Three (3) GO's

[BMT (RIP)]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-11T221939Z_01_N11242897_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-RUMSFELD.xml&rpc=22

The only one I have any knowledgr of is Eaton. My book he is a Clinton promoted ass hole.

BMT

[bubba]

Isn't Eaton the one who whined when his son was "bullied" in Ranger School a couple years ago. What a Puss!

[BMT (RIP)]

YEP!! Same ass hole.

BMT

[Airbornelawyer]

The article says MG Eaton was "in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003-2004".

One of LTG Newbold's criticisms of Rumsfeld is the poor job of getting the training of the Iraqi military off the ground in 2003-2004.



By the way, I have no idea if it is significant, but LTG Newbold retired from his position as Director for Operations (J3) on the Joint Staff. Newbold's four predecessors - GEN Howell M. Estes III USAF, GEN Peter Pace, USMC, ADM Vern Clark, USN and VADM Scott A. Fry - and his successor - GEN Norton A. Schwartz, USAF - all went on to follow-on assignments. Estes became CINCNORAD, Pace is CJCS, Clark became CNO, Fry became COMSIXTHFLT and Schwartz commands TRANSCOM.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't think I care much for those fellows.

AL, the breadth of your knowledge (or google skills) never ceases to amaze me.

[504PIR]

From what I have seen in the news I believe Gen. Zinni has politcal aspirations much like Westly Clark.

And MG Eaton ....IMHO is another "political"general, definitly not a warrior but another "wuss".

[The Reaper]

I know GEN Zinni, knew him when he was the CINCCENT and have a lot of respect for him.

At the same time, I think that he is wrong on Mideast policy and has been since he retired.

I do not think that he has political aspirations ala Wes Clark, whom, I have also dealt with. Of course, compared to Wes Clark, Hillary has no political aspirations, so maybe that was a bad comparison.

TR

[Razor]

Well, I'm rather disappointed. Then-COL Eaton was my Bde commander in 3ID, and seemed to be a good senior officer.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I read Newbold's piece in Time at the doctor's office yesterday. I found it conclusory and stupid.

[Airbornelawyer]

I know GEN Zinni, knew him when he was the CINCCENT and have a lot of respect for him.

At the same time, I think that he is wrong on Mideast policy and has been since he retired.

I do not think that he has political aspirations ala Wes Clark, whom, I have also dealt with. Of course, compared to Wes Clark, Hillary has no political aspirations, so maybe that was a bad comparison.

TR
From what I here, GEN Zinni's political aspirations are not like Clark's. GEN Clark wanted to be President, or at least seriously considered as veep material. GEN Zinni seems to be jockeying for the Colin Powell role - SECSTATE or SECDEF - in a Democratic Administration.

[CoLawman]

http://www.hughhewitt.com/

Generals Pace and McInerney
by Hugh Hewitt
April 12, 2006 03:42 PM PST

Retired Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Thomas McInerney was my guest today, and his belief in the ability of the American military to destroy the Iranian nuclear program is complete. Radioblogger will have the transcript up later.

I also asked the General about the criticisms of SecDef Rumsfeld and the war from retired Generals Batiste, Newbold, Eaton and Zinni. McInerney was not complimentary of some of these criticisms, and his comments echoed those made by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace made today:

In the last couple of days there have been several articles, opinion pieces, editorials about the responsibility of senior U.S. military officers to speak up, to tell the truth as we know it, and that is a sacred obligation of all of us who are fortunate to represent all the members of the armed forces and to have the opportunity to participate at this level.
Let me just give you Pete Pace's rendition of how the process worked building up to Iraq. First of all, once it became apparent that we may have to take military action, the Secretary of Defense asked Tom Franks, who was the commander of Central Command, to begin doing some planning, which he did. Over the next two years, 50 or 60 times, Tom Franks either came to Washington or by video teleconference, sat down with the Secretary of Defense, sat down with the Joint Chiefs and went over what he was thinking, how he was planning. And as a result of those iterative opportunities and all the questions that were asked, not once was Tom told, "No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, you can't have this. No, you can't have that." What happened was, in a very open roundtable discussion, questions about what might go right, what might go wrong, what would you need, how would you handle it, and that happened with the Joint Chiefs and it happened with the Secretary.

And before the final orders were given, the Joint Chiefs met in private with General Franks and assured ourselves that the plan was a solid plan and that the resources that he needed were going to be allocated. We then went and told the Secretary of Defense our belief in Tom's plan and in the resources, and I know for a fact, because I was there, that when the Joint Chiefs were called over to the White House, several of the questions that the president asked specifically were about our understanding and belief in the plan, and whether or not the amount -- proper amount of resources had been allocated. He did that both with us, just the Joint Chiefs, and then again when all the combatant commanders were in from around the globe well before a final decision was made.

We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us because the opportunity is there.

It is elicited from us. You know, we're expected to. And the plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers, and blessed by the senior military leadership.

Then, when we go to Congress, part of our confirmation process is, "Will you, General Pace, if confirmed, give your personal opinion when asked?" And the answer to that question is, "Yes, I will, sir." And I have been for almost five years now asked my personal opinion multiple times by members of the Congress of the United States in testimony, and I have spoken my personal opinion.

Now, I've given my best military advice to the Secretary and to the president, as have the other officers who have the privilege of being Joint Chiefs or being combatant commanders. Our troops deserve and will continue to get our best military thinking.

I wanted to tell you how I believe this system works, and I wanted to tell you how I have observed it working for five years, because the articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong.

Thank you.

[MtnGoat]

I found this thought it fit in here.

Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says

Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)

Today on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html?eref=yahoo), retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. "I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," the former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division said.

Swannack joins former Central Command boss Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- all retired -- in demanding that Rumsfeld step down.

Batiste, like Swannack, joined the fray relatively late, in an interview (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/batiste/index.html?section=cnn_latest)with CNN's Miles O'Brien on Wednesday. The interview opened with Batiste slamming Iraq's potential for democracy: "Iraqis, frankly, in my experience, do not understand democracy. Nor do they understand their responsibilities for a free society."

The interview continued:

O'BRIEN: So, you're suggesting a wholesale house cleaning [of Defense Dept. leadership]?

BATISTE: I didn't say wholesale. I said new leadership in the Pentagon, a fresh start. You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense.

O'BRIEN: What is going on that is -- what is it about that climate that is leading to difficulties, leading to trouble, leading to -- as you put it -- perhaps unnecessary bloodshed?

BATISTE: I didn't say unnecessary bloodshed. But when decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes. When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril.

Ahem.

I met Batiste a year ago when he was commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq. We spoke for an hour about the insurgency, the Iraqi Army and the upcoming January election for an interim national assembly.

The difference between Batiste's attitude then and his attitude now is suprising. Last year, he said the insurgency was "not an impressive effort", insisted that Al Qaeda was behind the worst attacks in Iraq and predicted that everday Iraqis would soon turn against insurgents. And the kicker -- he described the chunk of the World Trade Center that he kept in his office to remind himself why we had to invade Iraq.

From the safety of retirement, and with his buddies watching his back, Batiste has lashed out at Rumsfeld. But Batiste is guilty of lapses in judgement just as gross as Rumsfeld's. The only difference is that Rumsfeld ranks higher, so his lapses have greater consequences. I'm not defending Rummy. But if Batiste were Secretary of Defense instead, I doubt we'd be much better off.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

These bastards are moral cowards! If they had such strong feelings when this all started they had an obligation to resign/retire. If this points nothing else out, it definitely shows the total ineptitude of the conventional force GOs who do not have a frigging clue about insurgency and the psychological victory that they are handing to the insurgents and the liberal whiners and media in this country. They can now count themselves among the like of Jane F....a and because they failed to stand for what they believed in when they could have done something about it, the very troops that they committed to operations they signed on to are now paying for their bruised egos and moral cowardice with their blood. Rant over.

[Roguish Lawyer]

These bastards are moral cowards! If they had such strong feelings when this all started they had an obligation to resign/retire. If this points nothing else out, it definitely shows the total ineptitude of the conventional force GOs who do not have a frigging clue about insurgency and the psychological victory that they are handing to the insurgents and the liberal whiners and media in this country. They can now count themselves among the like of Jane F....a and because they failed to stand for what they believed in when they could have done something about it, the very troops that they committed to operations they signed on to are now paying for their bruised egos and moral cowardice with their blood. Rant over.

Preach on!

[Airbornelawyer]

MG Swannack retired after commanding the 82nd Airborne.

Who retires after commanding the Eighty-Deuce? For a major general, division command is the pinnacle. There are lots of MGs and only 10 divisions. Colin Powell has noted that the biggest regret of his military career is that he never commanded a division. And the 82nd is the cream of division commands.

For at least the past twenty years, no former CG of the 82nd has failed to advance. The only question was one more or two more stars. And since the division became an airborne division, only 8 of 38 CGs failed to get a third or fourth star (and the CG immediately before it became airborne, Omar Bradley, got a fifth).

At least 15 reached full general: Matthew Ridgway, Williston B. Palmer, Hamilton H. Howze, Dwight E. Beach, Ted Conway, John L. Throckmorton, John R. Deane, Jr., George Blanchard, Frederick J. Kroesen, Roscoe Robinson, Jr., James J. Lindsay, John W. Foss, Carl W. Stiner, Henry H. Shelton and Daniel K. McNeill.

At least 15 reached LTG: James M. Gavin, Clovis E. Byers, Ridgely Gaither (BG, interim CG), Thomas F. Hickey, Francis W. Farrell, T.J. Trapnell, John W. Bowen, Robert H. York, Richard J. Seitz, Thomas H. Tackaberry, James H. Johnson, Jr., William M. Steele, George A. Crocker, Joseph K. Kellogg, Jr., and John E. Vines (still active).

MG Charles D.W. Canham, an interim CG of the 82nd in 1952, retired with only two stars, but in 1960, after further divisional and corps command (Canham, by the way, commanded the 116th Infantry on Omaha Beach). BG Raphael J. Hallada, another interim commander, also went on to other successful commands. The others to retire as MGs were Gerald J. Higgins, Joe S. Lawrie, Guy S. Meloy III, Edward L. Trobaugh, Bobby B. Porter and Swannack.

Swannack's successor, William B. Caldwell IV, was just last month appointed to be Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Effects, Multi-National Force-Iraq. He will be succeeded as divisional commander by MG David M. Rodriguez.

Swannack commanded the division in wartime (and apparently had to split command for part of it, as Vines retained command of TF 82 in Afghanistan while Swannack commanded divisional elements in Iraq). Swannack did something to piss someone off (my guess is going out of the chain of command to complain to people in the media about vehicle armor), and his career came to a crashing halt.

I don't want to sound judgmental of MG Swannack. I don't really know much about him. Maybe he did, or at least firmly believes he did, sacrifice an otherwise promising future in the interests of his troops, and feels compelled to speak out. Or maybe his ego got the best of him, and he lost the clash of wills with the Pentagon, and now he's harvesting sour grapes. And maybe it is a little of both: there are genuine disagreements of policy, but ego and ambition and politics often turn policy disagreements into political catfights.

[MtnGoat]

MG Swannack retired after commanding the 82nd Airborne.

Who retires after commanding the Eighty-Deuce? For a major general, division command is the pinnacle. There are lots of MGs and only 10 divisions. Colin Powell has noted that the biggest regret of his military career is that he never commanded a division. And the 82nd is the cream of division commands.

For at least the past twenty years, no former CG of the 82nd has failed to advance. The only question was one more or two more stars. And since the division became an airborne division, only 8 of 38 CGs failed to get a third or fourth star (and the CG immediately before it became airborne, Omar Bradley, got a fifth).

Great Post and Info AL. So ture about the former CG of the 82nd not advancing. So why did he retire, thats the question.

[The Reaper]

I wondered the same thing.

Good summary, AL. As you noted, the CG of the 82nd normally moves up to Corps CG position and up or not from there.

Clearly, he judged his future opportunity low, or was so fed up that he quit.

He is not the first to do that, and I know several with promise who left within the past year. They have not spoken out about it yet though.

TR

[112thSOLCA]

Airborne Lawyer - great analysis

I would also add that MG Bobby Porter would almost surely have advanced in rank but was hurt on a parachute jump and had to relinquish command of the division. Complications from the injury eventually caused him to retire as MG.

[Airbornelawyer]

MG Batiste is a somewhat different story. After commanding 1ID, Batiste was named on April 29, 2005 to be DCG, V Corps, USAREUR and 7th Army . This is a 3-star gig, but Batiste was not nominated for that third star. A few months later, in November 2005, MG Gary D. Speer, DCG, 3rd Army/ARCENT, was nominated for a third star and given Batiste's job.

So something happened with Batiste last summer that appears to have ended his career precipitously.

Interestingly, before taking command of 1ID in 2002, Batiste was senior military assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.

This is another job that usually leads to bigger and better things. Batiste went on to division command, as did his successor, Bill Caldwell (see above). The current assistant, BG(P) Frank G. Helmick, was just named to command SETAF. Batiste's predecessors in that job include Colin Powell, current Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee, Admiral Gregory Johnson, General Bruce Carlson, General Paul Kern and Admiral Jonathan Howe, and a slew of other admirals and generals.

By the way, this was the job that killed Powell's chances for divisional command. He so impressed Deputy Secretary Frank Carlucci during the 1980-81 transition that when Weinberger was looking for a senior assistant in 1983, Powell was given the job. After leaving Washington in 1981, Powell had been ADC of 4ID and DCG of the Combined Arms Combat Development Activity, so he was well positioned for division command. Instead, he returned to Washington for three years and then got his third star and a short-lived corps command before coming right back to Washington during Iran-Contra to be Carlucci's deputy (and successor) at NSC.

[MtnGoat]

FOX is Reporting Now that 6 GOs joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld
Defense secretary.

Eston, Batiste, Riggs, Eaton, Zinni, and Newbold.

Studio B

[Airbornelawyer]

I wondered the same thing.

Good summary, AL. As you noted, the CG of the 82nd normally moves up to Corps CG position and up or not from there.

Clearly, he judged his future opportunity low, or was so fed up that he quit.

He is not the first to do that, and I know several with promise who left within the past year. They have not spoken out about it yet though.

TR
On Swannack, if I had to speculate, I would think the problem went back to March 2004, when he was widely quoted in the media complaining about procurement problems and shortages of vehicles, radios and body armor. This was jumped on by other reporters in several Pentagon press briefings, and became politicized in the 2004 Democratic primaries and presidential campaign. Swannack's public grousing, either done with awareness of how it would be politicized, or done negligent of that outcome, probably led to him being taken to Rumsfeld's infamous woodshed.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Al,
I'm stealing some of this stuff and not crediting you as the source...LOL

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well hell! Don't stop!

I was just kidding....sort of...ok, I won't.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I don't want to sound judgmental of MG Swannack.

Well I have no problem with being judgemental. There is a time and a place to shoot off your mouth and their is a procedure for it-if you have the balls. Military problems among officers, and especially commanders, stay in the military and are not aired like dirty laundry for all to see especially when those that get to see the laundry have absolutely no understanding of what the situation is to begin with. You certainly do not go crying to the press and you have to be the favorite nominee for village idiot if you think that what you say as a former commander from the combat zone is not going to play big time to the adversarys , both foreign and domestic, advantage. You have problems with the decision, you surface it and then you do what you can to ameilorate the situation so that you troops don't suffer the consequences both while you are in command and afterwards after you are off doing other things. No one will ever convince me that an officer's responsibility for looking out for the troops stops because he has taken off the uniform-especially when he speaks out as a retired officer. If he wants to express his opinion as Joe Shit the Ragman then he does so without making any references to his credentials and I even have problems with that. I am sure that there are many who will disagree with me about this, and that is fine but I feel that an officer holds a special responsibility once he accepts that commission and it is a sacred duty to his men, his mission, and his country and as long as you are drawing military retired pay that does not stop. These individuals may think that they have done the right thing by standing up and being counted, but all they have done is indicated dissention in the ranks and encouraged those that know the American people are short on political will to see things through that they are on the right path to success. Now, I don't expect everyone in uniform to fully agree with the strategy developed for anything. I don't agree with everything that is going on either but then I am just a piss ant Colonel but I am not expressing my opinions for public consumption. I don't know anything personal about any of these officers, nor does it really matter to me if they were the best damn officers in the jobs that they held throughout their careers. What bothers me is that they apparently feel more comfortable using the media and the public forum to fight battles for them that they should have fought themselves when they were in uniform. No, I have no problem being judgemental. Sorry but this just bothers the hell out of me. Rant over(again)

[lksteve]

as a BG, Zinni was the JTF J3 in Somalia...i had infrequent interaction with him, but my opinion of him was on the tepid side of indifferent...

[504PIR]

I heard the MG Swannack made the mistake of emailing his letter to his girlfriend to his wife's email address.

I understand that it was decided his career was pretty much done as the last thing the Army need was another scandal.

[Dan]

Plus MG Swannack is probably still irritated about not being allowed to jump his Division into Iraq like he requested...thus the jumping on the bandwagon.

[NousDefionsDoc]

504PIR,
I realize it is your unit, but unless there is proof and this is a fact, let's not go there. Characterization of service is one thing. Character assassination is quite another. Regardless of what the man may or may not have done in his personal life, he served The Nation for decades and honorably.

Airborne?

[SF18C]

MG Batiste is a somewhat different story. After commanding 1ID, Batiste was named on April 29, 2005 to be DCG, V Corps, USAREUR and 7th Army . This is a 3-star gig, but Batiste was not nominated for that third star. A few months later, in November 2005, MG Gary D. Speer, DCG, 3rd Army/ARCENT, was nominated for a third star and given Batiste's job.

So something happened with Batiste last summer that appears to have ended his career precipitously.

After the big story came out about his promo to USAREUR CMD it very, very quietly went a way. I was working for 1ID when Batiste was in charge...there were many, many rumors running around as to what happen. I am still wondering what the heck happened. Some say it was a very bad polital joke being played on him by much higher ups, but how much faith can you put in that.

[Don]

After the big story came out about his promo to USAREUR CMD it very, very quietly went a way. I was working for 1ID when Batiste was in charge...there were many, many rumors running around as to what happen. I am still wondering what the heck happened. Some say it was a very bad polital joke being played on him by much higher ups, but how much faith can you put in that.


I was with 1ID also during his tenure. He carries a lot of baggage, and a highly visible lean to the left. . Kind of odd for a division commander. Because of that I was not surprised by his comments. I couldn't find anything open source on what he is doing now...but I got it from a good personal source he has been offered a job with world bank courtesy of an old acquaintence of his, Paul Wolfowitz. I am sure a position at world bank probably pays a bit better than LTG and provides less opportunity for one year tours to Iraq. I dont know why he has decided to make all the political commentary, unless he figures it is payback time. Doesn't make much sense with a neocon future boss like Wolfowitz.

[Airbornelawyer]

I was with 1ID also during his tenure. He carries a lot of baggage, and a highly visible lean to the left. . Kind of odd for a division commander. Because of that I was not surprised by his comments. I couldn't find anything open source on what he is doing now...but I got it from a good personal source he has been offered a job with world bank courtesy of an old acquaintence of his, Paul Wolfowitz. I am sure a position at world bank probably pays a bit better than LTG and provides less opportunity for one year tours to Iraq. I dont know why he has decided to make all the political commentary, unless he figures it is payback time. Doesn't make much sense with a neocon future boss like Wolfowitz.
Especially considering one of his big talking points was how the civilian leadership in the Pentagon wasn't listening (read: deferring) to their military advisors. Even more than Rumsfeld, for years Wolfowitz was the main target of the whispering campaign about civilian neocons hell-bent on war.

[FILO]

[QUOTE=Don]I couldn't find anything open source on what he is doing now...but I got it from a good personal source he has been offered a job with world bank courtesy of an old acquaintence of his, Paul Wolfowitz. QUOTE]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060415/NEWS01/604150337&SearchID=73241852441541

[Don]

[QUOTE=Don]I couldn't find anything open source on what he is doing now...but I got it from a good personal source he has been offered a job with world bank courtesy of an old acquaintence of his, Paul Wolfowitz. QUOTE]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060415/NEWS01/604150337&SearchID=73241852441541

I guess that "good personal source" will now be downgraded to "personal source of questionalble reliability." ...always check your sources...:o...at least I wont repeat that line twice.

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/67207.htm

April 19, 2006 -- IN the current duel over Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's future, two essential issues need to be addressed: Who are the officers on either side of the argument, and should retired generals speak out at all?

Whatever one thinks of the SecDef, the professional identities of his critics and his supporters tell us a great deal. The retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are recent combat commanders, veterans of Iraq and Middle East experts. They're the men who led from the front and who signed the condolence letters to bereaved families (and they didn't use an autograph machine).

Generals such as John Batiste, Gregory Newbold, Paul Eaton and Tony Zinni have something else in common, too: They're leaders respected by their peers for flawless integrity. Their reputations within their services - the Army and Marines - could not be higher. They are not and never have been political generals.

And these men have much to lose by going public with their criticism. They'll never get the lucrative defense-industry jobs in corporations whose profits depend on the favor of the Pentagon. They're not going to be offered plum appointments in any future administration, Republican or Democrat. They'll be frozen out of the Washington-insider's club. They face organized political attacks upon their personal reputations.

And yet they feel it their duty to speak to their fellow citizens, no matter the cost.

Who are the retired generals rallying to Secretary Rumsfeld? Check their credentials, please. When you see those "dead generals" pontificating on cable or network news, the crawl at the bottom of the screen doesn't tell you their corporate affiliations or explain their relationships with the Pentagon. If it did, you'd find that few are objective commentators.

Backed by its internal resources, a political party and the defense industry, the Office of the Secretary of Defense wields tremendous power. The critics stand alone, without affiliation or financial support, relying on the media to pick up their statements. The SecDef's staff can e-mail thousands of retired flag officers, cajoling them to use its talking points to defend Rumsfeld, with an implicit threat of exclusion from the magic circle if they defect to the critics.

The result? Many retired generals and admirals are afraid to speak out - worried about the executive slots and boardroom positions with which the defense industry legally bribes them. The revolving door is a very powerful silencer.

As for the generals who rush to defend the SecDef - using those OSD-disseminated talking points - they fall into three categories:

* Pathetic, aged retirees who desperately want to believe they're still Washington players and who will do anything for a scrap of official attention.

* Air Force generals - while the Army and Marines fought, Rumsfeld funded all of the Air Force's toys and can count on its support.

* And, most troublingly, serving officers selected by the SecDef for the military's highest offices.

Given the red-herring debate over whether or not military retirees have a right to speak out, we've overlooked a shameful and flagrant violation of the military's code of ethics: Active-duty officers are forbidden to make political statements.

Rumsfeld's critics played by the rules and retired before stating their cases. But what should we make of the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, his predecessor and their colleagues who've offered Manchurian-Candidate praise of the defense secretary in public?

Those were political statements. By any definition.

If serving officers can't criticize public figures, neither should they offer endorsements. Secretary Rumsfeld notoriously cracks down on internal dissent, but he hasn't chided Gen. Pace for his on-camera flattery. If you're looking for the politicization of the officer corps, look no further.

Much of the pro-Rumsfeld blather has been laughable. A desperate Air Force general claimed on CNN that, with "only 21/2 years left" in the administration, it was impractical to change defense secretaries, since a new man wouldn't have time to master the system.

Utter nonsense, of course. A senator with a defense background would have a firm grip on the Pentagon in a few months. As for 21/2 years being a short time, imagine how different things might be if Rumsfeld had been replaced in the autumn of 2003.

Invoking our troops, one print pundit with no military background warned that dismissing the SecDef would give "anti-war" Democrats a political victory. In other words, depriving Democrats of an issue is more important than the fate of Iraq or the lives of our soldiers. Score a new low for the party hacks.

Then there are the academics who bemoaned the failure of military officers to speak out during the Vietnam War. Now that retired generals are speaking out against a war's inept prosecution, the faculty-lounge lions warn about a breakdown in civil-military relations.

Let's put the issue bluntly: Should military retirees - men and women who loyally served our country - be second-class citizens for the remainder of their lives, forbidden to state their opinions on military affairs? Should we penalize those who served in uniform? Are former politicians forbidden to speak out? Retired neurosurgeons? Teachers? Over-the-hill pundits?

If former military officers can't be heard on defense issues, on whom shall we rely for informed analysis? Politicians? Defense contractors? Professors?

In these years without a draft, when most citizens have no first-hand military experience, retired officers (and NCOs) have a duty to speak out. Those still in uniform must remain silent (this means you, too, Gen. Pace), but a man such as Maj.-Gen. John Batiste, who declined the offer of a third star rather than serve under Mr. Rumsfeld, has every right to be heard.

As the Washington machinery attempts to discredit honorable critics of Secretary Rumsfeld, this is truly a David-vs.-Goliath struggle. And the truth, as well as the valor, is on David's side.

Ralph Peters' most recent book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."



I am disappointed....

[Pete]

I guess the writter considers General Tommy Franks a "Dead General" also?

Was he not the leader of a few troops or two in combat?

[Airbornelawyer]

I am disappointed....
Disappointed in whom? Peters?

Peters has long fluctutated between voice of reason and Hackworth-wannabe.

This is snotty ad hominem, and whatever valid points Peters might make (such as that Gen. Pace, as an active officer, is less free to speak his mind than a retired officer would be) are swallowed up in childish black and white. Zinni, Swannack and the other critics are models of selfless integrity, while Rumsfeld's defenders are a bunch of crooks lining up for their place at the defense industry trough. I'm surprised Peters didn't steal Hack's "perfumed princes" line.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Disappointed in whom? Peters?

Peters has long fluctutated between voice of reason and Hackworth-wannabe.

This is snotty ad hominem, and whatever valid points Peters might make (such as that Gen. Pace, as an active officer, is less free to speak his mind than a retired officer would be) are swallowed up in childish black and white. Zinni, Swannack and the other critics are models of selfless integrity, while Rumsfeld's defenders are a bunch of crooks lining up for their place at the defense industry trough. I'm surprised Peters didn't steal Hack's "perfumed princes" line.
yes, in Peters. I know, I know. But I liked him at times. I shouldn't get my hopes up.