I disagree with Kohn. When a general retires, he's a civilian again. It's his right to say whatever he wants. Furthermore, sometimes the feedback that we can get from these military leaders is a good thing, especially since some of them know what they're talking about.

Civilian leaders are, and should be, subject to criticism from any civilian that feels like opening their mouth. As far as the military and civilians not trusting each other, I don't see how silencing the generals would improve the situation one way or the other.
Aaron | Email | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 9:53 pm | #

A General officer is never retired. Had these people had doubts, they should have voiced them as their duty dictates. .

Now, shall we interview the hundreds of Flag and General officers (retired) who do support the SecDef and the President? Think the MSM wil be doing this at all? Where was the defense of General officers who were critical of Clinton? We're waiting

I think i hear crickets chirping...
DaveindeSwamp | Email | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 10:35 pm | #

No movie plot ever survived scrutiny by the audience.
Alan Kellogg | Email | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 11:01 pm | #

Retired military can be called to active duty in emergencies.

6 out of 4700. Some consensus.

One of the Generals said Rummy was "abusive", yet never gave details.
What a cry baby! I'm glad he retired.
Ben USN (Ret) | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 12:59 am | #

You people are the stupidest motherfuckers I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

"I think Rumsfeld has done a decent job simply because he has been willing to adapt to the unexpected and the unplanned contingencies."

What war are you watching? Rumsfailed didn't have a plan, unless you count the hope that we would be greated as liberators, so every fucking thing he has done as been an adaption. Bush didn't even realize there were Sunnis and Shiites until two weeks before the fun started. Huge ammo dumps were left unsecured. The Iraqi Army was cut loose with all their weapons in tact. Just about every thing that has gone wrong was predicted in an article by James Fallows in the Atlantic, not to mention the studies from the State Department that Cheney and Bush ignored. All of this shit was "expected" it just wasn't "expected"
by the most incompetant administration is history, who, unfortunately, happened to be running the show.

The irony of a psychiatrist living in a world of illusion and blogging about her fantasy is too rich for words.
anon | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 1:44 am | #

anon(ha) -PLEASE run our country for us! Your prescience is INVALUABLE! We will gladly vote you in as Benign Dictator for Life(or whatever title you would prefer). We are desperately in need of someone who can predict the future. Here's the catch though. You will need to identify yourself so we can give you the honor you truly deserve.
nan | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 7:14 am | #

Dr. Sanity has a good point. She knows that war is extremely difficult, so difficult, in fact, that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Therefore, she does not hold our warmakers to an impossible standard.

But what do people who have never studied war think? Many of them evidently think war is like any other complex activity: manageable with flowcharts, guidelines, progress milestones and lots and lots of meetings. If they work in the knowledge industry, they've probably never known anything to be done any other way. (If they move matter around, on the other hand, they've probably gained some appreciation of how hard nature can fight back sometimes.)

So in their eyes, Rumsfeld IS a failure, because he didn't meet the benchmarks he set out in his own quarterly projections. If you don't understand war, you can't really judge someone engaged in it.

Not to mention, of course, that a lot of folks in the knowledge industry have learned that the way you get your enemies in trouble is to carp when their projections fall short ... which might work on Rummy but sure won't work on Osama.
Steve Johnson | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 7:49 am | #

While I'm sure such airy, wave of the hand pronouncements play well down at the cigar club, it is not merely "messy" when you plunge a nation into civil war and bankrupt our country doing it.

Yet this is the tidy. self-assured vocabulary of Rumsfeld and his leaning-forward Princeton boys, who gave us "dead enders," " last throes," and the like.

The fact that all this impresses some bumpkin professor from Tobacco road doesn't do much for those left to clean up the mess.

What you call the the fog of war is really just glaucoma in the eyes of the Secretary of Defense.
ATS | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 8:47 am | #

Yeah, ATS let's see your neat little powerpoint presentation of what should be done, shall we?

We'll get the troops on your plan right away.

Uh..what do we do if the enemy hasn't read the charts and doesn't play along?
SGTGUY | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 9:26 am | #

SGTGUY makes a great point. It is the enemy who are incompetent! They are not following the pre-war planning. Don't they know that all wars must be perfectly scripted??

Clearly we should let guys like ATS do all the planning! He knows everything. The fog of war will disappear with him in charge of things. And he probably doesn't even have to wear glasses. What a guy.
Star | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 9:30 am | #

This is why we should leak all our plans to the enemy, so they know what role they are supposed to play! I hadn't realized that point. That way we can all fit into the precision war that ATS and others in the MSM and elsewhere expect. Gosh, I'm going to have to go study some hollywood war movies so I can appreciate the way war really works. No more cigar clubs for me!
Usedtoit | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 9:33 am | #

LOL Usedtoit.

it is not merely "messy" when you plunge a nation into civil war and bankrupt our country doing it.

From what I can gather from reading the MSM and listening to experts like ATS, we should be able to achieve all military objectives without any causalties or deaths either! I can't wait to see how that's done. The incredible low casualty/death rate incurred by our forces considering what they accomplished is rather historic...but I'm sure that ATS knows how to prevent any problems. I'll defer to him.
Jan | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 9:39 am | #

Here's something that I'm picking up on via reading some military blogs and things. As we know, one of Rumsfeld's big projects is the "transformational military". But I wonder how many people realize what that actually means. Basically, what Rumsfeld's vision does is eliminate the cannon-fodder buck private. In the future force, every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman is a specialist of sorts, armed and equipped with lethality unimagined a generation ago. That's one reason there aren't more "boots on the ground" in Iraq -- because if the force has been assembled, trained, and equipped properly, then a half-million army shouldn't be needed to do this job. In Rumsfeld's army, there are a lot fewer of the good guys placed in harm's way, because it just isn't necessary.

So here's what I'm getting: some military people are offended by this. They consider it "un-manly". In their view, you fight wars by sending out hordes of grunts with rifles to shoot at the other side's grunts with rifles, and hopefully your grunts kill more of the enemy's grunts than they kill of yours. In their view, equipping soldiers with advanced technology is somehow a challenge to their manhood.

Now, I don't think it's the would-be grunts who are complaining; it's the armchair generals. I'll have to admit I just do not comprehend their thinking. After all, it was Patton, one of the manliest of military leaders, who is supposed to have said "The object of war isn't to die for your country. The object of war is to make the other poor bastard die for his country." Working from this, any technology that we can come up with that reduces risk to our own forces is the ticket to victory -- if the enemy knows that they will take thousands of casualties without making a dent in our forces, they will be much less inclined to fight. And maybe, just maybe, this will prevent some wars from happening at all.

But these armchair generals apparently have dreams of commanding medivial battles with knights in armor and colorful banners and lancers and the whole works. And they blame Rumsfeld for depriving them of their Romantic fantasy.
Cousin Dave | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 11:28 am | #

Anon, you want to talk incompetent, let's start with Bill Clinton's utter debacle in Somalia, 1993: He inherited a successful US led UN mission with 22,000 US troops on the ground who had stopped a famine and were in the process of building a nation. His first act: reduce the troops to 400 Army rangers, remove Marines and their tanks. THEN start a fight with the local war-lords.

Let's talk about his economic embargo and subsequent INVASION of Haiti in 1994: crushed the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere and wouldn't allow the Military to provide food relief to starving people.

Rwanda, 1994-5; ignored all signs of impending genocide and did nothing when it actually happened despite the fact that geopolitically there was NOTHING STOPPING HIM.

North Korea - signed a piece of paper that granted the NoKo regime free oil, free food, and free nuclear power plants in exchange for a promise to be nice. They cheated and produced a bomb anyway. That's brilliant.

Balkans - did nothing to stop the war from 1993 till 1998. Then, used a strategic weapon (stealth fighter bomber) for a TACTICAL mission over Belgrade, and when one was shot down - there goes billions in top secret technology - he didn't have the wreck blown to bits and torched, thus allowing all those secrets to go straight to the Chi-coms and Russians.

But of course he didn't care since China gained both all our nuclear secrets, super computers AND missile guidance technology thanks to Clinton's direct intervention.

And all throughout the "END OF HISTORY" he routinely ignored the rise of Al Qaeda and international terror despite a dozen ever increasingly bold attacks.

But we're to assume Bush is an idiot because we didn't invade Iraq with 500,000 men. So because it's not perfect, flawless, and bloodless, it's not worth doing? If the dems were so perfect - show me one example policy wise in any field where THEY get it right the first time. Not education, not poverty relief, not welfare, not 'war on drugs', not immigration, nothing. Definately not foreign policy.
John | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 11:41 am | #

John's summary is excellent (although Clinton's hands were probably tied by Jimmy Carter on the NK deal). But the last paragraph is particularly on point. Doing a massive human-wave invasion the way that the leftists are advocating after the fact would have resulted in far higher U.S. casualties.
Cousin Dave | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 1:33 pm | #

Let anon and ATS define a "perfect war". And let's see how many such perfect wars had ever been executed in US history, or in world history?
Of course, if it is up to them, there will never have needs for a perfect war. Why can't we all just get along, right?

If the few retired generals want to change the system (civilian executives over military top brass calling the shots) and the ignorant old media want to play along (in this case, for the hated GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld), shouldn't we put it to a vote in the general election?

Anyway, if Bush admin and Rumsfeld gave in in this instance to the "consensus few", it will set a very bad precedence.
always_right | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 1:56 pm | #

Sorry, I should have read those execellent rebuttals for anon and ATS before I post.
always_right | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 1:57 pm | #

> unless you count the hope that we would be greated as liberators, so every fucking thing he has done as been an adaption.

The sheer Geenyus of this statement is indicative of the lack of the slightest clue of the author.

We WERE greeted as liberators. Perhaps you noticed the partying in the streets?

We ARE greeted as liberators. Why do you insist on listening to the most obnoxious, loudest, and clearly evilest voices -- those of the terrorists who insist on blowing up not just Americans, but bravely go after individuals (never attack a group when you can ambush some poor schmuck on his own) and children?

The final proof of this is the near-absolute LACK of "Yankee go home!" protest marches -- even in most of the surrounding arab nations, where you CAN'T argue that "we have a gun to their heads", they aren't doing this. ASK YOURSELF WHY. Because most of the Arabs know what will happen if we leave too soon. What -- they'll riot in protest of a few stupid cartoons -- but not to get us to leave?

Yeah. **Right**.

*Imbecile*.

WHACK!
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 2:26 pm | #

> And he probably doesn't even have to wear glasses.

Why should he wear glasses? With your head buried in the sand, everything looks dark.
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 2:28 pm | #

> In Rumsfeld's army, there are a lot fewer of the good guys placed in harm's way, because it just isn't necessary.

To some extent, they can also be replaced by various robots, too. The Predator is only the beginning. There are some new "personnel" robots designed to help clear a building of terrorists. Once those have gone through a few rounds of deploy, study, and redesign, they will be as effective as the Predator.
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 2:32 pm | #

So let’s see then. These 6 usta be generals welcome criticism of their leadership on active duty, just as they feel free to criticize "officers appointed over them, so help them God" .... NOT!!!!

Did they not take the oath of office?

Why do they continue to draw retired pay, and benefits, or is that oath thing just for enlisted pukes?
jim b | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 2:45 pm | #

To add on a few of the other points made, I think some of these Generals got their butt hurt due to the fact that Rumsfeld canceled a few pet systems (Crusader Artillery System anyone?) and didn't agree with them wholeheartedly.
Daniel | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 4:36 pm | #

Re: Generals. I'm reminded of a comment that I overheard one General Officer make to another, concerning a third: "He's so stupid, even the other Generals notice it."
Jim Jernigan | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 7:16 pm | #

JJ: LOL. Sorta like the quote usually attributed (probably falsely) to LBJ:

Too stupid to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel."
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 10:07 pm | #

These retired generals think Rumsfeld's management style is "too abusive", I can't believe these generals never step on somebody's toes to get where they were before their retirements.

Anyway, my solution to this is the following:
Bush comes out annoucing that Dick Cheney will be in charge of DoD. Cheney is qualified, and his temperament seems more gentle but firm. Rumsfeld will be handed the job of cleaning up DoS, as somebody really tough needs to clear out all those Saudi paid careerists. And that leaves Condi the VP post, so she could be groomed/prepared for the next election cycle.

/yeah, I had a change of heart.
always_right | Email | Homepage | 04.18.06 - 11:45 am | #

Furthermore, sometimes the feedback that we can get from these military leaders is a good thing, especially since some of them know what they're talking about.

Right. But then, if it was that important, why should have resigned in protest rather than carry out orders that they so disagreed with.

Then again, a lot of the critics or those who use the Generals as critics, aren't consistent themselves. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds in large part due to the fact that it is very hard to be Really consistent over time.

Civilian leaders are, and should be, subject to criticism from any civilian that feels like opening their mouth. As far as the military and civilians not trusting each other, I don't see how silencing the generals would improve the situation one way or the other.

If the Generals are civilians, then why wasn't it reported that 7 civilians were calling for Rumsfield's resignation? I think the lies need to stop, now. They're not civilians, they are retired Generals and Commanding Officers and Admirals, that are calling for Rumsfield's resignation. They aren't civilians, they aren't using their status as civilians, they're using their military rank. If they were really civilians, nobody would pay them any attention.

Here's how military criticism of inept retarded civilian management should be done. 10 years after the war is when it should be done. The Admiral in charge of Hawaii rendered onto effect a book about what really went on before Pearl Harbor. And it wasn't full of praise for Roosevelt and his cronies.

http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ 20...democratic.html

Compared to the honor of General and Flag officers of previous generations, these "Generals" and "Admirals" aren't fit to give even a salute to their ancestors.
Ymarsakar | Email | Homepage | 04.18.06 - 1:53 pm | #

I think the whole issue comes down to the obvious one -- go back and look at what was said when Truman fired MacArthur. He was a very popular general, but thought too much that what He said mattered more than what his BOSS (the PotUS) said.

Did the press fawn all over him quoting how He was right and Truman was wrong? No, because he'd crossed a line in being too critical of his BOSS. It didn't matter if he was right or wrong, he's THE BOSS and that's how it works.

Time will tell if Bush is right or wrong, and where.

A certain amount of criticism from generals is ok. The important thing is to realize that this is 6 generals out of 4700. That's not impressive statistics, esp. when several of them have been critical all along and show every sign of having either a political bias or an axe to grind.

I find it most amusing that this is headline news, but the top members of the armed forces releasing a joint statement to the press critical of an editorial cartoon is barely noteworthy -- and, if mentioned, is mostly in terms of an "effort to suppress free speech" (Translation: *All* efforts to disagree with The Left is suppression of free speech).
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.18.06 - 4:52 pm | #

There was a Star Trek episode, about a war between two interplanetary civilizations that was fought entirely by computers. There were no messy bombs, no disruption of the infrastructure, and none of the accompanying plagues or famines. The computers calculated strikes against one another, and when people were declared killed by the computer, they marched into disintegration chambers to be executed. No mess, no fuss. To them, this was the apogee of civilized warfare, and allowed them to wage war without disruption to their daily lives, beyond mourning for their dead.

And wage war they did... for ten thousand years. With all the messiness of war permenantly eliminated, neither side saw any really pressing reason to end the war and make peace, and the deaths of their loved ones, self-imposed though they were, were seen as cause enough to keep waging war. Until James T. Kirk showed up, got himself marked as a casualty, and not only refused to step into the disintegration chamber, but blew up the computer that one side used to wage their wars.

"Do you have any idea what you've DONE?" shouted the leader that had tried to execute Kirk, with tears running down his face.

"I've given you back your horrors of war," replied a not-very-compassionate Kirk.

That episode, sadly, is considered by most Trekkies as the lowest of low points in the entire series, usually for Kirk's flagrant violation of the Prime Directive (though it was quite clear in those days that the Prime Directive was neither applicable to advanced space civilizations like the ones at war, nor was it a suicide pact). Just goes to show you how kids today are incapable of really relating to people like Gene Roddenberry, who actually lived through the Cold War and understood it on a level that even his viewers could not.
Tatterdemalian | Email | Homepage | 04.18.06 - 6:33 pm | #