'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

Ok I read every page and every post and whew...you guys (gals) can write/rant

It seems to be that many of those who have complained about Bush's war record have implied that most veterans (war or peace) disagree with Bush. So let me address this with my 2 cents....

First for the record, I'm currently an Active Duty US Marine who has served in combat and peace time since 1988. I was in Berlin in a second story window when the Berlin War was torn down, I was in Iraq during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, I have fought in establishing the peace in Haiti, I have fought the '3-Block' war in Somalia, I was in Kosovo trying to keep the Yugoslovanias from destroying each other, and I've been back to Iraq twice more over the last few years. So I believe I've qualified myself as a veteran. PM me and I'll send you my offical award page for my 'actions under fire'.

Secondly, I'm a Bush voter and a Bush supporter. IMO he has done some things too slow and even allowed some things to be done by his military leaders without a set focus or guidance. But I believe some of this is from the simple fact that this is all new territory for the US, it is also an emotional response to relieve a righteous rage, he also was dealing with political fallout, trying to figure out the various "What If.." scenarios, and there's the normal infighting of our government, but I still appreciate the fact that he has stuck to it. I will continue to support Bush and our 'freedoms' for those to disagree. But I tire so much of the character attacks and automatic assumptions based on political 'facts as fiction' jargon spewed and misconstrued without full facts and nearly always accompained with weird additions that have no relevance to the issue.

Third, I'm against the war in Iraq. Because I have put my life on the line and may be asked to do it again and this may lead to the posibility of being maimed or even death. So heck yeah I'm agianst war!! But if I was Iraqi I would be glad that someone would be willing to give me freedoms that I didn't have before and to give my children opportunities that I would not be able to give them on my own. I don't know too many veterans that crave war but I also am confidnet in our mission and have seen so many good changes in Iraq that have made the people better than they were under Saddam. It is easy to create a website about Iraqi Veterans Against the War but it seems heartless and violent prone to create a website for "Iraqi Veterans For the War". So being for the war makes a person seem like a pyschopath with a bloodlust but there is a balance there and we need to realize that none of this just affects American lives it affects many many more Iraqi lives.

Fourth, we should stay in it because we just disrespect those who have sacrificed so much already and we are doing good and are affecting a nation for the better. Also we need to fight those who are willing to 'kill their own people' for the sake of freedom or insurgency. How can we leave this country under the control of people that are more than willing to murder there own neighbors and countrymen? IMO we can't and shouldn't!!

Fifth, complaining about Bush is moot because he is guaranteed to be in office for the rest of his tenure and guaranteed to be out of office after his tenure. So feel free to stop bashing Bush and if we need to make changes let's discuss the next election and I promise Bush will not be there as a candidate.

Sixth, stop using a persons military record as an issue for attack. When this nation elects a man who willingly and admittedly flees this country to evade a war that he disagreed with then we need to be as forgiving to all others. Our constitution makes no requirement for a President to have military service so arguing who did or did not serve is a invalid argument.

Seventh, have I made up for your 7 pages of posting, yet??

 

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts as well as for your past and present military service. It's my opinion that you have plenty of like-minded company.

As clear as your comments are, I'm afraid you'd have to keep on posting indefinately to offset some of the stuff that gets posted here. It just never ends!

 

How many veterans and retired generals will it take for some people to realize that there is an incompetent directing the war in Iraq?

 

How many veterans and retired generals will it take for some people to realize that there is an incompetent directing the war in Iraq?

 

Nice post, MRCoon. Interestingly, working in ammunition for the Army we meet a lot of warfighters either directly or indirectly. It is interesting to see just how many are strongly supporting Iraqi Freedom for the reason stated in the name itself.

You have every bit of my respect and although my age allowed me to miss all of the wars. Too young for Viet Nam too old for the rest. I will do everything I can to support the Warfighter in his or her quest for freedom in Iraq or everywhere. I know of very few who do not feel this way who are either in or supporting the military.

Face it, war is a sad and bad thing. Its not the video game people are used to seeing on CNN. Everytime one of our bombs goes off there are usually large numbers of people either hurt or killed. Either side, its sad because in a country where there are no freedoms you fight or be killed, even if it is for a mass murdering dictator.

I wonder who they would rather have in office of President. Pres. Bush or Pres. Hussein?

Thank you for what you have personally added to the many who let me sleep better at night knowing the warfighter is always there and on guard.

Even though I'm civilian, I salute you!

 

It's me.

Technically, Guards are reserves. They are just under the command of each state unless activated. Check that out, and you'll see.

As soon as they found the documents showing that he hadn't shown for a year, it was. The icing on the cake was the order busting him from flying status for failing to appear as ordered.

The Texas Air National Guard still uses AWOL, for formally, Absent Without Leave. "AWOL" was never a formal designation, but a handy acronym.

No, he wasn't. He was special. I don't suggest you try it, though. If you don't show for a year, the lightest you can expect is to be discharged. Bush got his wrist slapped, because, as the squadron secretary said, there was political pressure for him.

Bush's weren't known for over a year, according to his supervisor. Documented on Bush's OER.

Well, I was active duty for my career, but I did supervise them on their weekends.

Funny, a number of Alabama Guardsmen cared enough to offer a reward for anyone who could show that Bush actually served in the Alabama Guard, as he claimed.

You betcha. I served honorably. Never refused orders, never absented myself without leave. The vast majority of American servicemen and women differ from the president.

You think the Guard constitute a "criminal element?" No wonder you think Bush is was a good guardsman. Unlike Bush, most people in the guard have no criminal history at all. </font>[/QUOTE]1. Barbarian? Weird.
2. Technically the guard is the reserves? Really? My next door neighbor must be crazy for putting on that uniform every day and going to what he calls the ‘unit’ to work (he is full time ANG). The NG falls under the state all of the time. They have a ‘State Mission’ and a ‘Federal Mission’. This means under peacetime, they serve the state in humanitarian missions and can institute martial law when directed by the Governor of that state. When our nation is at war, they answer to the Commanders of the theaters in which they serve and ultimately under the Commander In Chief. The President. President G. W. Bush.
3. I don’t have to ‘check it out’. I have served with quite a few of them in many different theaters and I live next door to two families of ANG.
4. AWOL might be a handy acronym, but it isn’t a charge. And if you check #2 up there it states during a time of war, the NG falls under the CinC. And you know what else? That means they are subject to the UCMJ, which I am sure you’re excited to know, is written by the Congress. That is where you can find most chargeable offenses. Pretty handy huh?
5. The President was special? I think we are all special in our own way. (oh brother)
6. You are confused if you think that the President was missing for one year. His mother and father knew where he was…are you suggesting another complicity of the Presidency because it runs in the family? Of course you are! *slaps forehead, wishes for a v8*
7. You can lose flying status for admitting to taking OTC meds for migraines, not surprised that you would lose your flying status by not keeping your flight hours up.
8. You misspoke with regard to the ‘criminal elements’. I said your example is meaningless unless you are an exhibit on what not to do in a leadership position, but you missed that too.

Welcome MRCoon a pleasure having you in our proverbial midst.

 

How many does it take to make you believe that we trust and have confidence in this leadership you are quick to question and blame?

How much do you really believe that the issues of the Iraqi war are coming out of Washington?

Even a thick-skulled Marine like me knows that at best the President lists/names his intentions and then lets his Generals and staff implement his ideas/issues. Many of these same retired Generals are some of the same ones who failed to execute the plan or seek clarification when in doubt. I have little respect for servicemembers that say they have all of these issues with their leadership but they say this after they get out...if the issues were that important they would have said it while on active duty where they really could affect change. If I don't like how my superiors are doign something but I don't utilize the mechanisms in place to change or influence them and end up just complaining about it after the fact is worse than a "Monday Morning Coach". Why do these guys wait until they retire and receive their monthly retirement check before they come out to the public media and complain? If the leadership is that bad and they were concerned with saving lives then it should have been important enough to 'risk' their retirement instead of waiting until after the fact.

PS. The same with all of these supposed "Spec Ops" guys telling all of these fanscinating stories after the fact when they can't/won't be proven or confirmed.

 

Barbarian observes:
By now, it's clear that no amount of evidence will shake some people's loyalty.

So be it.

Maybe some. But as you saw, I've also praised Bush when he did well. It's just that he's neither competent nor trustworthy. His rather dispicable behavior with regard to his military obligation is an example.

But it's not the only one.

 

From Fox owned Rupert Murdoch conservative paper


Another general joins anti-Rummy brigade



BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The extraordinary "Revolt of the Generals" continued yesterday with a fourth high-ranking senior military leader calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's head.

Retired two-star Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Big Red One - the Army's 1st Infantry Division - in Iraq until November, said Rumsfeld must go for ignoring and intimidating career officers.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste told CNN.

"I believe we need a fresh start in the Pentagon. We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation," said Batiste, a West Point graduate who also served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and is now president of Klein Steel Service in upstate Rochester.

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning - then we're bound to make mistakes," he said.

The unusual drumbeat of criticism from top generals comes as public support for the war continues to slide. In the latest carnage, a car bomb killed at least 20 people outside a Shiite mosque north of Baghdad yesterday.

And in a video posted today on the Internet, Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Al-Zawahiri praised insurgents in Iraq and called on all Muslims to support them. It wasn't clear why the video, which apparently was made in November 2005, was being released now.

Batiste was adding his voice to a chorus already made up of retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who oversaw training of Iraqi forces, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumsfeld shrugged off the criticism earlier this week as not "new or surprising."


Just as voices against the wisdom of the occupation are coming from Newt Gingrich and William F. Buckley now it seems the conservative
New York Daily News is also joining the sea change...important to notice this is coming from conservatives...so the silly argument that it is coming from a certain political persuasion is bogus.

 

I think the civilian and military leadership directing the war in Iraq are very competent. I also think those carrying it out are very competent.

The fact that there are different opinions about what to do and how to do it is very normal. The fact that the challenge is very difficult is very normal. The fact that some information is accurate and some is not is normal. The fact that some things work as planned and others do not is very normal. The fact that mistakes are made is normal. The fact that not all events are under are absolute control is also very normal.

It is very normal for the reasons and the courses of action taken in war to be endlessly debated by participants and non-participants alike. One soldier recently described the concept of "war at six inches" which means that everyone's perspective of it is relative to that which they've personally seen directly in front of them. That's one reason - one of many - why there are often so many varying viewpoints. Leaders have to try their best to have a much broader view of war even if they haven't directly participated as many have not.

Few, if any troops, who actually fight in a war enjoy the experience nor actively desire to do it again. Most understand that it must be done for the best interests of those that will follow them. Personal survival and mutual support of peers rules during the fight. Few would go, much less return, if they didn't believe there was a cause greater than their own personal interests. It requires of them the sacrifice they might have to make.

After witnessing the sacrifices of others, the "six inch" view can understandably quickly wear down even the strongest. The nation must rise even above that and do what has to be done. Putting others - real live individuals - in harm's way on behalf of the whole is the unpleasant but necessary duty of a leader for the nation. There's no glory or pleasure in it. But the alternative of not doing so is far more unbearable.

I give everyone - top to bottom - my sincere thanks and encouragement for they've done and what's yet to be done. I prefer to remain positive about the progress and outcome. I hope God will keep us all strong such that no amount of complaining, criticizing, or negative propaganda will weaken our resolve to continue nor will it cause us to unwittingly give aide to our enemies.

 

The results don't support your belief. It's been one mismanaged fiasco after another.

The fact that one general after another blasts the administration's conduct after retiring is unprecedented.

Wouldn't be a Bushista, if there wasn't an accusation of helping the enemy.

In fact, the longer we stay there, the better Al-Qaeda likes it.

 

Galation, I know you mean well and I respect your opinions even though we just see this whole issue so differently.

Of course they do! We've made tremendous progress in Iraq towards the mission we've undertaken. No, we haven't accomplished every goal as painlessly as we'd hoped and there are still serious problems to contend with. But, perhaps you need to broaden your sources of information and get your nose out of all those negative reports you keep dwelling upon. A little positive news would help you move away from your quitter's attitude about this war.

Yes, it's true that several retired Generals - five I believe - have spoken out recently criticizing the Secretary of Defense and his handling of the war policy as well as the Pentagon in general. Their opinions are certainly worth hearing but it's not conclusive that this suddenly means that the all the top military leaders are against the administration's policies. Regardless, it is not the military that sets the national policy and there's always some degree of friction between the top military leaders and their civilian bosses.

Some of the criticism focuses around the decision not to provide the number of troops requested by leaders in the theater. They wanted as many as 300,000 troops but were authorized only 180,000 troops. At the time, in my arm chair view, I would have sided with the field commander's assessments but, now, I'm not so sure the Pentagon leaders weren't correct in their decision for the nature of the war we've taken on.

We've had no problem meeting our tactical objectives in Iraq with the lessor number of troops. We've been working on training the Iraqis now for a while and they keep getting better and handling more of themselves. That's exactly what we want in our present policy and it's working about as good as can be expected.

A larger "occupation force" - a true misnomer because we're not and can not occupy Iraq with even 300,000 troops - may have been much more difficult and costly to sustain and increased the dependency of Iraq upon our troops. Of course, it's one of those things we won't know for certain since it was a road not traveled.

Not every one expected the level of continued violence in Iraq. That's been a real challenge even though tactically it's not of significant consequence. The enemy continues to make mileage off their terrorist type attacks because they get a lot of attention from them. It keeps people on edge and it disrupts progress towards every day security. That's exactly how terrorism works and we know that!

The problem is that you could greatly increase the number of our troops and it probably wouldn't stop that kind of thing in the role we now have. We can help and we are. We can make periodic raids and operations to clean out known pockets of terrorists and we are. We can train and equipment local forces - our main focus now - and we are. But, at this point it is the Iraqi people that must stop the terrorism if they have the will to do it. Time will tell whether that will work or not.

I do agree with one recommendation I've heard from the Generals - the one that claims we should seal off the borders of Iraq from the infiltration of terrorists from Syria and Iran. But, I wonder, given the public's fickle nature, how much support there would be for such an "escalation" of the war? Can you say "Cambodia" and "Laos"?

Read carefully what some of the recommendations are and you might back away from them. I'd be inclined to take the fight to whomever and wherever it goes - across the borders if necessary - but that would put us back in mode of aggressive war fighting instead of training Iraqis for internal security. A lot of people wouldn't like that at all because they already want to quit where we are now.

Then again, at this point, I'd have to ask whether or not we'd be equally or better served by using those troops along our own Southern border to put an end to that invasion of our territory. That would also be very unpopular with many folks. Luckily for them I'll never be President!

Interestingly, these days people seem to be rebelling more on a lot of issues at a lot of levels. We even have three General officers admitting to being homosexual and claiming the "don't ask - don't tell" policy is unfair. That's a shame and so are a lot of other things happening these days.

It's so nice to have the "Bushbot" or "Bushista" label just because I support cause of the war in Iraq. Whatever! I imagine there are labels for your position as well and I'm fairly certain Al Qaeda likes your quitter's position a lot more than mine!

 

A sixth general comes forward 82nd Airborne

LINK

snippet:
"We need a new secretary of Defense," retired major general Charles Swannack, former commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said on CNN. He said Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war.

snippet:
Swannack and Batiste are the latest additions to the retired generals who have criticized Rumsfeld. They include:

• Marine lieutenant general Greg Newbold, the former Pentagon top operations officer, who called Iraq an "unnecessary war" in a Time magazine column this week.

• Major general Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training Iraqi troops in 2003 and 2004, wrote last month in The New York Times that Rumsfeld is "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically."

• Army major general John Riggs, who told The Washington Post that his former colleagues in the military believe Rumsfeld and his close aides "should be cleared out."

• Marine general Anthony Zinni, the former command of U.S. Central Command and a longtime critic, said Rumsfeld should retire.

Despite Bush's support, such criticism could be enough to help force out Rumsfeld, said Loren Thompson, a military expert at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia think tank.

"It is so uncommon for senior military officers in the United States to criticize civilian leaders that it has to make an impression on the White House and Congress," Thompson said.


I think these Generals and officers wanted to believe the best in the beginning but then came the incompetence of the bush culture and the war
profiteering of billions missing in Iraq.

Thank God they are speaking up and have my prayers since if bush had polling as in right after 9-11 he would go after them with a vengeance it is his nature since his early days of taking vengeance out on his foes, and we discover it is likely he destroyed a woman's job because he did not like truth being spoke to power by Republican Joe Wilson.

bush loses his civil war with the flesh more times than he wins..he needs admonishment.

Quit taking vengeance out on people who are trying to help the nation!

Lawrence Lindsay(stated war would cost 200 billion was summarily forced out)
Paul O'Neil(thought the loyalty thing was fake)
Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (job destroyed)

 

ASLANSPAL, you sure do put yourself into a high position of judgement!

 

Dragoon read and listen to the 6 brave military leaders and argue
against them ..I thank God for them.





Everyone who wore stars got the message. Don't open your mouth around Rumsfeld except to say "Yes, sir!"

Military.com linkie here.

snippet:

All of this reminds me of another general 40 years ago. His name was Harold K. Johnson. He was chief of staff of the Army from 1964 to 1968. Johnson was a 1933 graduate of West Point. He was in the Philippines when World War II broke out and survived the Bataan death march and four years in the Japanese prison camps. His faith kept him going. He was a Baptist preacher when he wasn't soldiering.

Harold Johnson commanded at battalion and brigade level in the 1st Cavalry Division in Korea and earned a Distinguished Service Cross, the nation's 2nd highest award for valor.

In early July 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) and other sizeable units to deploy to South Vietnam in a major escalation of the war. What he refused to do was follow the advice of his military commanders and declare a national emergency that would freeze discharges of all soldiers.

President Johnson wanted to fight the Vietnam War on the cheap and on the quiet. He didn't want to disturb middle-class America or Congress for fear they would want to pay for the war by cutting back on his Great Society social and welfare programs. So he would send off Army units seriously under strength, leaving behind the best-trained soldiers whose enlistments or draft tours were near an end.

Gen. Johnson was furious. He summoned his car and on the way to the White House he removed the eight silver stars from his shoulders. But the general was debating with himself the whole way, and just short of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he ordered the driver to turn around. Gen. Johnson had convinced himself that if he resigned in protest LBJ would replace him in a matter of hours with someone much worse and more pliable. So it was best to remain and work from within to fix what he could.

Not long before he died, in the fall of 1983, Harold Johnson sat beside an old friend at a West Point Alumni Association officers meeting. He recounted that day and told his friend: "I count that as the greatest moral failure of my life. I should have resigned and fought the decision."

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

(do not agree with the entire article but do agree that it is sad a Christian military man did not speak truth to power when he had the chance...and he regreted it much and so these 6 military leaders are trying to learn from that mistake by speaking out against incompetent leadership from the bush culture.}


If we do not rise up and speak truth to power in this country we get what we deserve...bush has deceived and fear mongered his way into power and has hurt this nation...he needs to be held accountable and all those who suck up to the bush culture are actually showing very little compassion...the middle class can bounce back but we must renounce the bush culture of fear and get back to faithing. These 6 military leaders are brave ...would I have liked them to take on bush earlier...yes! but bush was too powerful at the time they would have been slaughtered politically and career wise(it is bushs way).

Rumsfeld is an old Nixon ideologue along with Cheney they still hold on to being pro Nixon and his ways actually like Rumsfeld in some areas he knows how to get out of a noose ,but he has been pushing others around for so long and he has successfully neutered bush..which is where I differ from him and he should be cut loose.

Rumsfeld has become too powerful in this democracy and that should never happen.

 

Here we go again! You're just droolling over this latest bit of news aren't you? Now these men are "brave military leaders" to you! Before you'd have included them in a different category.

Suddenly you're all excited about what these people are saying but two years ago you'd have probably objected to what some of them wanted to do. You'd have labeled them as war mongers wanting to expand the war!

I actually have read their comments - some of which date back several years - and understand what they're saying and can put it into perspective. Most have been making their points known for a while and, like I've said, they're certainly worth considering. It's not exactly new news!

I'm not saying there aren't valid points - alternatives - made in these comments. I'm not completely in agreement with every aspect of our defense policies or our strategy in Iraq. These men have always been part of the "brave" to me and still are whether I agree or disagree with their comments. Regardless, I remain 100% in support of our cause in Iraq and of the military carrying it out as instructed.

The job of the military - top to bottom - is to execute that which its civilian superiors decides is needed. It's always been a conflict between military and civilian leadership.

Do you remember President Truman and General MacArthur? Some would aruge MacArthur was right - who knows for certain - but most recognize Truman was the "boss". It's a pattern that's been repeated in every war. We don't elect Generals! We do elect members of Congress and a President. The later determines and executes the policy. The military leadership figures out how to get the job done and they usually manage to do so very well.

If I have time, perhaps I'll reflect upon the comments of those Generals you've identified. But, of course, you'll label me as a "Bushbot" for doing that even if I give credit to their comments.

 

Clinton got more respect than this from the generals.

Like Bush, he found ways to avoid war. But at least he had the sense to listen to the generals when it came to deploying troops.

And when his Secretary of Defense messed up and got people killed, Clinton fired him. When Bush's Sec. of Def. does the same thing, and kills more people, Bush praises him.

Is is any surprise that Clinton got more respect?

 

Please post this in the joke forum!

 

Count 'em. Why didn't Clinton get taken to task like this, by so many retired officers? Because he paid attention to them, and listened to what they had to say.

And so, when he committed troops, they won with a minimum of casualties. Generals like that.

Bush and Rumsfeld thought they knew better than the generals who had learned through combat experience. Clinton was too smart to kid himself like that.