< Return to MilitaryGear.com
Information April 13 2006
 — By CJ

It takes a big man to wait until retirement to rebuke their leader. Where were these guys when they were on active duty? Oh, they talk big about how there weren’t enough troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld didn’t respect the military, and Rumsfeld has an authoritarian style of leadership. Oddly enough, that sounds like many Generals I’ve worked for. Maybe they should step outside their inflated egos and look at their time in command.

MG Batiste easily blames a lack of troops on the ground for creating the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal “by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops”. My understanding is that it’s the Generals’ responsibility to put competent officers in positions of leadership at places like Abu Ghraib. Seems to me that he who is with sin is casting the first stone. I’ll agree that the troops responsible for the scandal were undertrained. Reservists and Guardsman don’t receive the same training that active duty soldiers do. However, this is training that is managed and overseen at the…wait for it…wait for it…General level. They dictate how soldiers are to be trained as MOS (job skill) proficient.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was responsible for training Iraqi troops between 2003-2004, said that we’ve “wasted three years”. If that’s how he wishes to characterize his “efforts” in Iraq, that’s his fault. I always thought that Generals made things happen. I still know that to be true.

If you haven’t read Gen. Franks’ book “American Soldier”, pick it up. It’s a big book, but you’ll soar through it; it’s so easy to read. He talks in length about the difficulty in working with Rumsfeld. He is a difficult person to work with.

But, he was given a military that for eight years was neglected by the Clinton administration. The General leadership wasn’t doing anything to make things better. All the good, hard-working Generals retired under Clinton because they couldn’t take the incompetence. Guess who was left…those willing to just toe the line do the bare minimum. I don’t mean this as a blanket statement as I’ve worked with some excellent Generals left over from the previous administration. However, go back and research General retirements in 1992 and again in 1996 and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Rumsfeld had to reinvigorated a demoralized officer corps. He’s turned this Army (can’t speak for other services) into a more lethal fighting force. He’s modernized us more in 4 years than Clinton did in eight. Of course, we did get these goofy berets under Rumsfeld and I’ll take the opportunity myself to blame him for that (something that isn’t his responsibility either).

Frankly, I’m glad we’ve got someone like Rumsfeld leading the military. There isn’t anyone more experienced in the post. The Generals are just upset that he won’t take their crap. They’re used to getting everything their hearts desire and Rumsfeld holds them to the fire. He makes them do their jobs. Eight years of doing what they wanted and not answering to anyone under Clinton softened them.

Now, they’ve been made to work and decided to retire. You notice I don’t wait until my retirement to talk about these guys. I’ve gone through a lot of pain and frustration in my time in the Army because when I see someone, officer or enlisted, doing something I think is wrong I tell them. To their face. I’ve had many arguments with commander’s over their policies. Sometimes I’ve won, sometimes I haven’t. If an officer or senior enlisted person can’t take criticism, they shouldn’t be in a leadership position. It’s not easy telling your commander that she’s responsible for destroying morale and combat readiness of her company…and providing the metrics to prove it.

This administration, and Rumsfeld in particular, has said that if the commanders on the ground want more troops, he’ll send them. Why aren’t the commanders on the ground asking for more troops? Why are they telling the press that we should actually reduce the number of troops?

I’m going to let Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff end this post:

“We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us,” he said at a Pentagon briefing. “The articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong.”

rumsfeld
Generals who wait until retirement to criticize me have cojones this big.

(6) Readers Comments

  1. Good post CJ. I happen to love “Rummy”.

  2. CJ,
    Thanks for your insight into this. Alot of people can’t stand Rumsfeld but guess he’s doing his job and they don’t like it. Glad he’s bringing the Army up to par, even though you don’t like the berets Ha! Frankly, I like berets on a soldier…makes them look tough I think!

  3. Nice post. I read American Soldier about two or three months back. An excellent read, and like you said, you just seem to fly through it.

  4. In a related tangent, I’ve read Gen./Fmr SecState Powell has come out and said he never believed what he said about the WMD in Iraq. Until I saw that statement, I had quite a bit of respect for the man.

    Rob

  5. I love that photo!

    Hugh Hewitt earlier in the week had an interview with another retired general:

    http://radioblogger.com/#001538

    He has a few comments of his own in the 2nd half of the interview, regarding all these generals coming out (audio is also available).

  6. “Frankly, I’m glad we’ve got someone like Rumsfeld leading the military. There isn’t anyone more experienced in the post. The Generals are just upset that he won’t take their crap. They’re used to getting everything their hearts desire and Rumsfeld holds them to the fire. He makes them do their jobs…”

    If by “crap” and “everything their hearts desired” you mean “demanding more troops to secure the nation in the beginning” then I agree. Seems like Rumsfeld didnt listen to them. Were the generals right and Rumsfled wrong? Well, look at Iraq now and read this quote from Rumsfeld:

    “I am saying that if you had said to me a year ago, “describe the situation you’ll be in today one year later,” I don’t know many people who would have described it. I would not have described it the way it happens to be today.

    Rumsfeld, I agree, was right in streamlining the military. Was it right to invade Iraq with that type of a force? Hmmm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>