From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> It's not a liberal/conservative/Dem/Rep thing with the military and
> Rumsfeld. They think he's  incompetent and what better time to send the
> message
>
> Here's the entire Military Times editorial 
>
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582
>
> ime for Rumsfeld to go
>
> "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.
>

Bring it on?


> 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.
>

When/If congress changes hands, hold an equiry where you can put such
officers under oath & ask them the questions it would appear they'd
like to answer. Possibly have them meet with congress people before hand so
they avoid missing anything.

> 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.
>

Yup. & of those who aren't, they have loyalties other than to the state.

> 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.
>

You want to adopt the UK habit of complaining /gobbing off in the mil. I'm
sure you used to have it. My guess is that when the US turned imperial this
was squashed.

It does lead to better pols & better mil.

> 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.
>

Nope, the blame lies with Bush which is why he can't sack Rumsfeld.


> 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.
>

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5