Is it their's to reason why?
By Miguel Guanipa (05/09/06)
Charles De Gaulle once said that the cemeteries of the world were filled with indispensable men. Leave it to a French man to provide posthumous insight for Donald Rumsfeld, who is said to have wryly remarked once that "going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion".
Nevertheless, this is wisdom that Donald Rumsfeld understands well, as he has already tendered a resignation to his boss on more than one occasion. But his boss, the president of the United States, has refused to allow Rumsfeld to retire, and defied the cries from a salivating press, who have made it their crusade to remove both the captain and first mate from the ship, at any cost.
The press’ assault on Rumsfeld has been a long drawn out affair. But it peaked again a few weeks ago when several retired generals of the U.S. army orchestrated (or you could say that it was just an extraordinary set of coincidences) a series of systematically arranged discussions with a few of the major news networks. Rumsfeld’s resignation was, of course, the main topic of discussion.
One thing that all of these generals had in common is that they were all retired. As retired generals they are immune to the charge of treason from what many consider to be a supreme act of insubordination. A general operating under active duty in the armed forces would otherwise risk the possibility of facing a court martial under the existing mutiny laws. The irony is that in their new capacity as civilians they sought to undermine the principle of civilian command of the armed forces by calling on Rumsfeld to resign. In speaking out as such they have arguably blurred the lines where respectful dissent and treason ordinarily cross pathways.
Among the mutinous crew are Maj. General Paul Eaton who described Rumsfeld as “strategically, operationally and tactically incompetent”; General Anthony Zinni who firmly believes that the American people were “conned” into the Iraq war; Lt. General Gregory Newbold who unequivocally declared that Rumsfeld was inexperienced for the task and called the Iraq war an “unnecessary” war; Maj. General John Batiste who called him “arrogant and abusive” and suggested the department of defense needed a “fresh start”; Maj General John M. Riggs, who was not involved in the Iraq war, and described Rumsfeld as one who only accepted military advise when it “satisfied his agenda”; Maj General Charles H. Swannack Jr. who accused him of “absolute failures” in managing war against Saddam in Iraq and Lt. General Paul van Riper, who claimed to have voted for Bush and called the war’s planning “disastrous”.
The news of rumblings of dissent amongst Bin Laden’s troops in protest to his strategic war measures against the great Satan would be music to the ears of most Americans. It would signal the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda’s reign of terror, not to mention it would also invigorate American troops in the struggle to persist against the modern day curse of terrorism. Furthermore, it would be a great source of dismay to other countries that sponsor terrorism, dealing a severe public relations blow to their misguided cause.
When these few Generals decided to bask in the media spotlight to publicly air their grievances against secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and the manner in which he is conducting the war in Iraq, we were witnessing the flipside of the above mentioned scenario.
This somewhat provincial revolt may be rooted in the fact that Donald Rumsfeld’s job probably involves a lot of unenviable tasks which are easier to fulfill in theory than in practice.
As Secretary of defense under the Bush administration his primary responsibility entailed directing the actions of the defense department’s response to the September 11 attacks. He seized this opportunity to focus on developing a newly reorganized and revitalized strategic deterrence to terrorism; and everybody knows that when someone in command starts using words like “reorganize” or “revitalize” it probably means some heads are going to roll. This is the lingo that is used in the corporate world for such occasions, and that is a world Rumsfeld is well acquainted with as he has had his share of stints as chief executive officer in a few high profile corporate entities.
He has also led a distinguished career as a member of our armed forces in the capacity of Navy Captain, naval aviator and drilling reservist, and has a keen understanding of what it means to be under authority. But primarily he understands the sometimes contentious trappings of politics as he has served under the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush administrations.
Under different circumstances, these scathing allegations from high ranking officials would be a source of great concern. When you consider that there’s upwards of an estimated 6,000 retired generals out there who have not been sought out by the media to voice their personal views on the secretary of defense for obvious reasons, they quickly dissolve into nothing more than the belated comments of a few disgruntled subordinates who did not approve of their boss’ managing style.
Yet it is still amazing that these seasoned generals willingly yielded to the role of mouthpiece for the mainstream liberal media which to date has proffered little recognition for the sacrifices they have made for their country.
Sadly, these generals have made somewhat of a tactical mistake in allowing themselves to be used as pawns to launch an arm chair assault against the secretary of defense. It is the same mistake US Army Spc. Thomas Wilson made a couple of years ago when he was coached by a member of the media to give Rumsfeld a tongue-lashing about the need to enhance poorly armored vehicles in Iraq, and the same miscalculation made recently by former CIA officer Mary McCarthy who admitted to having disclosed classified information to the media.
Once again we see the establishment media’s concerted efforts to undermine the current administration by using senior government officials and seasoned soldiers as the platform to air their personal ideological grievances.
The cold truth is that the media ignores that at the heart of some of the general’s grievances is the fact that Rumsfeld did not yield to some of their repeated calls to apply merciless force in their initial engagement in Iraq, but chose to stick to his “small footprint” doctrine as his primary invasion strategy. They only care that they have become ideologically entwined with a few esteemed members of a traditional organization (which they have thus far portrayed as the opposition) against one common nemesis.
You may remember a few years ago when a reporter queried Rumsfeld about the inhumanity of cluster bombs being used on front line al Qaeda and Taliban troops. Mr. Rumsfeld bluntly assured him that the reason these bombs were used was simply to “try to kill them”. That kind of insensitive retort is not something the modern press is fully acquainted with. They are more in tune with the notion that a therapeutic method of ascertaining why terrorists hate us so much would be a much more preferred course of engaging in this conflict. As far as they are concerned, the military reasons for the generals’ disagreements with the secretary of defense are at best optional matters for discussion at a later juncture. Of foremost importance is that he be dethroned.
Far be it from me to demean the office of any member of the United Stated armed forces; but these generals unwittingly represent what appears to be a disturbing trend of National Security officers who seem to have forgotten that the temporary glow which comes from being in the media’s spotlight for a season should never override their patriotic duty to protect the country they volunteered to serve. It remains to be seen if the general’s choice to align themselves with an institution which is diametrically opposed to their goals will outweigh the presumed benefits which may be accrued by publicly expressing what may or may not be a legitimate concern on their behalf.
Few doubt that mistakes have been made during the Iraq war. The very chaotic nature of modern warfare almost requires that mistakes be made. The most painful part of that reality is that many of those mistakes will cost people their lives. But at best what these delayed revelations accomplish is to saddle disillusioned pacifists with the lingering question: Why did they not speak their minds a bit sooner? And it mainly goes to show that the worst kinds of strategic tactical errors are the ones that are actually planned.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
