Two weeks ago 4 retired generals spoke out against Rumsfeld and his handling of the war in Iraq. This week 3 more generals joined in. Today we got an 8th.

What is the deal with the military? When you are in the military, you are not allowed to speak out or question orders. If you do so, you could be court-martialed. If you do so on the battlefield, you could be shot. The theory for this is that you need control on the battlefield and if you have people questioning orders, you lose control. Most Americans believe that they have freedom of speech but it is "unpatriotic" for military officers to disagree while in the service.

Based on the response to these retired generals finally letting others know what they think, it appears that a lot of people also think it is unpatriotic to criticize military strategy even when you arent in the service anymore. Apparently retired military people are supposed to toe the line as if they never left the service. Joining the military means giving up your right to voice an opinion - unless that opinion supports the current policy.

You cannot say anything when you are in the army. You cannot say anything when you leave the army. Well when the fuck ARE you supposed to give your opinion?

Rumsfeld took office with all these great ideas about how to improve the military. The Neocons plastered the White House with their great ideas of liberating Iraq. 4 years later, things dont look so good and the check is getting rather large.

We need to hear the voice of experience from actual troops and actual officers. We need more than political posturing. We need real data, we need to know what they guys on the ground really think yet it seems they are never allowed to speak! How very convenient for Mr Bush and his exemplary military leadership.

On the one hand, guys who never served dont get any credit for military decisions (at least not if they are Democrats) and guys who did serve but disagree with policy are discounted as having poor judgement.

What kind of lose-lose situation have people created in their own minds? Who exactly IS supposed to make best decisions about our use of armed forces? The media seems complicit with the idea that the decisions of the Bush administration should never be challenged by anyone.

Vietnam all over again - at least part of it

Rumsfeld and Cheney were both in the administration during the Vietnam war. One of the main criticizms/learning points from that war was not to let the civicilians 10,000 miles away in Washington run the war. The troops on the ground were the ones who knew the war the best and the generals on the ground were the ones to make the best decisions.

And yet here were are in Iraq doing the same damn thing and the military itself is the first one in line saying that it is unpatriotic to question this lousy system.

A lot of people have said that Iraq is not Vietnam. On the most superficial level, I agree with this statement. We arent fighting communists, Russia and China are not supporting the other side, there is no air war, no jungles, no draft, no protracted battles for Hill So-and-So, nor is there a high level of casualties.

But Iraq is Vietnam on the most important level: the Chickenhawk politicians in Washington are giving all the orders, making all the decisions, and tightly controlling what the American citizens are allowed to know about the war. (Seen any photos of dead soldiers or caskets lately?)

The most disturbing part of all this is how easy it was for the Bush administration to put that "patriotic" ring in our nose and lead the the American people around.

Ex-General: Rumsfeld Deserves Criticism

Friday, April 14, 2006

AP Newswire

[Retired Maj. Gen. John] Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division forces in Iraq, said he declined an opportunity to get a promotion to the rank of lieutenant general and return to the wartorn country as the No. 2 U.S. military officer because he could not accept Rumsfeld's tough management style.

He said he does not believe Rumsfeld has been sufficiently accountable for the plan that led to the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, although he also said that "we have no option but to succeed in Iraq."

But, he added, "we went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."

"I have not talked to the other generals," Batiste told NBC Friday. "I think it is absolutely coincidental. ... I think it's healthy for democracy. I have nothing to gain in doing this. There is no political agenda at all."

Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance." And retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN that Rumsfeld micromanaged the war. "We need a new secretary of defense," he said.

Earlier calls for Rumsfeld's replacement came from retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

He was blamed for committing too few U.S. troops and for underestimating the strength of the insurgency. He took heat in 2004 over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. Army-run Abu Ghraib prison, and for a brusque response he gave to an Army National Guard soldier in Kuwait who questioned him on inadequate armor.