Should Rumsfeld Go?

[selil]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582



An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.

Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

[Uboat509]

Brutal. I wonder what the partisan spin machines on both sides will do with this. You can hardly call the Army Times a liberal mouth piece.

SFC W

[Merv Benson]

The DOD has already filed a response (http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/index-b.html) which challenges many of the assertions in the editorial. The editorial appears to repeat many of the myths about decisions in Iraq and who made them.

[SWJED]

Response to Army Times Editorial

Nov. 4, 2006

On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times published an editorial titled, “Time for Rumsfeld to go.” The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.

SUMMARY:

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror.

CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.

THIS IS OLD NEWS MASKED AS NEW NEWS: The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.

INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgment and integrity.

IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: Iraqi security forces are making slow but measurable progress. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have made themselves and their families targets and put their lives at risk for their new country. They are increasingly taking the lead in operations. The disparagement of these forces is completely unfounded.

CHALLENGE POSED BY ENEMY IS TOUGH: As long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. However, the security situation is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.

WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.


SPECIFIC CLAIMS REBUTTED:

“Rosy Scenarios”

CLAIM: “The ‘hard bruising’ truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.”

FACTS: The President, Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and others have from the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom warned the American people that the fight in Iraq could be long and difficult, but ultimately worth the costs. To cite one of a multitude of examples, President Bush said on March 19, 2003 in his address to the nation at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom: “A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.”

Abizaid taken out of context

CLAIM: “Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success. Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: ‘I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.’”

FACTS: Military commanders involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom have continually expressed their belief in the importance of the mission in Iraq. The selective use of General Abizaid’s quote from September ignores other things that General Abizaid said at that hearing. For example, he also said:

“This is a hard thing. And it’s going to take a long time. And it’s going to take a lot of courage and a lot of perseverance and unfortunately more blood, and it’s going to take more treasure. But there are more people in Iraq that are working with us to try to make their country a better place than are trying to tear it apart. . . .The people that are trying to tear it apart are ruthless. They are pulling out everything that they can to make it fail. . . .And it’s hard. That’s why we kept extra forces there. And it’s hard and it’s tough and it’s difficult, but we will prevail. . . But I can tell you, people have a right to express their opinion. There’s political activity. There’s freedom of the press. There are things that are happening in Iraq that don’t happen anywhere else in the Middle East. And we ought to be proud of it.”

Selected Leaking to the New York Times

CLAIM: “Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on ‘critical’ and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year.”

FACT: It is foolish to try to draw conclusions from one piece of classified information leaked to the New York Times. What that page referred to was a snapshot in time.

Military and civilian leaders have repeatedly said Iraq is facing difficult challenges, and that as long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. The security situation, however, is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.

The challenge remains to help the Iraqi government develop a relatively stable country with security forces available to take on the fight against the enemy. This is what commanders are working to do, making adjustments and changes along the way.

Iraqi Security Forces

CLAIM: “For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.”

FACTS: Some 300,000 Iraqi Security Forces are risking their lives for their new country. Polls of Iraqis show consistent support among the populations for members of the Iraqi Security Forces. Iraqi forces are increasingly taking the lead in operations against the enemy. On August 31, 2006, General George Casey, Commander, MultiNational Force- Iraq, said the following:

“I can see the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country with very little coalition support.

“We have been on a three-step process to help build the Iraqi security forces. The first step was the training and equipping; to organize them, put them through a training program -- army and police -- and to give them the appropriate weapons and equipment they need. The second step was to put them into the lead still with our support, and when they’re in the lead, they’re responsible for the area, and we still help them. That process is almost 75 percent complete. The last step, as you suggest, is to get them to the stage where they can independently provide security in Iraq. That step becomes primarily building institutional capacity, building ministerial capacity and building the key enabling systems -- logistics, intelligence, medial support; those kinds of things -- that can support and sustain the armed forces in place for a longer period of time. And so we’re making good progress along those steps right now.”

Troop Levels

CLAIM: “Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.”

FACTS: Commanders in the field have repeatedly been assured by the President and the Secretary of Defense that they will be given whatever resources they need to complete the mission in Iraq.

On July 9, 2003, Gen. Franks testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said: “There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this secretary’s going to say ‘yes.’ I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.”

On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained: “[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don’t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we’re at the point in the mission where it’s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we’re maintaining the right balance.”

On Oct. 11, 2006, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded: “I don’t – right now, my answer is no. … [I]f I think I need more, I’ll ask for more and bring more in.”
Attack on Secretary Rumsfeld

CLAIM: “Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.”

FACTS: Defense Secretaries in times of war are always subject to sometimes harsh criticism. The Secretary has helped oversee two conflicts while also transforming a mammoth bureaucracy, overseeing sweeping humanitarian missions across the globe, and helping to protect the American people at home.

[zenpundit]

Was as reviled as was Donald Rumsfeld. And for essentially the same reasons, despite Marshall's far more spectacular record of service to the United States.

The decision to reject greatly expanding the size of combat forces of the U.S. Army and Marines - something needed for the occupation of Iraq - rests above the pay grade of the Secretary of Defense.

The responsibility lies with President Bush, primarily and the U.S. Congress, secondarily. It may be that Rumsfeld argued for more troops privately with the President or it may be that he was a primary obstacle to that message getting throught to the White House. As Rumsfeld is obligated to carry the President's message for a White House that makes absolute loyalty a litmus test, we will not know for certain for some time.

What I do now from from some years of watching both politics and defense policy is that the Air Force could not put forward a request for $ 50 billion at a time when land forces are being starved of manpower -* at the cost of losing a war* - if they did not have the political juice across the entire system, both parties and in the legislative and executive branches, to make such impudence stick.

[Jimbo]

The service chiefs don't want to expand the militayr. The CSA pointed out that people cost money, and that the people saying expand the Army by 10 to 30 thousand troops weren't willing to increase the budget for the increased sunk cost of labor and equipment.

[UCrawford]

But what about Schoomaker's battle with Congress and the Pentagon over the proposed Army budget? Doesn't that fly directly in the face of the DOD's and White House's claim that the services get whatever resources they require? Here's an article from the L.A. Time over it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Or is the official rebuttal just a twisting of the phrase, in essence claiming that Schoomaker's request was turned down because his civilian superiors felt the Army didn't really "need" those extra funds? Also, on the comment about the Iraqi security forces, the Army Times editorial cited U.S. training forces' concerns about the quality of the Iraqi soldiers. The rebuttal gave a vague statement about the Iraqi population liking the security forces (which has nothing to do with the assessment of the trainers because the Iraqi survey is commenting on the idea of an independent Iraqi military and is not commenting on the progress of training that force) and the quote from General Casey which said he could see a time when the Iraq military is ready to take over security functions (meaning they aren't ready now). And the process is 75% complete? What does that mean? Does that mean that 75% of their forces are up and running? Does that mean that we've been running this process for three years, so in one year the Iraqis will be ready to take charge? Or does that mean that in one year the commander of our forces in Iraq will be continuing to give us meaningless percentages of how ready Iraqi forces are?

I'm sorry, but the rebuttals to these criticisms from the administration just don't seem to be wholly truthful.

[Steve Blair]

Was as reviled as was Donald Rumsfeld. And for essentially the same reasons, despite Marshall's far more spectacular record of service to the United States.

The decision to reject greatly expanding the size of combat forces of the U.S. Army and Marines - something needed for the occupation of Iraq - rests above the pay grade of the Secretary of Defense.

The responsibility lies with President Bush, primarily and the U.S. Congress, secondarily. It may be that Rumsfeld argued for more troops privately with the President or it may be that he was a primary obstacle to that message getting throught to the White House. As Rumsfeld is obligated to carry the President's message for a White House that makes absolute loyalty a litmus test, we will not know for certain for some time.

What I do now from from some years of watching both politics and defense policy is that the Air Force could not put forward a request for $ 50 billion at a time when land forces are being starved of manpower -* at the cost of losing a war* - if they did not have the political juice across the entire system, both parties and in the legislative and executive branches, to make such impudence stick.

The AF have had this fix in for many years, as becomes obvious when one looks at the history of defense spending. There were some years during the 1950s when almost 50% of the TOTAL defense budget went to the AF. The AF is wired into corporate America (witness the whole Boeing affair a few months or so back), packages their warfare as "sanitary" and "low risk," and so on.

This is my version of Tom's pet rock, by the way...:o

[Uboat509]

I have noticed that somewhere along the way Rumsfeld became the litmus test for support for our troops. I know quite a few people who support the war but don't like the SECDEF, myself included. Unfortunately there is a large block of people out there who will label you as left wing or unpatriotic if you don't like him. Personally I have not liked him since he asked the question "Why am I paying for schools?" referring to on post schools for dependent children.

SFC W

[SWJED]

Here is the Rumsfeld Must Go (Editorial) thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1418). This is a Council poll on the same subject.

Now that the mid-term elections are complete (still waiting on Virginia) and most likely a new approach in the works on our conduct of the Iraq war, is it time for a new Secretary of Defense?

[Uboat509]

I have been saying this for years. I am a conservative and a supporter of the war but I have never liked Rumsfeld. As Bill Kristol put it this morning, the war is more important than any one man. Rumsfeld has a bad relationship with a lot of the Democrats who now control the house and my control the Senate. It is time for him to go.

SFC W

[jcustis]

Along the same lines, does anyone think that a Democrat held Congress would informally petition the POTUS (even if solely along party lines) to do the deed?

I don't even know the means by which they might do it, other than draft and sign a letter calling for his resignation or replacement. It will be an interesting two years nonetheless.

[selil]

SECDEF is an impeachable office

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gerhardt8sep08,0,1343068.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail


....The first and most obvious means is through the impeachment process. As a Cabinet secretary, Rumsfeld may be impeached and removed from office under Article 2 of the Constitution for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors." Rumsfeld's critics charge him with a long list of what they say are impeachable offenses, including incompetence and ordering the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers.

Because historical practices and the weight of legal opinion suggest that impeachable misconduct generally requires not just a bad act but a malicious intent as well, it's not clear that incompetence qualifies as an impeachable offense. Although it's true that one federal judge was removed from office in 1803 for mental incompetence, Congress has never again impeached, much less removed, anyone for incompetence.
...

[Steve Blair]

I have been saying this for years. I am a conservative and a supporter of the war but I have never liked Rumsfeld. As Bill Kristol put it this morning, the war is more important than any one man. Rumsfeld has a bad relationship with a lot of the Democrats who now control the house and my control the Senate. It is time for him to go.

SFC W

Rumsfeld may have had his time and his place, but I'd say his day is over. But this also brings up the question of who would replace him.

Now it's on the Democrats to actually produce. We'll see what happens.

[SSG Rock]

I thought Rumsfeld should have resigned two years ago. Now, it's got to happen. I beleive that the Republicans were trounced in large part due to his performance as SECDEF and the Iraq campaign.

In fact, I predict right now, that he is going to tender his resignation to the president, and that his resignation will be accepted.

Talk about a lame duck SECDEF, Rumsfeld is now the very definition, the epitome of a SECDEF who will not be able to get anything done with the make up of the congress now.

[UCrawford]

You know, I'd like to think that Bush and Rumsfeld will come to the conclusion that Rumsfeld's position is untenable now that Congress can start holding him accountable when he gives b.s. answers or blows off their questions. But to be honest, I don't think it's going to happen. Bush has very explicitly stated that Rumsfeld will stay SECDEF until his term is up and Bush has a history of not reversing his positions once he's dug his heels in. It just seems like there's a bunker mentality in the White House of the administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) and their opinion versus everyone else and I don't think Rumsfeld will go. I think it's more likely that Congress will start circumventing him and going to the military directly to get the information they want. That's not a good thing either, but to be honest it's probably the only way the troops can be helped. He's just been such a disaster.

That said, I hope SSG Rock is right. That would be the best of all possible worlds.

[jcustis]

SECDEF intends to resign...

Correction, SSGROCK is on top of things.

[SWJED]

Go any hot tips at the track?;)

[RTK]

Go any hot tips at the track?;)

Better yet, is Louisville going to get a BCS Championship berth? :D