Time for Rumsfeld to Go

[Armando]

That's the name of an editorial that is going to be run simultaneously in the Army Times, the Air Force Times, the Navy Times, and the Marine Corps Times. Don't be fooled by the names, these are THE newspapers of the armed forces, distributed on bases throughout the world.

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.

Active-duty now and then. Does anybody remember fourstar general Eric Shinseki?

[ Gen. Erik Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, February 2003 - "Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required" to win in Iraq, rebuild it and keep the peace. ] - KRT Wire

Febuary 2003. Before the war. Active duty were speaking out. At the time General Shinseki was the Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Shinseki gave his honest, professional opinion. Unfortunately, it contradicted with Rumsfeld figures... *drumroll*

[Gen. Franks] did not clash with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over plans for the war. The Pentagon initially wanted to use fewer than 80,000 ground troops. A former Central Command staff had developed a plan calling for more than 500,000. The final plan, using 151,000, was a compromise developed over a long period of study and discussion, Franks said.

(link)

Less than 80,000. That is just more than half of current troop levels, and the generals are calling for more troops. To keep Donald Rumsfeld as Sec. of Def. after so many costly failures (could have been much worse, if Don had gotten his way completely) is the ultimate indictment against this administration and its ability to competently defend our country or run a war.

Tommy Franks was the Commander of US CENTCOM during the start of the Iraq War. He endorsed George Bush for president in 2004 and spoke at the national republican convention.

The Army Editorial continues,

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.

For active-duty military to be so vocal on the eve of a decisive election is unprecedented.

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.

(full text)

if the troops want rumsfeld gone, and bush supports rumsfeld, do bush supports have to remove their yellow ribbon magnets?


Keith Olbermann recounts the retired Generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation (this clip is 6 or 7 months old - this has been building for a long time - but maybe this outcry was in part motivated by the republican house majority leader who says to blame the generals, not rumsfeld for the mess in iraq)

 

[iaeolan]

That's the name of an editorial that is going to be run simultaneously in the Army Times, the Air Force Times, the Navy Times, and the Marine Corps Times.  Don't be fooled by the names, these are THE newspapers of the armed forces, distributed on bases throughout the world.

Why not in stars and stripes?


Btw, can you get some sources besides someones blog and a 6 month old msnbc blurb to support this.

 

[Armando]

this is an editorial being run on monday according to SFGate (already linked in my post) but here is another one MSNBC

i don't think that the fact the MSNBC clip is 6 months old is a problem either considering these major military figures views haven't changed in 6 momnths.

i also linked the highly reputable Knight Ridder newspaper (mercury times)

but, i did not link any blog. military.com is not a blog, and if you had the readsidebar you would have seen that it was an interview with Gen. Tommy Franks by a journalist with very impressive credentials that now works for Knight Ridder. Do you question this source because i am sure i could colloborate it - i just think it's not appropriate to dismiss it as "someones blog"

so what sources do you neeed? follow the wikipedia link and click their citations if you want to see them. this information is all very available.

as for why not stars and strips, the same reason you don't see the washington post reprint NYT editorials (different editorial boards - while these military papers are run by the same group)

do you want to see more of the generals being ignored? not sure what you are looking for