Sometimes it’s best to let things speak for themselves. This is from the Ross Report, which I got via Fark.
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…
Time for Rumsfeld to go
“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.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it … and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And 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…
I urge you to read the whole thing. Everyone who claims to appreciate the sacrifice that military personnel make heading into combat under conditions like this owes it to them, to their country, and to his or her individual soul to read this editorial.
raincoaster 
Slight clarification: The ‘Timeses’ you mentioned are all privately-owned and not technically of the same status, say, as the Soviet Army’s ‘Red Star’ of past years.
However, those papers have ‘enjoyed’ a status practically that of ‘Red Star,’ having been a normal venue to publish promotion lists, ‘institutional’ views of the armed forces and so on.
For them to publish such an editorial raises two interesting possibilities.
A) The papers have shown some editorial backbone and may be readying for some distancing of their relationship with the armed forces, or . . .
B) They are still acting as a conduit for the institutional view, which means all sorts of interesting implications about the relationship between the armed services and their civilian leadership.
I think it’s B, actually. The military can smell blood, and the Bush administration is walking wounded. Of course, now so is Kerry, the ass. He’s over for good, now.
I agree – nothing like “Seven Days in May,” even in November.
At every turn Rumsfeld, almost as much s Bush and Cheney–maybe even more so–has represented the aggressive hubris of this administration’s disastrous Middle Eastern policies.
US generals have retired in order to say what they needed to say about him from the shelter of civillian life.
The Economist has been actively calling for Rummy’s revoval since at least 2002–possibly earlier.
Obviously the nation is catching up.
Metro,
At least some of the red state part is, at least.
Vanity Fair was all over this months ago. Whatever you think of their Hollywood glitterati coverage, you have to admit that they’re doing some of the hardest-hitting reporting on the administration, and good for them.
Regardless of one’s opinion of how or why the U.S. got into its little Iraqi adventure, I think the one think that should have gotten Rumsfeld fired on the spot was illustrated by the capture of the National Guard transport detachment. It highlighted a dangerous disregard for force security when Rumsfeld sent the cavalry (literally) pell mell toward Baghdad with an unsecured logistics line along a route filled with bypassed Iraqi units.
Even the dumbest, politically reliable Iraqi Army commander couldn’t have helped but smell ‘target.”
And all of that highlighted Rumsfeld’s propensity for amateur strategist and tactician on the cheap.
Amen. Not one of the members of Bush’s inner circle has military experience, nor (speaking louder than words) do any of their immediate family members.
On a related topic: I have always enjoyed this piece. Old, maybe, but it only gets richer and truer with the telling. Although it does exculpate Rumsfeld of his hawkishness, and doesn’t address his gross incompetence.
Oooh–check out the marching elephant banner over there. You may also appreciate the pumpkin.
Thanks.
Seen General JC’s Project Yellow Elephant? One of my faves.