[Mb-civic] The Generals' Revolt - Washngton Post Editorial

[William Swiggard]

The Generals' Revolt
There are many reasons for Donald Rumsfeld to leave. Finger-pointing by 
retired officers shouldn't be one.

Washngton Post Editorial
Tuesday, April 18, 2006; A18

PRESIDENT BUSH'S stubborn support for Defense Secretary Donald H. 
Rumsfeld has compounded U.S. troubles in Iraq, prevented a remedy for 
the criminal mistreatment of foreign detainees and worsened relations 
with a host of allies. Now it is deepening the domestic political hole 
in which the president is mired. Half a dozen senior retired generals 
have publicly criticized Mr. Rumsfeld, touching off another damaging and 
distracting controversy at a critical moment in the war. Thanks in part 
to his previous misjudgments, Mr. Bush has no easy way out.

Mr. Bush would have been wise to accept Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation when 
he offered it nearly two years ago. At that time it was clear that the 
defense secretary was directly responsible for the policy of abuse 
toward detainees that resulted in the shocking Abu Ghraib photographs, 
as well as far worse offenses against detainees. By then, too, Mr. 
Rumsfeld's contributions to growing trouble in Iraq were evident: his 
self-defeating insistence on minimizing the number of troops; his 
resistance to recognizing and responding to emerging threats, such as 
the postwar looting and the Sunni insurgency; his rejection of 
nation-building, which fatally slowed the creation of a new political 
order. Had Mr. Bush replaced Mr. Rumsfeld in 2004, the administration 
might have avoided the defense secretary's subsequent and similar 
mistakes, such as his slowness to acknowledge the emerging threat of 
Shiite militias and death squads last year.

The president's signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no 
doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary -- and troubling -- 
eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. A couple of 
those who have spoken out, including retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, 
former head of U.S. Central Command, opposed the war all along, but 
three others served in top positions in Iraq. Much of their analysis 
strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It 
threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination 
to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers 
claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. Anyone who 
protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill 
Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to 
generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense 
secretary in wartime. If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's 
resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense 
secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and 
will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of 
political loyalty?

In our view Mr. Rumsfeld's failures should have led to his departure 
long ago. But he should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, 
retired or not.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701261.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060418/ee0e9114/attachment.htm