my Marines. I would like to think that I would try my best to bring all those young Marines home with a minimum amount of damage. I hope we have enough general and admirals that think the same way.

JamesH wrote: I was thinking the Iraq was more of your Korean type "police action".

DAR
Right, except congress did not authorize the Korean war. They did authorize the Iraq mess.

JAMES
Did we actually declare war on Iraq?

DAR
Wiki puts Iraq in this category:

"Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war."

The Korean war goes in this category:

"The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions. Major US Military involvement began with Task Force Smith on July 5th, 1950. A cease fire agreement was signed on July 27, 1953; however no formal treaty has been signed to this date."

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio ... ted_States

D.


.
.

Congress did not formally declare war on Iraq. Post 9/11 Congress authorized the president "war powers", which usually means all powers short of war, with the caveat that military force would be the last resort - and this was regarding Osama, not Saddam. We are no more technically at war in Iraq than we were in Vietnam or Korea.

JamesH wrote:You would enlist for 8 years and of that 8 years you would either be on active duty for 2, 3, 4, and 6 years. If you went in the reserves you would be on active duty until you completed you job training they you would spend the balance of 6 years in reserve unit doing the one weekend a month two weeks a year thing. When you have completed your active duty time or obligated reserve time you would be placed in the IRR or Individual Ready Reserve...I now that at least part of the "stop loss" retention are these people that are fullfilling that 8 year obligation.

DOUG
It may be a lot worse than we thought, according to this report.

=======
Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages

By Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2003; Page A01

Chief Warrant Officer Ronald Eagle, an expert on enemy targeting, served 20 years in the military -- 10 years of active duty in the Air Force, another 10 in the West Virginia National Guard. Then he decided enough was enough. He owned a promising new aircraft-maintenance business, and it needed his attention. His retirement date was set for last February.

Staff Sgt. Justin Fontaine, a generator mechanic, enrolled in the Massachusetts National Guard out of high school and served nearly nine years. In preparation for his exit date last March, he turned in his field gear -- his rucksack and web belt, his uniforms and canteen.

Staff Sgt. Justin Fontaine, 27, with wife Joanne, is upset that his enlistment was prolonged. (Robert E. Klein For The Washington Post)

Staff Sgt. Peter G. Costas, an interrogator in an intelligence unit, joined the Army Reserve in 1991, extended his enlistment in 1999 and then re-upped for three years in 2000. Costas, a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Texas, was due to retire from the reserves in last May.

According to their contracts, expectations and desires, all three soldiers should have been civilians by now. But Fontaine and Costas are currently serving in Iraq, and Eagle has just been deployed. On their Army paychecks, the expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after 2030 -- the payroll computer's way of saying, "Who knows?"

The three are among thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions...

To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice, however, stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their patriotic duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.

"I'm furious. I'm aggravated. I feel violated. I feel used," said Eagle, 42, the targeting officer, who has just shipped to Iraq with his field artillery unit for what is likely to be a yearlong tour of duty. He had voluntarily postponed his retirement at his commander's request early this year and then suddenly found himself stuck in the service under a stop-loss order this fall. Eagle said he fears his fledgling business in West Virginia may not survive his lengthy absence. His unexpected extension in the Army will slash his annual income by about $45,000, he said. And some members of his family, including his recently widowed sister, whose three teenage sons are close to Eagle, are bitterly opposed to his leaving.

"An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract; I am not," said Costas, 42, who signed an e-mail from Iraq this month "Chained in Iraq," an allusion to the fact that he and his fellow reservists remained in Baghdad after the active-duty unit into which they were transferred last spring went home. He has now been told that he will be home late next June, more than a year after his contractual departure date. "Unfair. I would not say it's a draft per se, but it's clearly a breach of contract. I will not reenlist."

...More frequently, the military response to griping about stop-loss is bluntly unsympathetic. "We're all soldiers. We go where were told," said Maj. Steve Stover, an Army spokesman. "Fair has nothing to do with it."
==================
See the rest here.

DAR
Three goose-stepping GOP nazi types on whether the Dixie Chicks (who dared to say something bad about Bush) should be let into the country:

***

Tom in Staten Island

"No I don’t think they will welcome them back, because they were very
disrespectful to our President: President George W. Bush."

Terri Johnson from Long Beach

"I have military friends in Iraq who think it's ridiculous, and they do not
like her-er them ... three girls-who need to be kicked out of the United
States for ever saying anything about the President."

Judy from Milwaukee

"I certainly hope not, because they're still doing the same- same stuff-being, uh, extremely disrespectful saying we were all ashamed of the President and it's, it’s, just something that should not be acceptable."

http://crooksandliars.com/

DAR
Wow:

***
"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote. That was a big mistake. It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it." -- Colin Powell, discovering honesty now that 2375 soldiers are dead

http://stateoftheday.blogspot.com/2006/ ... -tool.html


.
.

.
.

The problem with Colin Powell as sec'y of state was the military thing. You support the "unit" while you're in it. That's why only retired generals are slamming Rummy. Powell just didn't get the point (& most military folks don't) that he was sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the Bush administration. Now he's no longer in the administration, he's willing to tell the truth.

excellent point, barbara