Army Times goes left wing
 

I don't mind a difference of opinion what I do mind is is a left wing political stunt like publishing this opinion a day before the elections. At least we now know which way the military tabloids lean.

I never purchased them before and now never will.

TS





http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/200...umsfeld_n.html


According to sources, the Army Times is about to run an astonishing editorial, openly calling for Rumsfeld to resign mere days before an election. That's how desperate the military now is. Here it is in full:

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

I heard about this on a morning news program. I will never buy an Army Times either. Col. Hunt (ret) said he thought Rumsfeld should go back in Sep., but until he his gone Hunt still supports him. The timing is questionable at best. The publications geared for the media by the largest media, or newspaper, firm should be abolished immediately in my opinion. We all know that will not happen becfause of the liberal media power in this country. With that in mind, I would like to see all not purchase an Army, Navy, Air Force Times for an extended period of time.

Good post TS.

I bought a couple of the Army Times when I was a private and didn't like their articles back then. I saw what they did a few times over the years and never had the urge to buy their products ever again.

Latrine-burning details everywhere need to put any already purchased copies of their products in the appropriate place!

I was just talking to my dad this morning and he mentioned this was going to be running in the AF Times. Looks like I'll be saving myself some money when I don't continue my subscription.

Why is it that any disagreement with the current administration is automatically dismissed as a "left-wing" ploy. I am not regular reader of the Army Times any more but still read it when something catches my eye. Over the years that I have read the Times I could use a lot of terms to describe the writing but left-wing is not one of them. This company would not have lasted very long as a liberal mouth piece. Their readership is military posts not college campuses.

SFC W

I read the Army Times for years and never thought it leaned one way or the other. For the most part is was straight news about the military any advertisements.

I think a lot of the heartburn is the "modernization" that the Secretary is doing. Downsizing, handing over jobs to civilians that were once done by service members, and cutting what he considered waste had pi$$ed off a number of people. Iraq is a focal point for the anger and frustration.....and too, the war there is not going all that at this point....

My 2 cents.

Jim

Re-read what I wrote.

AS I wrote above, I have no problem with a difference of opinion I do have a problem with their timing. It's a friggin "left wing" stunt specifically designed for its maximum manipulative effect just prior to election.

Think.

TS

A little November surprise.

The Army Times was bought in 1997 by one of the most liberal chains in print media...Gannett.

I think the SECDEF handled it appropriately though, by shrugging it off and knowing it's not the military that is behind the article.

Exactly.

The editorial influence by Gannett is showing.

I met the editor of Army Times a few years ago at Blackwater at a shoot. They wanted her to fire an M-60, I don't think she knew which end the bullets came out of.

The son of the former owner of the Army Times was the editor of Armed Forces Journal for less than a year before he recently departed.

I am shocked at the timing of the articles by Peters and the Times this close to an election. Regardless of the arguable basis for their editorials, the timing of it has provided aid and comfort to the enemy and to the anti-war faction as well. This editorial has been one of the lead stories on the MSM front pages.

Poor timing, at best.

TR

You'd be surprised (or maybe not...) by the number of folks I've talked to that think this publication IS the Military's.

I agree, poor timing.

Nothing new
 

The Military Times Publishing Company (AKA Gannet Press) has always leaned to the left. I remember writing letters after they supported the Clinton Assault Weapons ban back in '94, supported Gays in the military and had leftist columnists like Joe Wilson of the Washington Post as well as others.

These guys are not advocates of the military, they're out to sell papers and get notoriety for their reporters.

With the current climate of "hate the administration" it just makes it easier for them to show their true colors.

My opinion of the problem on the ground is that we have way too many conventional officers running the show. Way too much command and control and the bloated infrastructure to support it and far too few trigger pullers.

I saw a Pentagon briefing that made my head spin a few weeks ago that had a breakdown of deployed troops by MOS. Of the 120,000 troops in Iraq only 12,000 are 11 series, 18 series, 19 series or 13 series.

All the rest are combat support. If you take into account all of the combat arms MOS holders working the headquarters’ TOCs all over the country, I bet we only have about 10,000 guys over there with the explicit mission to hunt down the enemy.

The Big Conventional Army can't function unless it brings its huge and clumsy supply trains with it. It's logistical footprint is so huge, that in needs thousands of unnecessary support organizations to make it function, not to mention the thousands of contractors as well.


Rumsfeld has been trying in vain to reduce the bloated conventional Army ever since he was sworn in and the conventional, Cold War minded, generals have fought him tooth and nail the whole way.

If you really want to see change in the Pentagon and a new course in Iraq, don't fire Rumsfeld, fire every 2-Star General and up in the Pentagon and replace them with younger 1-Stars and Colonels. Preferably ones with trigger time and unconventional warfare experience.

Frank A.

I did consider that but the thing is that the lion's share of the readership is active duty military the majority of whom vote by absentee ballot which means that their votes have already been cast by Monday. I think that if they really wanted to have an effect on the election then Monday is too late.

As for them being bought out by Gannet, can anybody show where they have shown any kind of liberal bias? As I said, I don't read it as often as I used to but I have never known them to be anything but pro soldier (sailor, airman, marine, etc.). And by that I mean actually pro soldier as opposed to Nancy Polosi/John Kerry pro soldier.

SFC W

Geez, that's a BIG freakin' tail!! I've always wondered why they push, "Do more with less", then go to war with every swinging Richard on base. Do we really need that many admin weenies running around?

I think they like things as they were during the Cold War because of funding. I wonder how much we'd save if they cut back on heavy armor?? Fleets of bombers that were designed to penetrate Mother Russia's air defense system?

Wonder what that same breakdown looks like for the Army as a whole? I would bet it is probably proportional.