Today
Jeff Latas and I are announcing the call by the Fighting Dem Vets running for Congress in November demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Band of Brothers and Sisters is endorsing this document individually and now we are urging all Fighting Dems, vets and non-vets alike, to join us in signing this petition. This is also a call to all the netroots to join us in a call for Rumsfeld's resignation. We believe that it is our patriotic duty to speak out against Secretary Rumsfeld and we stand with and will defend the six generals who have called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation -- seven if you count the recent statements in an interview by General Wesley Clark (as did
Reuters), former Supreme Commander of NATO and my friend and former boss.
Please go and sign the petition here. In addition to asking you to sign the petition, we ask that you call and write your elected officials and write letters to the editor about Secretary Rumsfeld and the criticisms leveled against him. You are free to use any information provided in this diary to bolster your arguments in these vital endeavors.
And it is not only the generals that are denouncing Rumsfeld. In just the past couple of days we have seen news reports that many
junior officers and even the
War College (see War College Revolt?)" itself are coming forward to point out the flawed leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush. The time is ripe to end the devastating reign of Secretary Rumsfeld and we ask all citizens to sign this
petition calling for his removal, especially as the eye of the Bush regime seems to be turning towards Iran.
The most important thing you need to know about the criticism Secretary Rumsfeld received from six Generals over the last two weeks is not actually the specifics of their complaints, but rather the backstory that highlights the real concerns. The first element in the backstory is the dire warning that those who speak out against the Bush administration get punished for daring to oppose the Bush cabal. I, Eric Massa, know this firsthand. I was forced from the House Armed Services Committee for shaking the hand of my former commander, General Clark, outside of a campaign appearance. Given the choice or renouncing his friendship or forfeiting my job, I chose the latter.
In the case of the six generals, it can be guaranteed you they knew ahead of time the price they were about to pay for their bold stance. They knew that there would be efforts made to tarnish their reputations and that calls might be made that would affect potential employment. They also likely knew that there would be efforts by the Bush administration to implicate their friends and families. It is common knowledge that this administration is above all bound and determined to have revenge against anyone who would raise his voice to contradict their chosen version of reality. It is as if they believe they have a God-given right to rule our nation as they see fit.
And that brings us to the second most important thing you need to know about the criticism the generals leveled against Rumsfeld - and that is that if these generals are concerned enough that they are willing to speak out despite the retribution they are certain to face, then they very likely have direct knowledge of the seriousness of the charges they bring to bear on the DefSec.
When one takes into account the backstory, President Bush's statement that he is the "decider" who determines when or if Rumsfeld is to go not only impertinently ignores both the advice of others and the will of the people, but also has an unmistakable vindictive tone. There is the thinly veiled threat that anyone who challenges him on his decisions will pay a price. John Dean has just warned us that "Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade.... Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider."
Last December, I called for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld here on Daily Kos. These are the failures I listed then:
Failure of pre-war intelligence for WMD's in Iraq.
Failure to properly plan for the Iraq deployment.
Failure to plan for post-combat operations in Iraq.
Failure to predict and anticipate the cost of the Operations in Afghanistan.
Failure and inability to provide adequate and timely force and self protection equipment.
Failure to respond to the threat of improvised explosive devices (IED).
Failure to clarify the policies that led to torture of Iraqi prisoners and detainees.
Failure to stop the pursuit of the BRAC - Base Realignment and Closure - in time of war.
At the time I gave specific examples to show the how Secretary Rumsfeld failed to properly do his job and you can check them out for your own interest. Now I want to look at the specifics of the charges by the six generals and the defense by and for Secretary Rumsfeld against those charges. In each case I will show that the charges have merit and that the defense against the charges is either disingenuous or an empty charade.
General Newbold
Of the six retired generals, Newbold may be the most eloquent and he sets the tone for the testimony of the other general's. His stated reasons for speaking out put everything in exactly the right perspective for a soldier: a sense of duty to defend the constitution and an obligation to honor the sacrifice of fellow soldiers (link):
I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.
...a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't--or don't have the opportunity to--speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.
Newbold's most disturbing criticisms are these:
distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.
Most of that is familiar to all who have been paying attention. That bit about micromanagement needs a little explaining. Most of us are aware that General Shinseki suggested the need for more troops prior to the war and that, as punishment for contradicting their chosen troop levels, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz criticized him publicly and marginalized him until his retirement. Both Rumsfeld and the White House claim that they let commanders in the field make decisions. But they do not. After Shinseki's punishment, military commanders were much more reluctant to speak out.
To give another example of Rumsfeld's micromanagement, bullying and insistence on getting his way, General Eaton mentioned an incident where General Pace, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, disagreed with Rumsfeld over what soldiers should do if they find other soldiers torturing prisoners (link). General Pace believed that they should stop the torture immediately, but Rumsfeld believed they should merely report the incident to their superiors. According to General Eaton, the military brass was hoping that Pace would stand up to Rumsfeld. But General Pace seems to have been intimidated by Rumsfeld and he backed off. Eaton states that the previous Chairman, General Richard Myers, was also intimidated by Rumsfeld, demonstrating that the top men at the Pentagon fear the consequences of speaking out.
General Eaton gave further examples of micromanagement that show how military commanders are being denied input in decision-making by Rumsfeld's Pentagon:
Last, you do not expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver" reaching from the Pentagon. Commanders in the field had their discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi construction companies to build barracks was withheld; contracts for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi army were rewritten back in Washington.
General Eaton
Beyond the above-mentioned examples of micromanagement, General Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, wrote of Rumsfeld (link):
First, his failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on American soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in the U.S. military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.
In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.
Again, most of that is familiar to those who have been paying attention or who have read the preceding paragraphs. General Eaton also believes that we are undermanned in Iraq and that Rumsfeld is directly responsible for that:
Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the U.S. Army finds itself severely undermanned - cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.
...Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the army.
General Riggs
Retired Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio (see Reuters) that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership. "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign," Riggs said. General Riggs told the Washington Post that his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch" but that, even so, his sense is "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out."
General Riggs' view that everyone in his peer group pretty much thinks Rumsfeld should be cleared out has been confirmed by David Ignatius of the Washington Post:
When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.
General Swannack
General Swannack was Fighting Dem Patrick Murphy's (link) commander. In an interview on CNN, General Swannack listed at least four specific charges. He mentioned the micromanagement that has already been discussed above. He also mentioned his culpability with respect to Abu Ghraib and a failure to admit mistakes and the resulting inability to make necessary changes to make progress with a new strategy. He also discussed how Secretary Rumsfeld personally selects which three star Generals will go forward to the President for Senate confirmation.
It is the promotion issues discussed by General Swannack that add additional information to what the other generals have said. I, Eric Massa, can testify from personal knowledge that Secretary Rumsfeld has politicized promotion more than any other Secretary of Defense that he is aware of. By promoting those who do as he tells them, Secretary Rumsfeld shuts out and punishes dissenting opinions and sometimes uses these handpicked subordinates to create an illusion that he is doing what the commanders on the ground want. His press conferences with Generals and others are often little more than dog and pony shows.
General Batiste
Maj. Gen. John Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005. It is widely known that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there, but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.
General Batiste said "I think we need a fresh start at the top of the Pentagon. We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said. (link, link),
General Batiste's previous close proximity to the upper echelon of Pentagon civilian leadership and his recent command experience in Iraq give particular weight to his criticisms.
General Zinni
Although General Zinni has been accused of speaking up more now that he has a new book to sell, "The Battle for Peace," he isn't saying anything that he hasn't been saying since before the war started. Here is a recent quote (link):
There's a series of disastrous mistakes. We just heard the Secretary of State say these were tactical mistakes. These were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policies made back here. Don't blame the troops. They've been magnificent. If anything saves us, it will be them.
The point is, those that are in power now that have been part of this are finding that their time is spent defending the past. And if they have to defend the past, they're unable to make the kinds of changes, adjustments, admit to mistakes and move on. And that's where we are now, trying to rewrite history, defend the past. Ridiculous statements that well, wait 20 years and history will tell you how this turns out. Well, I don't think anybody wants 20 years to continue like it is now.
As General Eaton pointed out (link), General Zinni warned Rumsfeld before the war that the Iraqi forces might melt away, and that chaos would ensue. Although not as current in his service, Zinni is legendary. To get a sense of what he did while he was Commander of Centcom, you can read the book The Mission by Dana Priest. General Zinni knows the Middle East as well as any General. His comments stand on their own merit without any additional explanations from me.
General Clark
Although General Clark did not call for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation in the same manner as the other generals, he did when asked point blank state, succinctly and without equivocation, that the Secretary should resign. (link>). General Clark has also spoken out in defense of the six Generals who formally criticized Secretary Rumsfeld here. He has stated in no uncertain terms that Secretary Rumsfeld should be held accountable for his failures and he has argued that retired military men have a duty to speak out that is different than their duty while they wear the uniform.
Disingenuous Defenses of Secretary Rumsfeld
Secretary Rumsfeld has defended himself against these charges mostly by pretending that the Generals are just opposed to change and don't like the things he has done to make the military ready for the 21st century. As a telltale sign that he wanted to avoid discussing the specific charges leveled by the generals, he adamantly refused to discuss them (link):
Embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on the offensive Tuesday, suggesting that a group of retired generals who have criticized his management of the Iraq war are actually upset about changes within the military during his five years as the Pentagon chief.
At a press briefing, Rumsfeld declined to answer specific allegations made recently by more than a half-dozen retired generals, including charges that he is incompetent and should resign.
Fred Kaplan sliced and diced the "these generals are just upset because of the wonderful changes I made" lie.
As discussed here, Secretary Rumsfeld also held a meeting with a dozen or so Generals to give the impression that he talks to and listens to them. As the diarist pointed out, the supposed listening session was nothing more than a talking points party, yet another dog and pony show. The next day General Scales, who works for NPR as an analyst, repeated the same talking point about the generals just being resistant to change and kept changing the subject to one red herring after another every time Steve Inskeep tried to get him to address the specifics of the charges leveled against Secretary Rumsfeld.
The Current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace and former Chairman General Richard Myers also defended Rumsfeld. Myers stated that the Generals should not have spoken out because the military should be subject to civilian leadership. General Clark directly addressed these charges by Myers here:
I know Dicky Myers, and I have the highest regard for General Myers, but when he says that there's something improper about it, I think he misunderstands the character of the society that we're defending. When you're in uniform, you give your advice in private, and if you don't like the decisions that are made, you're free to express your opinions and opt out. And you can always say, 'I quit. I resign. Reassign me.' And there's usually someone who's willing to take your job and do the job. When you're retired, you have the right to speak publicly. Indeed I would argue, you have an obligation to do so on matters that are sensitive national security matters where you have some expertise that the general public doesn't have.
So, I disagree with the idea that these retired Generals shouldn't be speaking out. They should, and I would welcome this discussion. I think all America should hear it. It doesn't mean they're necessarily right in everything they say, but I strongly support their right to be heard.
General Pace seemed to believe that Secretary Rumsfeld's critics are attacking his work ethic and his patriotism. Pace is an intelligent man. He has not forgotten the incident where he had to back down from Rumsfeld over what soldiers should do if they caught other servicemen torturing prisoners. And he knows that his defenses of Rumsfeld are disingenuous attacks on straw men of his own choosing rather than intellectually honest responses to legitimate criticisms.
General Michael DeLong, the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, defended Secretary Rumsfeld. Even he admits that Rumsfeld is a micro-manager. But he insists that it is wrong to blame Secretary Rumsfeld alone because he allowed others to participate in making decisions. First, DeLong seems unaware that leaders, and Secretary Rumsfeld is the leader in this case, should be held responsible for their failures. Second, he fails to take into account that if there were agreement between Rumsfeld and his advisors it might be because Rumsfeld chooses advisors who agree with him, a charge specifically made by multiple critics. Third, General DeLong seems to believe that there have been no failures so big as to demand anyone's resignation. These overwhelming failures are obvious and DeLong needs to stop deluding himself.
Conclusion
The important principles in all of this are patriotism and accountability. As for accountability, there are obvious failures and Secretary Rumsfeld and others should be accountable for their decisions. Here is another quote from General Clark's recent defense of the other Generals:
And I would just say one more thing. The principle of accountability is deeply ingrained in the military chain of command. It starts at the bottom. If you're a soldier and you don't do PT, you're accountable for that. If you're a captain and your mission is not accomplished, you're held accountable for that. If you're a battalion commander and you can't get your organization in shape, you're held accountable for that. Why should it be any different at the top level of the national command authority? Why shouldn't the people at the top of the chain of command be held accountable in the same manner that people are held accountable elsewhere?
As for Patriotism, Jeff Latas says it well:
As civilians, it is our duty to voice our concern. This is patriotism. Now we Band of Brothers, military veterans who are seeking to serve our country once again, are finding our voice. It is our duty to address the needs of our country: we swore to do so, and as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, we know what good and poor leadership is. It is time to relieve those in charge who are responsible for the inadequate planning for our current military actions.
This is our call to duty, by the oath of office we once took. We Band of Brothers are now on the move because we have witnessed this Administration mislead from the beginning. In the spring of 2001, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld were backing the National Missile Defense program to a point that all else was unimportant. During the summer of 2001, they virtually ignored the National Security Agency staff's warnings of increased terrorist activity, even though the Agency sensed enough activity to recall personnel from vacation. Rice and Rumsfeld were caught unprepared.
Gen. Shinseki's assessment that more troops were needed for an invasion was called "out of line" and he was promptly dismissed. Many others who spoke out have followed. Now they speak out as civilians, and we join them to call attention to a national crisis. Stand with us now to fight for the very principles we Americans have always stood for, principles that are now under attack by a flawed leader backed by a corrupt and incompetent administration whose nearsighted adventures are self-serving and dangerous to all Americans.
It is time for change and it is overdue. Can we trust Don Rumsfeld with the lives of our sons and daughters? How many have died for the sake of blind loyalty? How much more blood do we have to see before we are awakened, as a nation, to know that this must not continue? I ask all my fellow veterans running for office to stand with Eric Massa and me. Tell this administration to hold its appointees accountable for their errors. Tell Donald Rumsfeld to step down.