Retired general's Iraq critique hits a nerve at the Pentagon
Tue Apr 11, 7:12 PM ET



A retired Marine Corps general has struck a nerve here by criticizing the US military brass for remaining silent while the Bush administration's marched the country into an "invented war" in Iraq.

General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denounced the criticism from the podium of the Pentagon briefing room Tuesday as "flat wrong".

But the attacks by retired Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold and two other prominent retired military leaders have brought to the surface long-standing frictions between the military and its civilian leaders over Iraq.

The generals have called for the resignation of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, blaming him for, among other things, not committing enough troops to secure Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results," Newbold wrote in a column published over the weekend by Time magazine.

Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the attacks had not hurt his ability to do his job, nor did he find the criticism "new or surpising".

"I don't know how many generals there have been in the last five years that have served in the United States armed services: hundreds and hundreds and hundreds," he said.

"And there are several who have opinions and there's nothing wrong with people having opinions," he said.

"And I think one ought to expect that when you're involved in something that's controversial as certainly this war is, one ought to expect that," he said.

While criticism from retired military officers is not new, the latest has carried greater weight because of the roles the generals played.

Newbold was the operations director of the Joint Staff through the war in Afghanistan before retiring in September 2002, partly in opposition to what he said he saw as the hijacking of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States to invade Iraq.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton, who called for Rumsfeld's resignation in a New York Times opinion piece last month, was in charge of training Iraqi security forces in Iraq.

Retired General Anthony Zinni, an early critic of the US invasion who has criticized Rumsfeld in recent television interviews, served as commander of US forces in the Gulf during the Clinton administration, and as a Middle East envoy under President George W. Bush.

Newbold went farther than the others by calling on serving military officers to speak out.

"The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, Al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort," he wrote.

Pace responded that the war plan drawn up retired general Tommy Franks, the US commander, went through 50 or 60 versions and was thoroughly aired by the military leadership before the US invasion.

Newbold, having left before the invasion, did not have full knowledge of it, he said. Rumsfeld said Newbold never raised an issue with him, but he said many others had during the planning process.

"We had then, and have now, every opportunity to speak our minds," Pace said. "And if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there. It is elicited from us. And we're expected to."

"And the plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers and blessed by the senior military leadership," he said.



Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

I think what really bothers me about Lt Gen Newbold is every time I read one of his statements it has evolved to something more than what he said previously.

I don't know what to think of him. I never had the pleasure of serving under him so I don't know him personally. Got no idea on what makes him tick.

It doesn't impress me that he comes out four years after the fact to say these things, if he believes them now he should of said them four years ago. I'd tell the General if that's how it happened I'm really disappointed in him because he let the Marines under him down.

Matter of fact it sort of disgust me to hear someone say they resigned partly because of their opposition to something. I guess that comes from looking at everything from an enlisted perspective for thirty years, officers can resign in protest to something they don't like and everything is cool; but when an enlisted man does that we call it desertion and lock them up.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the reporter took it out of context or flat out got it wrong. I'd love to hear it coming out of his own mouth.

Marine,
What if he was suspending judgment four years ago. Keeping his mouth shut and being a team player until it became painfully clear he couldn't do that anymore and had to speak out. I think it's admirable for the Generals to be saying what they think when their concerns are grave.

It's pretty disgusting Gabrielle. Four years ago was the time to speak out. Generals are paid to do what's right for the troops under them, not to please their civilian superiors. If he was suspending judgement that means he wasn't sure enough of his opinion to press the issue four years ago. Lt Gen Newbold had 32 years of service in the Marines so he should have known he could speak his mind with out fear of repercussion. For Christs sake, he was the J-3 General officer, he was operations officer. You don't get made J-3 for the whole damned Marine Corps by being a pussy.

If what Lt Gen Newbold is saying now is how he felt four years ago he betrayed the Marines who were sent into combat.

andMethinks I gotta completely agree on this one. Whilst on active duty methinks one hasta keep disagreements with superiors private IOT not disrupt good order and discipline, but just the same you gotta say what you think.

When flag officers wait years after they retire, especially when there's no indication they expressed their opinions when active, IMHO it makes their credibility somewhat suspect. No one wearin' a star on active duty has anything to be afraid of if they stay within the limits of truth and conscience, eh? They know exactly how to do it without runnin' afoul of the law, in this case USC Title X.

Serious question - knowing how things work in the private and public sector, sometimes speaking up can have unintended consequences on your career. So can you elaborate on your last sentence? "they know exactly how to do it . . .

As I understand the comments made by the various Generals calling for Rumsfeld to step down -- they did speak up at the time -- no one was listening to them. As I understand it the Civilian Command had little to no respect for views that differed from their own. If you weren't in agreement you were summarily dismissed.

Personally, I have more respect for the Generals who are speaking out now than I do for the criticism/blame game people like Powell and Bremmer are currently playing.

Unlike Powell and Bremmer, when all this was going down for the Generals they had real time life and death responsibilities starring them in the face. Once they offered their opinions and their opinions were dismissed they had to do the best they could to keep their soldiers alive.

I feel for the Generals. While I've never been in the military I have worked under people who didn't know what they were doing, didn't appreciate being challenged and weren't going to listen if you did challenge them. I can only imagine the difficulty and frustration of working under such leadership when you are dealing with matters of life and death.

Under military law, as long as they show respect for a superior's rank and position, even if they tactfully show disdain for the person in it, military folks can say exactly what they think without official retribution. This I know from personal experience, eh? Military law has plenty of protections for subordinates from the actions of superiors if you know it and how to use it

Methinks arguin' 'bout an order in front of juniors or publicly refusin' to obey an order could put one's butt in a sling, but doin' it privately, preferably in writin' (and keepin' a copy) is perfectly safe. If done verbally then soon after you gotta do a memorandum for the record and record in it exactly what transpired. Just the same you gotta take into consideration that once in action everybody's gotta follow the same playbook, even if the wrong play's called, or a lotta folks gonna die or get hurt that wouldn't have otherwise.

By the time an individual rises to flag rank there's no reason for them not to know all there is to know 'bout protectin' their own behind. Does this help?

Robin may be at least partly right, but methinks there's been nothin' concrete to indicate generals now speakin' out four years after the fact did so when 'twas needed. That methinks is my main heartburn with the whole thing.

So if they didn't speak out 4 years ago, then essentially they weren't doing their job and were more interested in their careers or afraid of the consequences? If they did put something in writing, where would the document be located? Last question, assuming someone put this in writing, could they now release it or is there a reason why they might not legitimately want to do this?

Somethin' they wrote to a superior methinks they'd keep a personal copy. Any memorandum for the record they'd have in their personal file, eh?

As a senior enlisted I butted heads with superiors a lot durin' my active service, and did it in writin' every chance I could. Even when 'twas verbal I'd usually follow it with a written memo referencin' what was said. You can bet I've still got those files. As long as it contained no classified data methinks there'd be no prohibition on releasin' it. From what I've read when retired flag officers write books 'bout their experiences they often refer to things in their personal files. I expect I'll see the same when I read General Zinni's new book and maybe it'll shed some new light on what he's now sayin, eh?

WHO WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED?

The worst I heard any of these guys say is they retired "in part" in protest, and that was from one who had a 32 year career behind him.

If they had been doing the best they could to keep soldiers alive AND HAD THE OPINION THEY ARE NOW VOICING they should have voiced it back then. Anyone of you who thinks an Army or Marine General officer can be cowed into keeping their yap shut when it comes to the safety of the troops under their charge doesn't know a damned thing about the military.

So, what you're saying is watch "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and pay attention to how often they say "with respect" and that's the correct way to tell your boss he's off the deep end, and not get in trouble for doing so?

You know, just playing the devil's advocate here...
I wonder just what happens if the government decides to classify dissenting opinions. I'm not saying they did, just a what if... I know a lot has been said in memoirs and such, but seeing how creative they have been with declassifying things, and pulling things from archives that have been public for decades... Like I said, just thinking aloud.

My own take on the generals' criticism: I am not concerned with whether or not the generals are less than honorable for not trying to mutiny 4 years ago before they retired because they are speaking out now.

I suspect that they are severely muting their criticism even now. At least they are speaking out when they could just be quiet and collect their pay.

The issues are the Iraq war whether it was right/wrong to go in and whether it is being prosecuted properly or not.

The Iraq invasion was and is a terrible policy and the fact that retired generals are willing to issue this criticism is just a bit more visible evidence.

No, methinks 'tis just a bit more complicated than that.The originator of a document decides the classification, eh? Methinks only if it contains anything affectin' national security can it then be reclassified. Consequently methinks I'd put this notion in the same hopper with all the 9/11 conspiracies claimin' our own government was behind it.But why now 'bout what happened three years ago, and who's really behind it? If y'all can howl at the moon and rejoice in all the conspiracies then methinks I get to do a bit of wonderin' of my own, eh?

I dont have any problem with your wondering about his motivation and who may be behind the decision to speak out 3 years later. It would be curious to me as would his thought process evolution. For what it is worth, I also think that this will be a line of criticism that the administration will be using to discredit the disgruntled generals. I was speaking for myself. It's a sidebar issue to me.

I am going to speculate that this is the tip of the iceberg and that there are a number of retired officers who are disgusted with the Administration's leadership and that they have been used in a
tragic blunder.

Thanks, that's the kind of info that helps

no comment

Like I said, I was wondering aloud, not claiming to know facts...you know how I feel about the aforementioned theories.

Quilty, well not quite, I'm just asking questions. But why do you say a general can't be cowed in keeping his yap shut? What is it about the military that's different than say a VP reporting to the CEO in a corporation?


Do you have a theory?

No, but methinks my curiousity level's gone up a tad or two, eh?

For what it's worth methinks I've seen definite indications that General Pace is reclaimin' the duties of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, which his predecessor had conceded to them DoD silly villians. Think 'bout the way he corrects Rummy in public, like at press briefin's for instance. From what I know 'bout General Peter Pace he's nobody's yes man!

I pretty much have to defer to you and Marine on this one. I wasn't in it long enough to know what a general officer did other than get driven around in blue cars with blue flags that I had to salute when they drove by.

Cobra II talks some about Newbold. He's the one who suggested 500,000 troops needed but Rummy shot him down. He says the biggest mistake of his life is not speaking up at that moment because the moment was lost forever. Rummy comes across as someone who wouldn't listen anyhow. Apparently several of the generals in charge of organizing for the invasion voiced their objections to his plans but he shut them down without so much as an attaboy. Rummy was going to invade Iraq his way- that much is abundantly clear.

And I'm only on page 4.

General Myers says how I feel about someone not speaking up.

Myers Defends Rumsfeld's Management Style

A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disputes the contention by some retired generals that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld intimidated top military commanders into silence during planning for the invasion of Iraq.

To counter critics' description of Rumsfeld as a micromanager who did not listen to military leaders, the Pentagon circulated a one-page memo late last week detailing the defense secretary's frequent contacts with numerous uniformed and civilian advisers.

Retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, who headed the Joint Chiefs from 2001 until last fall, denied Sunday that military leaders failed to speak up when they disagreed with Rumsfeld and President Bush.

"We gave him our best military advice and I think that's what we're obligated to do," Myers said on ABC's "This Week." "If we don't do that, we should be shot."

A half-dozen retired generals have called for Rumsfeld's ouster, citing mistakes in the conduct of the war in Iraq. Some have suggested that intimidation by Rumsfeld kept military leaders quiet even when they thought policies were flawed.

"You'd have to believe that everybody in the chain of command is intimidated, and I don't believe that," Myers said. He added that Rumsfeld allowed "tremendous access" for presenting arguments.

"In our system, when it's all said and done ... the civilians make the decisions," he said. "And we live by those decisions."

The Pentagon memo, which was not dated or signed, put onto paper information that had been provided orally to reporters on Friday. It is not unusual for the Defense Department to distribute such information to analysts, military officials and others who might be reporting or commenting on a Pentagon policy.

Senior military leaders "are involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process" in the Defense Department, according to the memo. Rumsfeld, it said, had met 139 times with members of the joint chiefs and 208 times with combat commanders from 2005 to the present.

Bush on Friday said that Rumsfeld "has my full support" and praised the defense secretary "for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."

That can not happen without the originator of the memorandum/document's knowledge. Then you would have screams of cover up and a bigger mess than Generals playing politics.

Please don't make the mistake of thinkin' that I discount what these folks're sayin' just 'cause it's comin' so late in the game. I'm just wonderin' why now, why so many at once, and why so many of 'em seems were derelict in their duties when it counted, eh?

In General Newbold's case I've never known him to be shy or get cowered by anyone. Also know that he had a tendency to think that in any operation he thought it took five times as many Army troops than the Marines needed to do a mission, mainly 'cause organizationally and tactically the Army is not as lean and mean.

'Twas probably General Newbold that actually did what folks try to credit General Shinsecki with, 'cause Shinsecki in fact just made some very generalized statements in front of a committee (Senate methinks). 'Twould seem the big OPS guy Newbold made some very definitive recommendations 'bout troop strength. Rummy methinks is an abomination, but still has a ways to go to reach the standard for ineptitude that McNamara set for the position of Secretary of Defense. He still seems to be tryin' to reach it though.

I also think all these attempts to get the President to fire Rumsfeld will actually only 'cause him to dig in his heels supportin' the guy. What I've gotta wonder is whether that's the real intent, and if so orchestrated by who and why, eh?

Conspiracy Alert! Conspiracy Alert! Conspiracy Alert!

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was being interviewed on the Ed Schultz Show today and this is his theory about why the former generals are speaking out. Here's a audio link to the entire interview but the relevant part as far as his theory is this part. Not sure that I captured everything but this is pretty close. For what it's worth.

Gen. Batiste said on CNN tonight he did speak out
four years ago. But understood that "You either salute
and follow 'the best orders in the world' or resign."

"I decided to go with my troops," he added.

I lived on the premise that you go and then
protest, so you have place. Of course, there
were those that called me a commie sympathizer.

He also said there was 10-12 years of planning
on a possible invasion of Iraq that was thrown
overboard by Bush-Rumsfeld resulting in taking
in one-third of the boots the plan called for.

The plan sucked because the leadership sucked.

But, I'm willing to start from here...how long are
y'all willing for our boys to flounder around until
these stooges form a government? Or should
they wait around until it's handed off to the next
president, which sounds like the "new plan".

If we are gonna be there for years to come we'd
better get some new direction...this one ain't workin'.

Makes sense. I'm sure they think it's foolish for the U.S. to go solo on this one. Even Tony Blair is saying he could not support a military option in Iran right now.



http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=577092006

I have known real quick into the Iraq invasion they did not have enough troops on the ground. Tell you how I knew; remember Jessica Lynche? Her unit was a soft rear echelon unit, it wasn't a combat unit but following well behind the assault troops they came up against an Iraqi Army unit which had been bypassed.

What happened to that support unit is not suspose to happen in the Army. Had it been a Marine support unit it would have been a different story because every Marine first and foremost, no matter what their primary MOS, they are a combat rifleman.

Now about Rumsfeld; he is illiterate when it comes to military operations. Some General or group of Generals had to sell the idea this could be done with fewer troops than was needed. Not for a second do I believe Rumsfeld is smart enough about a military operation to have come up with this on his own. Rumsfeld coming up with the plan to invade Iraq is about as feasible as saying your eighth grade science teacher could have made a nuclear bomb in his garage.

I don't think the Generals or group of Generals has a thing to worry about though, they ain't George Bush or a member of his cabinet so no one here cares if they screwed up.

In Defense of Donald Rumsfeld

By JOHN CROSBY, THOMAS MCINERNEY, BURON MOORE AND PAUL VALLELY
April 17, 2006; Page A16

Foes of the Bush administration described the recent calls by six retired generals for Donald Rumsfeld to resign or be fired as "growing military pressure" for him to do so. These retired generals claim he should go for, among other things, ignoring the advice of senior military leaders and bungling the global war on terror in Iraq with poorly planned war-fighting strategies and post-Saddam planning efforts. We strongly disagree.

Like former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, we do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war. Calling for the secretary's resignation during wartime may undercut the U.S. mission and incites individual challenge to the good order and discipline of our military culture. At best, such comments may send a confusing message to our troops deployed on dangerous missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. At worst, they can also inspire and motivate the evil forces we seek to defeat.

Since our nation's founding, the principle of civilian control over the military has been a centerpiece of our system of government. Under our constitutional system, it places elected and appointed government leaders in charge. American soldiers are bound by this tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority. We give advice but it is ultimately up to civilian leaders to make key strategic and policy decisions. Unlike many other democracies, this is one important reason why we have never been ruled by the military, and have been the most successful country the world has ever seen.

Some critics suggest that the calls by the six retired generals signify widespread discontent in the military with Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. It is preposterous for them to suggest that this small group represents the views of the 1.4 million men and women serving on active duty or the 7,000 retired generals and flag officers who respect, understand and appreciate the established American tradition of the military being subordinate to civilian control and direction.

Moreover, despite the frustration of the current situation in Iraq, military morale remains high, as evidenced by the high re-enlistment rate of active-duty forces. This fact belies the contention that there is rising military discontent.

The notion that Secretary Rumsfeld doesn't meet with, or ignores the advice of, senior military leaders is not founded in fact. During his tenure, senior military leaders have been involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process. In addition to the Senior Level Review Group, Defense Senior Leadership Conference, and Quadrennial Defense Review, in 2005 Secretary Rumsfeld also participated in meetings involving service chiefs 110 times and combatant commanders 163 times. Gen. Myers correctly describes these meetings as "very collaborative" with a free flow of information and discussion. Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Central Command Commander during the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, echoes Gen. Myers's comments and supports Secretary Rumsfeld as collaborative in the decision-making process. Gen. Franks has stated recently that he is a tough collaborator and demands sound thinking and recommendations from the senior military leadership and staff.

Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to "transform" the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and World War II war-fighting strategies, which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare. It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.

Despite criticisms, Mr. Rumsfeld is arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had. Under his watch, the U.S. military has been transforming; it brilliantly deposed Mullah Omar's barbaric Taliban regime (Osama bin Laden's sanctuary) and Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, freeing 50 million people from oppression and placing the countries on democratic paths. With these actions, terrorists have been denied secure home bases. These are a few key factors why terrorists have been unable to attack the American homeland again. The policy and forward strategy implemented by Secretary Rumsfeld has taken the fight to the enemy as did the nation in World War II and the Cold War.

Some, like Generals Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Batiste, Swannack, Riggs and others, may not like Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership style. They certainly have the right as private citizens now to speak their minds. Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers. But those sentiments and feelings are irrelevant. In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

Lt. Gen. Crosby (ret.) is former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Lt. Gen. McInerney (ret.) is former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Moore (ret.), U.S. Air Force, was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm. Maj. Gen. Vallely (ret.) is former deputy commander of the U.S. Army, Pacific.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114522916171427157.html