Earlier, I recalled the revolting group of generals that Democrats proudly trotted out earlier this year. At the time, I likened them to new Praetorians. Guess what? They're baaaack. Today, a couple of generals are going to attack Donald Rumsfeld. Their "testimony" has already been given to the press in advance of the "hearings" the Democrats are throwing.
"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, is expected to assess Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically …."
"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," said his testimony prepared for the hearing, to be held six weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections in which the war is a central issue.
The conflict, now in its fourth year, has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American troops and cost more than $300 billion.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., the committee chairman, told reporters last week that he hoped the hearing would shed light on the planning and conduct of the war. He said majority Republicans had failed to conduct hearings on the issue, adding, "if they won't … we will."
Since he spoke, a government-produced National Intelligence Estimate became public that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Several members of the Senate Democratic leadership were expected to participate in the hearing. Dorgan said Republican lawmakers had been invited.
Even before the session convened, Republicans counter-attacked.
"Today's stunt may rile up the liberal base, but it won't kill a single terrorist or prevent a single attack," Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., said in a statement. He called Rumsfeld an "excellent secretary of defense."
It is unusual for retired military officers to criticize the Pentagon while military operations are under way, particularly at a public event likely to draw widespread media attention.
But Batiste, Eaton and retired Col. Paul X. Hammes were unsparing in remarks that suggested deep anger at the way the military had been treated. All three served in Iraq, and Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Everyone, especially Democrats and the left, should be very concerned about politicized military officers. This is about the worst thing we could encourage. Besides rogue intelligence agents, of course. This country has been one of the few nations in history that has kept its military out of politics. Do we really want that to change? Really? Better think hard about this folks.
Re your allegation of a political angle to these generals’ views:
Where’s the beef?
Because it looks, and always has looked, as though the beef is between the military and Rumsfeld. If the Democratics party dropped dead tomorrw, the military would still be underequipped, underfunded, undermanned, plowing around without a clear mission, and getting killed, while their politican spokesman insists nothing’s wrong.
The current chief of staff of the Army, hand-picked by Rumsfeld over a host of more conventiuonal candidates, has refused to submit a budget to DOD in protest. When you hear that, do you wring your hands about politicization of it all? I hear a chorus of credible voices saying there’s something wrong from a military standpoint.
Don Rumsfeld has done a really, really poor job as Secretary of Defense. It’s hard to understand why folks like you still support him. Hell, even Bill Kristol wants him fired. What has he done right?
In the world of Republican rhetoric one is supposed to be responsible for his actions. This apparently doesn’t apply to Rumsfeld who has done a terrbile job by any objective standard.
hmmm….support the troops…unless they disagree…then they’re just a bunch of liberals…sounds about right to me.
My post mentions Rumsfeld only in relation to the attacks by the generals being embraced by the left/Dems.
If you do not fear an openly politically motivated military involving itself in civilian politics, you are letting your ideology blind you to the dangers.
Very nice, gone. These generals are not supporting the troops. If anything they are undermining the mission.
I come fom a military family. You simply do not seem to realize that what these two (and the few others before them) are doing is simply not done by responsible general officers. There are thousnads silent, only a few meddling in politics.
If I recall correctly, the generals who are testifying are all retired or have quit over this. They are civilians now. How then is this leading to a politically motivated military?
I agree this is not done normally. You are calling it politics but I believe that there may be another motivation for it – patriotism. These are people who have been through many administrations. Why is it that only now they have an issue? You should at least be intellectually honest and allow for the possibility that they are compelled to speak out by their own belief and love for the corps.
This is not how it is done in the military. Not when there are troops with boots on the ground.
Again, perhaps that IS their motivation.
MrGone-generals may retire, but they are never out. The President can recall them to active duty at any time, unlike other retired Soldiers.
Retired generals often ‘hang out’ on the fringes of the military, serving as advisors, consultants, forming companies that specialize in providing services to the military, etc. Many retired generals remain very influential for years to come, mostly through their peers (if any are still serving), and sympathetic (former) subordinates who move up through the ranks.
And speaking as an officer with 16+ years in service, I agree with Gaius on this one. These retired officers should NOT be taking this course of action. It smacks of partisan politics.
It’s usually the peasants who are revolting, it’s nice to see some of the big shots finally holding up their end.
By the way, Black Jack, just so you know – the spam filter keeps catching your comments because of your handle. I rescue your comments, but just in case one disappears, you know what happened. (On days when I find 100 plus spams, I just do a mass delete rather than hand over hand through all of them).
Thanks, I didn’t know that. I just assumed you deleted my comments when you found them objectionable. Although I couldn’t discern any pattern, I simply accepted that it was your site and you could do as you thought best. I still do.
And there is absolutely no way that maybe they are right.
I mean, they don’t agree with Rumsfeld, and it is the basic law of the universe that anyone opposing Rumsfeld is wrong.
Like when people said that giving the chemical weapons to Saddam is a wrong idea.
I think that sometimes you should stop for a minute before automatically call any opinion stating that the government made a bad decision from the given profession’s point of view a political one.
Maybe the military has some people who don’t give a heck about political agendas, and simply state that the leadership is incompetent.
“This is not how it is done in the military. Not when there are troops with boots on the ground.”
Tell me of a year, when there were no “troops with boots on the ground”.
The US has been involved in war since… uhm… since about the time it was formed?
Wow, Roland. That is an absolutely false statement. Wow.
“Wow, Roland. That is an absolutely false statement. Wow.”
Ok. Tell me a year when the US was not involved in a war in:
- Central Americe
- Philippines
- Africa
- Middle-East
- Asia
- With European countries
Of course, I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, there were always at least on country where the US had an armed and active force – be it Panama, Afghanistan, Mexico, beating the Spanish, Cold War with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Sudan, occupying the Philippines, etc.