Yahoo.news AP 9/25 - "Retired military officers bluntly accuse Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.
'I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste. Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, is expected to assess Rumsfeld as 'incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ....'
Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask "the tough questions."
He also said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq."
It is unusual for retired military officers to criticize the Pentagon while military operations are under way.
Why keep Rumsfeld?
2006-09-25 15:28:30 · 16 answers · asked by Reba K 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Don't listen to those useless old impotent --- . They will say anything to get attention. They don't give a damn for the US, and prbably never did. They just didn't have the nerve to say anything when they were active for fear of being convicted of treason.
2006-09-25 15:41:35 · answer #1 · answered by jekin 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋
The only reason Rumsfeld is still around is because if Bush fires him or accepts his resignation then Bush sends the clear message that Rumsfeld is incompetent and there is a problem with the war. If the Bush administration cleans house and gets rid of Rumsfeld then every person upset with the war now has even more ammo against the administration. At this point, Rumsfeld can't really make it any worse, so why get rid of him. The situation is way beyond salvaging and the administration is just waiting to get out of office and hand this catastrophe off to someone else because it is clear that they do not have a clue as to what to do to fix it.
As for those who think Batiste and several other generals should have spoken up before the invasion you are clearly overlooking several key facts. First, senior ranking military members did give Rumsfeld and the Pentagon very clear assessments of the potential problems with the invasion of Iraq. They were either ignored or dismissed from duty......Shinseki ring any bells? Second, I served in the 1st Infantry Division under Batiste in Iraq and personally briefed him on several occasions. Point being, uniformed military officers while on active duty are not allowed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice from speaking out against politicians. Even if he wanted to tell Rummy what he thought of him he couldn't without getting thrown in jail. To those who ask why he didn't resign before the deployment it is simple. Not one person in the 1st Infantry Division (including myself) was allowed to get out of the military or resign. My time in service got extended 10 months. I can only imagine what would have happened to any general who asked to retire before his unit was deploying!!! In addition to killing his career he would have been told to get on the plane like everyone else.
2006-09-25 16:04:58 · answer #2 · answered by SL 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Understand that Cheney and Rumsfeld are running the country for all the nameless, faceless corporate and industrial leaders who dictate everything this country does. Bush is just the puppet, installed to be the token President.
The military-industrial complex profits from war. That's why, after World War II - when they discovered how obscenely profitble war could be - they ordered our government leaders to involve America in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban missile crisis; the Cold War; the Vietnam War; and Desert Storm - all skirmishes in which the U.S.A. had no business other than it made a handful of people in this nation very rich (including the corrupt politicians who took the industrialists' money).
The Iraqi war is just the latest in that string of conflicts designed to enrich those companies and individuals who profit from war.
Rumsfeld and Cheney are two of the most evil sub-humans on the face of this Earth; it's no wonder every other nation on the planet despises the world's new 'evil empire' - the United States of America!
Rumsfeld must remain in place to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex. It's that simple....nothing 'complex' about it. -RKO-
2006-09-25 16:16:06 · answer #3 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He should be kicked out but so should bush , what a joke they are, I think its all a bunch of bull sh-t they think that the American people are stupid, its not too hard to see what a mess they've made. And they take no responsibility for all the men that have died in this since less war. Bush thinks he can do what he wants and has said he's the president and he can do as he wishes. Its too bad the republicans are in office, there can't be more men in these positions that will go down in history as the biggest screw ups.
2006-09-25 15:51:15 · answer #4 · answered by ret w 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
He has worked for other presidents & done a good job. He was well respected until he got picked as the Democratic whipping boy.
These EX Officers & not top officers as they still answer to 2
other ranks not counting the Commander in Chief, are bitter retired under rank officers forced to answer to civilians by Rumsfield.
No need to discuss post war until war is finished or at least close to finished. Bastiste sounds like a "man" looking for a way out in his last years of military life.
My son is an Officer & he and his friends back Rumsfield & The Iraqi war.
2006-09-25 15:58:40 · answer #5 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why not? This goes beyond him, but his arrogance and ineptitude
certainly justify his removal. Most of the senior members of the Bush administratin are hacks anyway. Lets have a clean sweep and get rid of Rice, Cheney - make it the entire Bush administration. Ever wish there was a delete button ?
2006-09-26 00:37:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld is not the problem. Changing Sec Defs wil not change anything on the ground. The Generals quite frankly have skated by with out any crititism. I They are the ones running the show, not DC. If burger king puts cheese on your burger, why blame the CEO??????
The equipment is again a Army probelm, Not the Sec Defs. It is the responiblity of the division CO's for the rediness & logistics of their troops.
2006-09-25 19:10:13 · answer #7 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Everyday, I hear someone else call for his resignation.
Rumsfeld can, or not do anything, bush is so stubborn,
he'd never give up his right hand nazi.
He'll keep him on till the end, just out of spite.
Military experience means nothing to bush - look at how
he treats John McCain.
2006-09-25 15:36:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
No he wont be tried for something - till something proving comes up interior the destiny, which I wont be the single to declare it wont take place. what's on the table now although, there is no longer something there that he has performed incorrect. His stratedgy become no longer working and the individuals want substitute (obvious from the consequence of midterm elections). i think of the administration felt that clean suggestions have been necessary, the two interior of - and to fulfill a disgruntled public.
2016-10-17 23:44:53 · answer #9 · answered by delcampo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld should have actually stepped down a long time ago. It's definately not a good thing that his high-ranking officers do not have faith in his "leadership".
2006-09-26 10:50:45 · answer #10 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who the heck would give you a thumbs down for this question? I'll even it out in a minute, don't worry.Anyway...
I think even hard core republicans have had it with him. It shocks me that he's had Bush's support all this time. With the mid term elections coming up, I bet that's precisely what we'll see. He's a gonner.
2006-09-25 15:38:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋