An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.
Here are excerpts from the editorial. The complete piece is here.
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
…All along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
I don’t have anything to add to that. Do you?
I don’t have anything to add to that. Do you?
[1 word]: now.
J/P=?
Q: And the White House’ reaction?
A: White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the editorial as a “shabby piece of work,” “sort of a caricature” and the work of writers who were “grandstanding.”
Not that I’m cynical or anything.
No.. time for Bush to go.
Bush publically stated last week that Rummy will be around the next two years. Remember he’s the originator of “stay the course”. In my opinion, this is just an example of not being able to accept change no matter what the cost.
It seems like a child like behavior to me. Adults admit mistakes, take responsibility, and make the necessary change.
If you read some history on Cheney you’ll find his goal in life has been to strengthen the Presidency. No checks and balances suits his goals perfectly. That has caused Bush to neglect listening to anyone but Cheney, ignore his own party input, and alienate the Democrats.
He had a reputation in Texas for working with the other party. This went out the window a long time ago. Will give Clinton credit for working and compromising with a Republican Congress to get things passed, such as welfare reform which actually has worked well. People are tired of the arrogance, abuse of power, and generally spending all their time trying to discredit the other party. When you get down to the basics, most of the people are decent people and want to do the job they were elected to no matter which party they are in. To ridicule, politicize, and back bite each other produces a situation where nothing can be done. I was listening to one reporter saying that they were allowed into a meeting of Democrats and Republicans. Each party sat with their own and not one word was spoken between the groups. If the Democrats take control it will be interesting to see if the President will again stay the course and try to ignore Congress or realize that he needs to change course. Based on his history it looks like it would be two years to bad mouthing and blaming.
Let’s hope that checks and balances can bring this reality challenged president to heel.
Tony Snow, Bubble Guardian extraordinaire.
Bush is keeping Rumsfeld because firing him would effectively mean admitting that they made fundamental mistakes in this war, and he just can’t do it.
Bush and Rumsfeld are two of a kind – both have that dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence. They react differently, though. Rumsfeld bullies those around him into submissiveness, but Bush just shuts out anyone who might introduce dissent.
Between the two of them, it is a wonder that the Iraq war is not going worse than it is. I credit the troops.
Yea good luck with this mission. I’ve talked to several military personal from PFC’s to Staff Sergeants and the majority of them feel that Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. IA few Generals make a negative comment, headline news, a few Generals back him up, the comments are shuffled to the back pages or never leave the editor’s desk. What do you guys think would happen if a new Secretary was installed? What do you think he could do to make things better? What has he altered in America’s military that deserves these unrelenting attacks? Did he go to far with prisoner abuse, i.e. Abu Girab, yes and he offered his resignation. Did he underestimate the enemy in Iraq, yes that set us back a year but the overall objective remains. He has admitted several mistakes, actually thousands, but he has made efforts to change America’s approach towards international conflict with several successes.
#7. He will not admit the most fundamental mistake – we do not have nearly enough troops in Iraq to do the job. And this is his fault – his ‘new military’ was supposed to do these things on the cheap with few boots on the ground. The blinkered OSD people at the Pentagon knowingly and willfully disregarded educated assessments – like that in the simulation Desert Crossing – which held that at least 400k troops would be needed and even then there was no guarantee that Iraq would not decend into chaos.
Rumsfeld’s vision of shoe-string intervention did not survive collision with reality and, as the person who is responsible for this fiasco he should have resigned. There should be some accountability. And a new SoD who has some credibility with the American public. Succeeding in this kind of war – if success is still even possible – requires regaining the support of the American public. (Notwithstanding the recent comments by the VP) Rumsfeld cannot do that, and so he has to go.
Agreed that more troops were needed, 400,000 seems to be an over estimating. Currently there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, there does not need to be more American troops there, but more Iraqi troops. The amount of Iraqi troops has been steadily increasing, with better results, but don’t dare give Rumsfeld credit for this. If the American generals wanted more troops they would have them, President Bush has stated this fact many times. Moreover, if there was a new SoD I doubt this would change the average American’s view of the war, as most of the errors have already been made.
Committing to Rumsfeld is one of the dumbest things Bush has ever done. It is certain to cost him a few close elections he can ill afford to loose. My bet is when the Democrats now take over the house Rumsfeld will be banging on the White House door begging to resign and I don’t blame him.
#9. the question is – how long does it take to train a functioning Army? I mean, we have been at it for quite a while. I am not sure about the results, either – the editorial noted that the quality of Iraqi troops is pretty poor. also, can a truly national force be raised in the midst of a civil war? or are we just training a Shiite militia in the guise of an army?
I just don’t see how long we can maintain the current course. years of trying to build up an Iraqi military have not brought greater stability, and there is no sign that years more of doing it will have any different outcome. the alternatives appear to be putting a significantly larger number of US troops on the ground or begining to redeploy so that the Iraqi government is forced to take over security.
9 Currently there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, there does not need to be more American troops there, but more Iraqi troops.
How can there be enough American troops on the ground if they have to be pulled-in from other areas to increase the presence in Bahgdad?
Which leaves the areas with recent troop withdrawls vulnerable to the decent back into chaos…
Why don’t we have enough troops there to increase the presence in Bahgdad while maintining the desired troop-strength in other areas?
To all the ***why not more troops*** group…….because we don’t have any more troops. Most of whats left are desk jocky’s, personel men, medics, warehouse men, cooks, the ones who would never see actual war up close. Why do you think we are relying so heavily on the National Guard?
Between the Gulf War and 2001 the military was decimated. Then Rumsfield started the *new army* and that was all she wrote.
Bush feels that he must show that he has resolve, no matter what people or the polls say…..thats why he keeps saying *stay the course** and that Rumsfield and Chaney are staying for his entire term. What no one seems to have noticed is this……Bush stated that both Rumsfield and CHENEY will be there until the end of his term. Cheney is the Vice President, not a cabinet member. For Bush to state that the VP is staying means that there must be some serious talk in the White House of asking Cheney to step down, and Bush is publically saying…stop the chatter.
I happen to think he’s wrong on both counts. Both need to go, NOW!!!!
Dubya & Rumsfeld for 3rd term!
Wanna bet?
Currently there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq
Thank you for your expert opinion, General mxpwr03.
Or is that Dr. mxpwr03 PhD?
No problem Venom, I’m glad to give it. Oh and its both PhD and General.