fontman
04-20-06, 02:10 PM
Will Malven
April 20, 2006
Inside the Beltway Press: "Secretary Rumsfeld, the generals are revolting!"
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld: "You said it, they stink on ice!"
[With apologies to Mel Brooks]
Suddenly the Democrats have discovered they like generals, at least those with whom they find common ground.
After decades of denigrating our military and doing their utmost to undermine its efforts and weaken its ability to conduct war, after eight years of former President Bill Clinton's cutbacks in military personnel (how do you think he reduced the number of government employees, through firing civil servants?) accomplished with the complicity of Congressional Liberals, after decades of opposing every new weapons system, suddenly Democrats and RINOs in Congress have allied themselves (some circumspectly) with a group of generals who have decided to come out in favor of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Could it possibly be that politics has something to do with this? Could it possibly be that the press has jumped on this story because it furthers their unrelenting anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War agenda? Could it possibly be that the only reason these people have embraced the dissident generals, is because it provides them with cover for their own attacks against Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush? Is it possible that these generals are not so much concerned with the well-being of our troops or the success of our military endeavors as they are perturbed by the campaign of Secretary Rumsfeld to modernize and streamline our Cold War era army?
The answer to each of these questions is an unqualified "Yes!"
I have never seen the press fawn over a military man except when it helped them pursue their own agenda. General Colin Powell was a hero as a "high ranking black general" (he was Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) during the first Gulf War, but once he declared himself to be a Republican, he began to receive closer scrutiny.
As President Bush's Secretary of State, he was accused of being a "Tom" and an "Oreo" because he supported President Bush's efforts in getting United Nations approval of our Attack against Saddam Hussein. We learned then that Secretary of State Colin Powell "wasn't really black;" a most interesting observation. That is because he didn't behave the way those on the Left have dictated blacks must behave.
These generals would do well to remind themselves of these facts, as they bask in the glow of the press' camera lights and praise. As soon as they are of no more use, they will suffer the same fate as the late lamented Paul Hackett, Iraq war veteran and star of the Democrat party until he was of no further use to the Democrat leadership, at which time he was unceremoniously consigned to the ash-heap of Democrat politicians.
Today's Democrat military star is tomorrow's war-mongering military pig.
You can see the same thing in the way in which our military dead and injured are used by the Democrats and their propaganda agents in the mainstream media (MSM). Deaths are virtually ignored until they near some useful benchmark (it was 1000 during the Presidential election of 2004) then just as quickly, they are again relegated to the back page. Today one rarely hears about them except to add to the count, unless the press or some Democrat politician is seeking to score points against President Bush. This is because the rate of troops being killed has steadily declined over the last six months.
So what we have now is a bunch of Democrat Politicians and their MSM propaganda machine advocating that an American President turn the running of the war and the appointment of our Secretary of Defense to a group of dissatisfied, retired generals.
Are the kidding? Civilian control of the military is one of the most important safeguards built into our system of government. The very idea of acquiescing to their demands is the antithesis to a civilian run military. Additionally, such behavior would inevitably lead to a Secretary of Defense who appointed only toadies to positions of power. That is also a threat to a civilian controlled military.
Who'd of thunkit? The Left moving us toward a separate and uncontrolled military, subject not to the orders of a duly elected representative of the people, but subject to the whims of their own consciences. Sounds disturbingly like a recipe for a military coup brought on by dissatisfaction within the military anytime the government acts in a way the military leaders don't agree with.
We've seen this sort of system before, but usually in third world nations with unstable Leftist junta governments. Is this truly the direction in which the Democrats want to move? I seriously doubt it. It is far more likely that, like most of the actions of those on the left, little thought has been given to the end results of what they are attempting to set into motion, they are simply acting out of self-interest and a hunger for power.
Democrats have proven time and time again that they care little for what results from their actions provided they can increase their political power, so they embrace anyone who will further that aspiration.
So now, what's with these generals? Former Clinton CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni, seems to change his opinion as the winds of politics change. Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000, just prior to retiring from his Command:
"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), persistent threats to enforcement of the No Fly Zones (NFZ), and continued efforts to violate UN Security Council sanctions through oil smuggling…While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities remain and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months…Extremists like Osama bin Laden and his World Islamic Front network benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide . . . Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include: chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks . . . Three [Iraq, Iran and Sudan] of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism are within this potentially volatile area…"
Of course this was said while Bill Clinton was still president, and there was growing belief that Al Gore was going to be the next President. Put a Republican in the Presidency and suddenly General Zinni has changed his tune.
"I saw the - what this town is known for, spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses or shading the context. We know the mushroom clouds and the other things that were all described that the media has covered well.
He told Tim Russert:
"What bothered me, [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD. Now, I'd be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn't accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best."
Now that's not just a slight change of interpretation; that is an entirely contradictory assertion.
Zinni, a self-described "Lugar, Hagel, Powell," (Oh no, not another RINO) Republican stated that he believed that in Powell's supporting the President's policy, he was just being a "good soldier." It apparently doesn't occur to him that Powell may have been sincere in his actions. Powell was not a "soldier," he was Secretary of State. Perhaps that provides a good incite into Zinni's concept of honor. These generals seem to have been more concerned with securing their retirements than they were with doing what they felt was right. They all had plenty of opportunity to express their objections to the policies of this administration.
True men character would have spoken up in spite of any possible repercussions on their careers if they felt as strongly as they now claim to feel. Of course the fact of the matter is that these generals like Clarke, and Zinni, are more politician than warrior. They are closer in mold to John Kerry-Heinz than they are to General Norman Schwarzkopf. They paid their dues in Viet Nam, usually a very short appearance, and then went on to pursue their career goals, acting much the same as an MBA on the corporate ladder, aspiring to higher and higher rank.
Apparently being wounded in combat leads one either to withdraw from combat and pursue a career in management (like Zinni and Clarke), or like General Schwarzkopf, to greater concern for the safety of your troops and an interest in using your experience and knowledge to help them survive their combat experiences (Schwartzkopf had a reputation as a commander who would risk his life to save his troops).
Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq recently told CNN:
"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces."
Yes General Swannack, I see your point, your hurt feelings are certainly a good reason to fire the Secretary of Defense. Not to be out done by General Swannack, Retired Major Gen. John Riggs accuses Secretary Rumsfeld of promoting "arrogance" among the top civilians in the Pentagon. By golly we're on to something now, arrogant civilians, that's a high crime if ever I've heard one. We can't have those uppity civilians thinking that they're in control of the military.
General Batiste's criticism of Rumsfeld?
"We need a leader who understands team work, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation. A leader that conforms and practices the letter and the law of the Goldwater-Nichols Act."
In other words, General Batiste's idea of the perfect Secretary of State is a "yes-man" who uncritically does what the Joint Chiefs say to do.
You may not be aware (the MSM has done its utmost to ignore their voices) that there are other Lt. Generals who reject this "General insurrection." Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong in rejecting the call said:
"Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO. When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared. You've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."
The bare truth about this move by certain desktop generals to denounce Rumsfeld and the entire Bush administration is that it is more a matter of ruffled feathers over his attempts to restructure the military and his refusal to kowtow to these self-inflated egos, than it is a matter of competence.
-30-
Makes you pine for the days of real generals, like Chesty Puller, don’t it???
;)
April 20, 2006
Inside the Beltway Press: "Secretary Rumsfeld, the generals are revolting!"
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld: "You said it, they stink on ice!"
[With apologies to Mel Brooks]
Suddenly the Democrats have discovered they like generals, at least those with whom they find common ground.
After decades of denigrating our military and doing their utmost to undermine its efforts and weaken its ability to conduct war, after eight years of former President Bill Clinton's cutbacks in military personnel (how do you think he reduced the number of government employees, through firing civil servants?) accomplished with the complicity of Congressional Liberals, after decades of opposing every new weapons system, suddenly Democrats and RINOs in Congress have allied themselves (some circumspectly) with a group of generals who have decided to come out in favor of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Could it possibly be that politics has something to do with this? Could it possibly be that the press has jumped on this story because it furthers their unrelenting anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War agenda? Could it possibly be that the only reason these people have embraced the dissident generals, is because it provides them with cover for their own attacks against Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush? Is it possible that these generals are not so much concerned with the well-being of our troops or the success of our military endeavors as they are perturbed by the campaign of Secretary Rumsfeld to modernize and streamline our Cold War era army?
The answer to each of these questions is an unqualified "Yes!"
I have never seen the press fawn over a military man except when it helped them pursue their own agenda. General Colin Powell was a hero as a "high ranking black general" (he was Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) during the first Gulf War, but once he declared himself to be a Republican, he began to receive closer scrutiny.
As President Bush's Secretary of State, he was accused of being a "Tom" and an "Oreo" because he supported President Bush's efforts in getting United Nations approval of our Attack against Saddam Hussein. We learned then that Secretary of State Colin Powell "wasn't really black;" a most interesting observation. That is because he didn't behave the way those on the Left have dictated blacks must behave.
These generals would do well to remind themselves of these facts, as they bask in the glow of the press' camera lights and praise. As soon as they are of no more use, they will suffer the same fate as the late lamented Paul Hackett, Iraq war veteran and star of the Democrat party until he was of no further use to the Democrat leadership, at which time he was unceremoniously consigned to the ash-heap of Democrat politicians.
Today's Democrat military star is tomorrow's war-mongering military pig.
You can see the same thing in the way in which our military dead and injured are used by the Democrats and their propaganda agents in the mainstream media (MSM). Deaths are virtually ignored until they near some useful benchmark (it was 1000 during the Presidential election of 2004) then just as quickly, they are again relegated to the back page. Today one rarely hears about them except to add to the count, unless the press or some Democrat politician is seeking to score points against President Bush. This is because the rate of troops being killed has steadily declined over the last six months.
So what we have now is a bunch of Democrat Politicians and their MSM propaganda machine advocating that an American President turn the running of the war and the appointment of our Secretary of Defense to a group of dissatisfied, retired generals.
Are the kidding? Civilian control of the military is one of the most important safeguards built into our system of government. The very idea of acquiescing to their demands is the antithesis to a civilian run military. Additionally, such behavior would inevitably lead to a Secretary of Defense who appointed only toadies to positions of power. That is also a threat to a civilian controlled military.
Who'd of thunkit? The Left moving us toward a separate and uncontrolled military, subject not to the orders of a duly elected representative of the people, but subject to the whims of their own consciences. Sounds disturbingly like a recipe for a military coup brought on by dissatisfaction within the military anytime the government acts in a way the military leaders don't agree with.
We've seen this sort of system before, but usually in third world nations with unstable Leftist junta governments. Is this truly the direction in which the Democrats want to move? I seriously doubt it. It is far more likely that, like most of the actions of those on the left, little thought has been given to the end results of what they are attempting to set into motion, they are simply acting out of self-interest and a hunger for power.
Democrats have proven time and time again that they care little for what results from their actions provided they can increase their political power, so they embrace anyone who will further that aspiration.
So now, what's with these generals? Former Clinton CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni, seems to change his opinion as the winds of politics change. Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000, just prior to retiring from his Command:
"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), persistent threats to enforcement of the No Fly Zones (NFZ), and continued efforts to violate UN Security Council sanctions through oil smuggling…While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities remain and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months…Extremists like Osama bin Laden and his World Islamic Front network benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide . . . Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include: chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks . . . Three [Iraq, Iran and Sudan] of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism are within this potentially volatile area…"
Of course this was said while Bill Clinton was still president, and there was growing belief that Al Gore was going to be the next President. Put a Republican in the Presidency and suddenly General Zinni has changed his tune.
"I saw the - what this town is known for, spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses or shading the context. We know the mushroom clouds and the other things that were all described that the media has covered well.
He told Tim Russert:
"What bothered me, [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD. Now, I'd be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn't accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best."
Now that's not just a slight change of interpretation; that is an entirely contradictory assertion.
Zinni, a self-described "Lugar, Hagel, Powell," (Oh no, not another RINO) Republican stated that he believed that in Powell's supporting the President's policy, he was just being a "good soldier." It apparently doesn't occur to him that Powell may have been sincere in his actions. Powell was not a "soldier," he was Secretary of State. Perhaps that provides a good incite into Zinni's concept of honor. These generals seem to have been more concerned with securing their retirements than they were with doing what they felt was right. They all had plenty of opportunity to express their objections to the policies of this administration.
True men character would have spoken up in spite of any possible repercussions on their careers if they felt as strongly as they now claim to feel. Of course the fact of the matter is that these generals like Clarke, and Zinni, are more politician than warrior. They are closer in mold to John Kerry-Heinz than they are to General Norman Schwarzkopf. They paid their dues in Viet Nam, usually a very short appearance, and then went on to pursue their career goals, acting much the same as an MBA on the corporate ladder, aspiring to higher and higher rank.
Apparently being wounded in combat leads one either to withdraw from combat and pursue a career in management (like Zinni and Clarke), or like General Schwarzkopf, to greater concern for the safety of your troops and an interest in using your experience and knowledge to help them survive their combat experiences (Schwartzkopf had a reputation as a commander who would risk his life to save his troops).
Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq recently told CNN:
"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces."
Yes General Swannack, I see your point, your hurt feelings are certainly a good reason to fire the Secretary of Defense. Not to be out done by General Swannack, Retired Major Gen. John Riggs accuses Secretary Rumsfeld of promoting "arrogance" among the top civilians in the Pentagon. By golly we're on to something now, arrogant civilians, that's a high crime if ever I've heard one. We can't have those uppity civilians thinking that they're in control of the military.
General Batiste's criticism of Rumsfeld?
"We need a leader who understands team work, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation. A leader that conforms and practices the letter and the law of the Goldwater-Nichols Act."
In other words, General Batiste's idea of the perfect Secretary of State is a "yes-man" who uncritically does what the Joint Chiefs say to do.
You may not be aware (the MSM has done its utmost to ignore their voices) that there are other Lt. Generals who reject this "General insurrection." Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong in rejecting the call said:
"Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO. When you walk in to him, you've got to be prepared. You've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."
The bare truth about this move by certain desktop generals to denounce Rumsfeld and the entire Bush administration is that it is more a matter of ruffled feathers over his attempts to restructure the military and his refusal to kowtow to these self-inflated egos, than it is a matter of competence.
-30-
Makes you pine for the days of real generals, like Chesty Puller, don’t it???
;)