thedrifter
11-09-06, 03:15 PM
November 09, 2006
Troops offer mixed reactions on Gates nomination, Rumsfeld resignation
Staff report
The timing of Wednesday’s shakeup at the Pentagon — an unexpected and dramatic White House course change, just hours after the Democrats won key seats in Congress — has some service members questioning President Bush’s motivations.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation Wednesday afternoon before the polls were even cold, and the president’s almost immediate announcement of former CIA chief Robert Gates as his possible successor led many to speculate that the move was plotted, planned and political, not aimed at turning the tide in Iraq.
“I don’t get [it],” said one Marine major. “Obviously I think it’s his olive branch to the Democrats. That is what’s going to get him through over the next two years.
“Will the lance corporal notice the changes at the top?” he wondered. “Probably not.”
Some active and retired service members are questioning whether Gates, who spent 40 years immersed in the intelligence field, was nominated to help solidify the relationships between the government’s intel communities, which have endured harsh criticism after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the debate over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Logical as it might sound, that move doesn’t necessarily put a war fighter in the driver’s seat.
“[It] makes DoD a non-entity,” said one recently retired Marine colonel, who deployed twice to Iraq and is not a supporter of Rumsfeld. “What that says is that no one is interested in winning the war.”
He said more heads should roll.
“Rumsfeld certainly hasn’t been good for the conduct of the war, but there’s a bigger issue,” the colonel said. “Rumsfeld’s antagonistic approach to people is one thing, but there’s a whole lot of people in the Pentagon who went along for the ride who need to go, too.”
But Gates is not completely unfamiliar with the war effort. Gates, the president of Texas A&M University, is serving on the Iraq Study Group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton.
Gates’ assignment “will silence, for at least the near term, a number of the critics,” said retired Marine Maj. Anthony Milavic, a former intelligence officer and Vietnam veteran. “Rumsfeld has been the lightning rod for critics of the war.”
Milavic said Bush’s selection of Gates was “a great tactical move on his part” since it “preempts” the Democrats from taking the lead on pushing for Rumsfeld’s replacement.
But Gates’ assignment could signal that the tense military-civilian relationship during Rumsfeld’s tenure would ease and “will be more amiable than in the past,” he said. Improved relations may be necessary, since Gates has “only … two years. It’s going to take him several months to get his feet on the job.”
Gates “brings in deep understanding of the intelligence community and the intelligence side” of the war, Milavic said, adding “his intelligence experience I think will be of unquestionable value.”
As a member of the Iraq Study Group, Gates “has been assimilating that situation,” he said. But with Gates’ nomination “will come little or no change in the part of the tactical operations” of ground combat forces in Iraq, he said.
Gates led the CIA, under then-President George H.W. Bush, from November 1991 to January 1993. He first joined the CIA in 1966 and served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.
Mixed reactions on Rumsfeld
The news of Rumsfeld’s departure drew mixed reactions from service members. Many raised concerns about making such an abrupt change in Pentagon leadership with the nation at war.
A surprised Army Sgt. Jeff Brazier said he thought letting Rumsfeld go was “a bad decision.”
“I’m disappointed,” the 31-year-old soldier stationed at Fort Benning, Ga., said Wednesday. “I didn’t have any problems with Rumsfeld.”
The move is a “response to political pressure and not a response to how well [Rumsfeld] has done his job,” said Brazier, a member of the 29th Infantry Regiment. “This is a direct reflection of the polls.”
Before being assigned to the 29th, Brazier deployed to Iraq in 2003 with the 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, Ky. He said he hopes the decision to replace Rumsfeld won’t lead to the military leaving Iraq prematurely.
While Brazier was confident the administration would find a qualified replacement for Rumsfeld, he voiced concerns that “this will be the beginning of something where they will buckle under the pressure and be tempted to look for an easy way out of Iraq. The easy path is not going to be the right one to take in this situation.”
Yeoman 2nd Class David Smith of the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, said the decision seemed very sudden. Interviewed as he and many of his shipmates headed home from work Wednesday evening, he said he “wouldn’t have expected it … at a time of war.”
A fellow sailor said she was similarly surprised. “I figured the president would have stood by him,” said Yeoman 1st Class Amy Miller. “But I guess that’s how politics works.”
The two sailors said they’d heard very little about what had happened earlier in the day, and had the sense that Rumsfeld had been fired. Told he was said to be “resigning,” Miller chuckled.
“The day after Election Day? C’mon.” She paused, mulling it over. “What are we going to do with our guys overseas?
“It’s kind of scary, though,” she said, adding that she is also preparing to deploy overseas.
The move came a week after President Bush publicly reaffirmed his support for Rumsfeld, who took fire from critics and the media throughout his tenure and reportedly twice before had his resignation rejected by the president.
“I hope [Rumsfeld’s resignation] is not seen as the beginning of a strategic withdrawal from Iraq,” said 1st Lt. Adam Kinzinger, an Air National Guard KC-135 pilot assigned to General Mitchell Field, Wis., who has deployed three times in his three years of Guard duty — twice to Turkey and once to Guam.
“That would be detrimental to the military, and it would be detrimental … to both the U.S. and Iraq,” Kinzinger said. “It will only embolden the enemy.
“The last thing we want to do now is leave Iraq and take the sacrifices we’ve made and throw them away. If we leave things unfinished, we’re creating further work for us in the future.”
Military officials in Washington said the U.S. plans to finish what it started overseas.
“This does not affect our efforts to carry on with the war,” said Army spokesman Paul Boyce in Washington. “We have a great deal of respect for Mr. Rumsfeld. You just continue in a thorough manner to make certain the troops are cared for and provided for.”
But Iraq is exactly why others are glad to see Rumsfeld go.
“For us — the civilians and soldiers — it’s fantastic news,” said Spc. Jason Hartley, of the New York National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry Regiment. “You couldn’t do much worse than the way things are going now in Iraq.”
Hartley said he’s excited to see how things will move forward, especially now that the elections have shifted the balance of power in Congress.
“I have a sneaking suspicion that things are going to continue to be horrible in Iraq, but I’m open to any new ideas,” he said. “Failing in a new way is at least trying. The whole ‘staying the course’ thing is not trying.”
A senior Army officer in Washington, D.C., agreed, calling Rumsfeld’s resignation “a good move. With all these generals coming out against him and all, it was probably time for him to go.”
The officer, who declined to be identified, recently returned from a year in Ramadi, Iraq, and added that “It’s pretty bad over there.”
Bush said it is time for “fresh eyes” on Iraq and the war on terrorism and said he and Rumsfeld agreed on Election Day that it was time for a change at the Pentagon.
“It’s unfortunate,” said Staff Sgt. Ben Vickery, a medic with the New Hampshire Air National Guard’s 157th Air Refueling Wing, who heard news of Rumsfeld’s resignation while listening to the radio in his car. “During a time of war, a change of leadership at that high a level is disconcerting to the people who work in the Department of Defense and the military. I think he has done a good job.”
In the aftermath of Tuesday’s election results, “the current administration is rolling over too quickly,” said one Marine colonel, an Iraq veteran stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif. “This is simple politics, not a grassroots mandate for radical policy change” in the course of the war in Iraq.
“When the going gets tough, the tough get going,” the colonel said. “Rumsfeld is cheesing off the easy way. He should dig in and fight the good fight.”
Others were happy to say good-bye.
“If he was committed to winning the war, he would have put more troops on the ground,” said the retired Marine colonel. “As far as Rumsfeld was concerned, there was only one way of winning the war, and it was his way.”
Rumsfeld’s plan “is cheap on people but costly in technology,” he said. “He should have realized it wouldn’t work.”
Just as telling as the comments from military members is the number of military members who wanted to stay far, far away from the debate Wednesday.
In a round of interviews at a shopping mall near Camp Lejeune, N.C., 10 Marines were asked for their opinions on the day’s events.
Eight declined to offer any comment at all, and one commented but would not give his name.
Only Gunnery Sgt. Christopher Farrell, 30, of Golf Battery, 2nd Battalion, 10th Marine Regiment, was willing to offer his opinion.
“I just do what I’m told,” Farrell said. “I think it would be better if he did stay because he’s been there since the beginning of the campaign. But, ultimately I don’t think it will affect anything.”
Staff writers C. Mark Brinkley, Gina Cavallaro, Matt Cox, Andrew DeGrandpre, Gidget Fuentes, Bill McMichael, Trista Talton and Michelle Tan contributed to this report. Brinkley and Talton reported from Jacksonville, N.C.; Fuentes reported from Oceanside, Calif.; and McMichael reported from Hampton Roads, Va.
Ellie
Troops offer mixed reactions on Gates nomination, Rumsfeld resignation
Staff report
The timing of Wednesday’s shakeup at the Pentagon — an unexpected and dramatic White House course change, just hours after the Democrats won key seats in Congress — has some service members questioning President Bush’s motivations.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation Wednesday afternoon before the polls were even cold, and the president’s almost immediate announcement of former CIA chief Robert Gates as his possible successor led many to speculate that the move was plotted, planned and political, not aimed at turning the tide in Iraq.
“I don’t get [it],” said one Marine major. “Obviously I think it’s his olive branch to the Democrats. That is what’s going to get him through over the next two years.
“Will the lance corporal notice the changes at the top?” he wondered. “Probably not.”
Some active and retired service members are questioning whether Gates, who spent 40 years immersed in the intelligence field, was nominated to help solidify the relationships between the government’s intel communities, which have endured harsh criticism after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the debate over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Logical as it might sound, that move doesn’t necessarily put a war fighter in the driver’s seat.
“[It] makes DoD a non-entity,” said one recently retired Marine colonel, who deployed twice to Iraq and is not a supporter of Rumsfeld. “What that says is that no one is interested in winning the war.”
He said more heads should roll.
“Rumsfeld certainly hasn’t been good for the conduct of the war, but there’s a bigger issue,” the colonel said. “Rumsfeld’s antagonistic approach to people is one thing, but there’s a whole lot of people in the Pentagon who went along for the ride who need to go, too.”
But Gates is not completely unfamiliar with the war effort. Gates, the president of Texas A&M University, is serving on the Iraq Study Group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton.
Gates’ assignment “will silence, for at least the near term, a number of the critics,” said retired Marine Maj. Anthony Milavic, a former intelligence officer and Vietnam veteran. “Rumsfeld has been the lightning rod for critics of the war.”
Milavic said Bush’s selection of Gates was “a great tactical move on his part” since it “preempts” the Democrats from taking the lead on pushing for Rumsfeld’s replacement.
But Gates’ assignment could signal that the tense military-civilian relationship during Rumsfeld’s tenure would ease and “will be more amiable than in the past,” he said. Improved relations may be necessary, since Gates has “only … two years. It’s going to take him several months to get his feet on the job.”
Gates “brings in deep understanding of the intelligence community and the intelligence side” of the war, Milavic said, adding “his intelligence experience I think will be of unquestionable value.”
As a member of the Iraq Study Group, Gates “has been assimilating that situation,” he said. But with Gates’ nomination “will come little or no change in the part of the tactical operations” of ground combat forces in Iraq, he said.
Gates led the CIA, under then-President George H.W. Bush, from November 1991 to January 1993. He first joined the CIA in 1966 and served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.
Mixed reactions on Rumsfeld
The news of Rumsfeld’s departure drew mixed reactions from service members. Many raised concerns about making such an abrupt change in Pentagon leadership with the nation at war.
A surprised Army Sgt. Jeff Brazier said he thought letting Rumsfeld go was “a bad decision.”
“I’m disappointed,” the 31-year-old soldier stationed at Fort Benning, Ga., said Wednesday. “I didn’t have any problems with Rumsfeld.”
The move is a “response to political pressure and not a response to how well [Rumsfeld] has done his job,” said Brazier, a member of the 29th Infantry Regiment. “This is a direct reflection of the polls.”
Before being assigned to the 29th, Brazier deployed to Iraq in 2003 with the 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, Ky. He said he hopes the decision to replace Rumsfeld won’t lead to the military leaving Iraq prematurely.
While Brazier was confident the administration would find a qualified replacement for Rumsfeld, he voiced concerns that “this will be the beginning of something where they will buckle under the pressure and be tempted to look for an easy way out of Iraq. The easy path is not going to be the right one to take in this situation.”
Yeoman 2nd Class David Smith of the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, said the decision seemed very sudden. Interviewed as he and many of his shipmates headed home from work Wednesday evening, he said he “wouldn’t have expected it … at a time of war.”
A fellow sailor said she was similarly surprised. “I figured the president would have stood by him,” said Yeoman 1st Class Amy Miller. “But I guess that’s how politics works.”
The two sailors said they’d heard very little about what had happened earlier in the day, and had the sense that Rumsfeld had been fired. Told he was said to be “resigning,” Miller chuckled.
“The day after Election Day? C’mon.” She paused, mulling it over. “What are we going to do with our guys overseas?
“It’s kind of scary, though,” she said, adding that she is also preparing to deploy overseas.
The move came a week after President Bush publicly reaffirmed his support for Rumsfeld, who took fire from critics and the media throughout his tenure and reportedly twice before had his resignation rejected by the president.
“I hope [Rumsfeld’s resignation] is not seen as the beginning of a strategic withdrawal from Iraq,” said 1st Lt. Adam Kinzinger, an Air National Guard KC-135 pilot assigned to General Mitchell Field, Wis., who has deployed three times in his three years of Guard duty — twice to Turkey and once to Guam.
“That would be detrimental to the military, and it would be detrimental … to both the U.S. and Iraq,” Kinzinger said. “It will only embolden the enemy.
“The last thing we want to do now is leave Iraq and take the sacrifices we’ve made and throw them away. If we leave things unfinished, we’re creating further work for us in the future.”
Military officials in Washington said the U.S. plans to finish what it started overseas.
“This does not affect our efforts to carry on with the war,” said Army spokesman Paul Boyce in Washington. “We have a great deal of respect for Mr. Rumsfeld. You just continue in a thorough manner to make certain the troops are cared for and provided for.”
But Iraq is exactly why others are glad to see Rumsfeld go.
“For us — the civilians and soldiers — it’s fantastic news,” said Spc. Jason Hartley, of the New York National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry Regiment. “You couldn’t do much worse than the way things are going now in Iraq.”
Hartley said he’s excited to see how things will move forward, especially now that the elections have shifted the balance of power in Congress.
“I have a sneaking suspicion that things are going to continue to be horrible in Iraq, but I’m open to any new ideas,” he said. “Failing in a new way is at least trying. The whole ‘staying the course’ thing is not trying.”
A senior Army officer in Washington, D.C., agreed, calling Rumsfeld’s resignation “a good move. With all these generals coming out against him and all, it was probably time for him to go.”
The officer, who declined to be identified, recently returned from a year in Ramadi, Iraq, and added that “It’s pretty bad over there.”
Bush said it is time for “fresh eyes” on Iraq and the war on terrorism and said he and Rumsfeld agreed on Election Day that it was time for a change at the Pentagon.
“It’s unfortunate,” said Staff Sgt. Ben Vickery, a medic with the New Hampshire Air National Guard’s 157th Air Refueling Wing, who heard news of Rumsfeld’s resignation while listening to the radio in his car. “During a time of war, a change of leadership at that high a level is disconcerting to the people who work in the Department of Defense and the military. I think he has done a good job.”
In the aftermath of Tuesday’s election results, “the current administration is rolling over too quickly,” said one Marine colonel, an Iraq veteran stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif. “This is simple politics, not a grassroots mandate for radical policy change” in the course of the war in Iraq.
“When the going gets tough, the tough get going,” the colonel said. “Rumsfeld is cheesing off the easy way. He should dig in and fight the good fight.”
Others were happy to say good-bye.
“If he was committed to winning the war, he would have put more troops on the ground,” said the retired Marine colonel. “As far as Rumsfeld was concerned, there was only one way of winning the war, and it was his way.”
Rumsfeld’s plan “is cheap on people but costly in technology,” he said. “He should have realized it wouldn’t work.”
Just as telling as the comments from military members is the number of military members who wanted to stay far, far away from the debate Wednesday.
In a round of interviews at a shopping mall near Camp Lejeune, N.C., 10 Marines were asked for their opinions on the day’s events.
Eight declined to offer any comment at all, and one commented but would not give his name.
Only Gunnery Sgt. Christopher Farrell, 30, of Golf Battery, 2nd Battalion, 10th Marine Regiment, was willing to offer his opinion.
“I just do what I’m told,” Farrell said. “I think it would be better if he did stay because he’s been there since the beginning of the campaign. But, ultimately I don’t think it will affect anything.”
Staff writers C. Mark Brinkley, Gina Cavallaro, Matt Cox, Andrew DeGrandpre, Gidget Fuentes, Bill McMichael, Trista Talton and Michelle Tan contributed to this report. Brinkley and Talton reported from Jacksonville, N.C.; Fuentes reported from Oceanside, Calif.; and McMichael reported from Hampton Roads, Va.
Ellie