Infinite Monkeys

Well, it's important to separate the reasons why generals oppose Rummy. He was disliked well before Iraq and even 9/11 (see Timothy Noah's 9/7/01 article "Rummy Death Watch No. 3" for example).
Generals don't like war. They like procurement programs, and Rummy used Afghanistan and Iraq to prove that a smaller, leaner Army could be effective. The Generals who resent his from decades of bureaucratic infighting should have their views discounted. Similiarly, those who think Rummy has put soldiers' lives at risk with bad strategies should explain why they didn't speak up before retirement, and even resign.
None of this is to say that I don't think Rummy should go, and should have gone months or even years ago. Whatever the merits of his strategies for the kind of small interventions he believed we would engage in pre-9/11, they have proven inadequate for fighting an insurgency in a destabilized country. It's time for new leadership in Defense.

In my youth, I spent some time in the Army and around generals. I would suspect that most of these generals who dislike Rummy so much do so from a position that their vieww were ignored or not asked for. I suspected bruised egos are more the problem here than Rummy's abilities or decisions.

Heard Newt on Hannity's radio show (Hannity pretty much sucks, but I refuse to listen to the duo of doofuses that have bumped HH into time delay). Newt was making a lot of great points. One of which was that the quotation you cited in your post is one that he feels is being misrepresented out of its context.

Link

Every time I hear Newt speak I think he's the most sensible of the 2008 candidates. And the post would suit him, being more of an idea guy than an implementer. But I just can't believe he's got more than a snowball's chance... I doubt he can overcome the tarring of having been cast as the epitome of evil & meanness.

According to today's BotWT, which is also trying to put the quote in "its context", Newt has been against Bremer's decision to move from invasion to occupation since June of 2003, and first made that position public in December of 2003. So, it's not a new position, just one that got articulated in a surprising way recently.

Newt will never get the nomination. Too bad. I still wouldn't vote for him, but at least the Republicans would have a candidate that actually stands for something conservative.

generalsagainstrumsfeld.com? No, I'd say more like grindmyaxe.com. These guys represent only themselves now and not the military. Only they really know their actual agendas before and after retirement but it would help if the fawning MSM would ask some questions to establish their motives and timing.

Questioning the motives of the generals does appear to be the "talking point" for this issue. So, apart from Zinni, who has a book to pimp, what evidence do you have that these generals motives are questionable? Moreover, why are you inclined to trust Rumsfeld's motives but not theirs?

The Jan/Feb 2006 issue of The Atlantic had an interesting piece (probably requires a subscription) about several veterans of the recent conflicts running for Congress this year--as Democrats. According to the article, fourteen veterans of Afghanistan and/or Iraq 2 have declared their intention to run so far, and "nearly every one of them is a Democrat."

Are these veterans also representing "only themselves" and "grinding their axes"?

RobbL,

Of the retired GOs I've listened to or read their comments, and particularly MG Eaton, I've not heard any say that they registered their disagreement with Rumsfeld personally or even through their chain of command.

Eaton's article which appeared in the Army Times (I subscribe to that - not the Atlantic) makes some outrageous claims:

He says that both Generals Myers and Pace, respectively former and current Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are intimidated by Rumsfeld. I've met one and know the record very well of the other and understand that neither has had a reason to politic in order to keep their jobs. They are the President's military advisor and while they work for the SECDEF, their removal would not occur without the approval of the President.

Eaton says the same of General Tommy Franks, another man I have met and watched for more than fifteen years. I was sad to see him retire but now that he is in the civilian sector, I've not heard his voice among the few generals enjoying the media's agenda driven attack on Rumsfeld.

These three men have made it to the highest rank possible and held the most powerful and influential jobs. MG Eaton, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003-2004. He certainly had an opportunity to resign while holding that position and I noticed in his article that he makes no specific references to any complaints he took to Rumsfeld. MG Eaton, no doubt, was looking for that third star and did not get it. Do you think he blames Rumsfeld? Do you think Rumsfeld might have felt that the training of the Iraqi military was not progressing well enough when Eaton was in charge? Eaton doesn't address that amongst the rest of his ad hominem attack on Rumsfeld.

As for officers returning from the fighting or from having supported those that fight, I would only say that it would be pretty tough to secure campaign funds from the DNC if they came down on the side of the current administration. If you think they are all recently converted Republicans, I'd think again. The ranks are filled with members of both parties, and independents too, I don't mind saying. Furthermore, I am very interested in hearing what these candidates will do, if elected, to win the war against islamofacist jihadis.

I've watched Rumsfeld visit us at my current location and observed him on the receiving end of some hardcore candor offered up by troops when they were given the opportunity to ask questions. His responses were genuine and direct. Rumsfeld's willingness to hear the comments of troops in the field is very much appreciated and his visit was well received.

There is diversity of opinion in the military and as I near the twenty year mark in my career, I can say that I've never held back on expressing my views to my superiors when I felt they were potentially making a mistake that could impact troops or the mission. I've never felt that any of my superiors were unappreciative of my candor. The difference is that I haven't waited to retire to do or at least say what I thought was right all along.

Aren't these complainers all generals who don't even meet with Rumsfeld for professional reasons? They are all 2 stars or lower, right?

Most of them are two star flag officers. Zinni was a four star and ran CENTCOM and has some real insight into the region's issues. He has also been a less than non-partisan voice since he retired and I believe he backed Kerry in 2004. Today and for some time Zinni has been popular with hardcore critics of the Bush administration: http://www.draftzinni.com/

Batiste's comments, at least those I've had a chance to see are less suspicious. He may have actually turned down a promotion but that is something I'm not sure we've heard from him.

What I am certain of is that this type of division is openly exploited by Bush critics, particularly those in the media. Worse yet is the propaganda value for the terrorists and Bath Party holdouts. The generals are playing into their hands with their very public attacks on Rumsfeld, they encourage the forces that the troops they left behind must continue to fight.