[Mb-civic] Public criticism of Rumsfeld says it all - H.D.S. Greenway - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  Public criticism of Rumsfeld says it all

By H.D.S. Greenway  |  April 18, 2006  |  The Boston Globe

THE CASCADE of generals pouring out of retirement to denounce their 
former boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has caught national 
attention. Both Rumsfeld and the White House have made statements and 
issued damage-control memos to stem a tide for which there are no 
precedents in modern times -- at least not in the American armed forces.

Rumsfeld tried to dismiss it all by saying that if every retired admiral 
and general seeking to oust the secretary of defense were listened to, 
it would be a ''merry-go-round." But such outspokenness on the part of 
retired American military men cannot be so easily brushed aside -- 
especially since the generals are not challenging civilian control of 
the military, nor, for the most part, the Iraq war itself. The complaint 
is that Rumsfeld didn't want to listen to advice and botched the war.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to sidestep criticism of the 
war by admitting to ''tactical errors." But the generals know that the 
errors were strategic and operational and at the highest level.

Respect for the military institution itself is deeply ingrained in the 
American military. Publicly criticizing the civilian leadership is not 
done, even in retirement, and some military men are offended by the 
forthright generals and their public statements. On the other hand, 
Colonel H.R. McMaster's book ''Dereliction of Duty," which criticizes 
the top brass for not speaking out against the Vietnam War, has been 
making the rounds, making a powerful case for speaking out.

Military loyalty to the civilian political leadership is one of 
America's strengths. American soldiers have never indulged in coups or 
political intrigues as have the militaries of so many other nations. I 
have been told that there was astonishment in some countries that 
President Truman did not think it necessary to move a single battalion 
to the capital when the cashiered General Douglas MacArthur came back 
from Korea to address a joint session of Congress.

But the provocation that brought these American generals to go public 
was intense. To my mind, none of the generals put it better than 
Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold when he told Time magazine that ''the 
commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a 
swagger that are the special provinces of those who have never had to 
execute these missions -- or bury the results."

The contrast between George W. Bush's safe National Guard service during 
the Vietnam War to that of his father, Geore H.W. Bush, who risked his 
life in the Pacific War in an exceedingly dangerous torpedo plane, could 
not be more stark.

Arch-hawk Dick Cheney famously said he had other priorities than to 
serve his country in Vietnam. And the other furious hawks, whose 
messianic vision for a transformed Middle East so casually committed 
young Americans to war, had no grounding in what war really means.

Unlike the theocratic zealots in the Bush administration, Rumsfeld 
wasn't so interested in the transformative power of democracy in the 
Middle East as he was proving his theories of a new, streamlined 
military. In his arrogance he ignored all warnings to the contrary, and 
planned only for a quick in -- and out -- war. Now that his forces are 
stuck in a quagmire, he clings to unreality. Rumsfeld must have been the 
last person in the United States to admit that there was an insurgency 
going on in Iraq. And today one has the impression that Shi'ites and 
Sunnis would have to dress up in the blue and the grey and have at each 
other with cannons and muskets over stonewalls for Rumsfeld to admit 
there is a civil war.

President Bush's loyalty to Rumsfeld may seem admirable, but it is 
politically foolish and dishonorable. After the spectacular failure of 
Iraq -- not to mention the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- it's 
time for the old Republican virtues of personal responsibility and 
accountability. The continued presence of Rumsfeld in the administration 
decreases the chances that Bush can keep public support for the war. For 
the American people have lost faith in Bush's judgment, and Rumsfeld is 
a prime example of the president's lack of judgment.

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy is said to have told the 
CIA's Richard Bissell that if America had a parliamentary system, it 
would be he, Kennedy, who would have to go. But since it did not, 
Bissell would have to resign.

In the Bush administration, even spectacular failure seems only to 
result in a Medal of Freedom.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/18/public_criticism_of_rumsfeld_says_it_all/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060418/c3ca9ba1/attachment.htm