| Author |
Message |
    
SLK Lives!
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 8:13 am: | 
|
An excellent reponse to the Conservative nanysayers of the Iraq War
-SLK
AT WAR
The Wrong Time to Lose Our Nerve
A response to Messrs. Buckley, Will and Fukuyama.
BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, April 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
A small group of current and former conservatives--including George Will, William F. Buckley Jr. and Francis Fukuyama--have become harsh critics of the Iraq war. They have declared, or clearly implied, that it is a failure and the president's effort to promote liberty in the Middle East is dead--and dead for a perfectly predictable reason: Iraq, like the Arab Middle East more broadly, lacks the democratic culture that is necessary for freedom to take root. And so for cultural reasons, this effort was flawed from the outset. Or so the argument goes.
Let me address each of these charges in turn.
The war is lost. "Our mission has failed," Mr. Buckley wrote earlier this year. "It seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly," saith the man (Mr. Fukuyama) who once declared "the end of history" and in 1998 signed a letter to congressional leaders stating, "U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place."
These critics of the war are demonstrating a peculiar eagerness to declare certain matters settled. We certainly face difficulties in Iraq--but we have seen significant progress as well. In 2005, Iraq's economy continued to recover and grow. Access to clean water and sewage-treatment facilities has increased. The Sunnis are now invested in the political process, which was not previously the case. The Iraqi security forces are far stronger than they were. Our counterinsurgency strategy is more effective than in the past. Cities like Tal Afar, which insurgents once controlled, are now back in the hands of free Iraqis. Al Qaeda's grip has been broken in Mosul and disrupted in Baghdad. We now see fissures between Iraqis and foreign terrorists. And in the aftermath of the mosque bombing in Samarra, we saw the political and religious leadership in Iraq call for an end to violence instead of stoking civil war--and on the whole, the Iraqi security forces performed well. These achievements are authentic grounds for encouragement. And to ignore or dismiss all signs of progress in Iraq, to portray things in what Norman Podhoretz has called "the blackest possible light," disfigures reality.
One might hope our own democratic development--which included the Articles of Confederation and a "fiery trial" that cost more than 600,000 American lives--would remind critics that we must sometimes be patient with others. We are engaged in an enterprise of enormous importance: helping a traumatized Arab nation become stable, free and self-governing. Success isn't foreordained--and neither is failure. Justice Holmes said the mode in which the inevitable comes to pass is through effort.
The freedom agenda is dead. The president's freedom agenda is now "a casualty of the war that began three years ago," according to Mr. Will. The Bush Doctrine is in "shambles," Mr. Fukuyama insists. We cannot "impose" democracy on "a country that doesn't want it," he says.
Why is Mr. Fukuyama so sure people in Iraq and elsewhere don't long for democracy? Just last year, on three separate occasions, Iraqis braved bombs and bullets to turn out and vote in greater numbers (percentage-wise) than do American voters, who merely have to brave lines. Does Mr. Fukuyama believe Iraqis prefer subjugation to freedom? Does he think they, unlike he, relish life in a gulag, or the lash of the whip, or the midnight knock of the secret police? Who among us wants a jackboot forever stomping on his face? It is a mistake of a large order to argue that democracy is unwanted in Iraq simply because (a) violence exists three years after the country's liberation--and after more than three decades of almost unimaginable cruelty and terror; and (b) Iraq is not Switzerland.
Beyond that, the critics of the Iraq war have chosen an odd time to criticize the appeal and power of democracy. After all, we are witnessing the swiftest advance of freedom in history. According to Freedom House's director of research, Arch Puddington, "The global picture . . . suggests that 2005 was one of the most successful years for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom in 1972. . . . The 'Freedom in the World 2006' ratings for the Middle East represent the region's best performance in the history of the survey."
Mr. Will says it is time to "de-emphasize talk about Iraq's becoming a democracy that ignites emulative transformation in the Middle East." Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a democracy activist from Egypt, says different. Mr. Ibrahim, who originally opposed the war to liberate Iraq, said it "has unfrozen the Middle East, just as Napoleon's 1798 expedition did. Elections in Iraq force the theocrats and autocrats to put democracy on the agenda, even if only to fight against us."
Cultural determinism. The problem with Iraq, Mr. Will said in a Manhattan Institute lecture, is that it "lacks a Washington, a Madison, a [John] Marshall--and it lacks the astonishingly rich social and cultural soil from which such people sprout." There is no "existing democratic culture" that will allow liberty to succeed, he argues. And he scoffs at the assertion by President Bush that it is "cultural condescension" to claim that some peoples, cultures or religions are destined to despotism and unsuited for self-government. The most obvious rebuttal to Mr. Will's first point is that only one nation in history had at its creation a Washington, Madison and Marshall--yet there are 122 democracies in the world right now. So clearly founders of the quality of Washington and Madison are not the necessary condition for freedom to succeed.
A mark of serious conservatism is a regard for the concreteness of human experience. If cultures are as intractable as Mr. Will asserts, and if an existing democratic culture was as indispensable as he insists, we would not have seen democracy take root in Japan after World War II, Southern Europe in the 1970s, Latin America and East Asia in the '80s, and South Africa in the '90s. It was believed by many that these nations' and regions' traditions and cultures--including by turns Confucianism, Catholicism, dictatorships, authoritarianism, apartheid, military juntas and oligarchies--made them incompatible with self-government.
This is not to say that culture is unimportant. It matters a great deal. But so do incentives and creeds and the power of ideas, which can profoundly shape culture. Culture is not mechanically deterministic--and to believe that what is will always be is a mistake of both history and philosophy.
Americans have debated matters of creed and culture before. John C. Calhoun believed slavery was a cultural given that could not be undone in the South. Lincoln knew slavery had deep roots--but he believed that could, and must, change. He set about to do just that. Lincoln believed slavery could be overcome because he believed human beings were constituted in a particular way. In the "enlightened belief" of the Founders, he said, "nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows." Lincoln believed as well that the self-evident truths in the Declaration were the Founders' "majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man."
What has plagued the Arab Middle East is not simply, or even primarily, culture; it is antidemocratic ideologies and oppressive institutions. And the way to counteract pernicious ideologies and oppressive institutions is with better ones. Liberty, and the institutions that support liberty, is a pathway to human flourishing.
Critics of the Iraq war have offered no serious strategic alternative to the president's freedom agenda, which is anchored in the belief that democracy and liberal institutions are the best antidote to the pathologies plaguing the Middle East. The region has generated deep resentments and lethal anti-Americanism. In the past, Western nations tolerated oppression for the sake of "stability." But this policy created its own unintended consequences, including attacks that hit America with deadly fury on Sept. 11. President Bush struck back, both militarily and by promoting liberty.
In Iraq, we are witnessing advancements and some heartening achievements. We are also experiencing the hardships and setbacks that accompany epic transitions. There will be others. But there is no other way to fundamentally change the Arab Middle East. Democracy and the accompanying rise of political and civic institutions are the only route to a better world--and because the work is difficult doesn't mean it can be ignored. The cycle has to be broken. The process of democratic reform has begun, and now would be precisely the wrong time to lose our nerve and turn our back on the freedom agenda. It would be a geopolitical disaster and a moral calamity--and President Bush, like President Reagan before him, will persist in his efforts to shape a more hopeful world.
.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5290
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 8:42 am: |
|
That's a lot of inaccuracies, platitudes, and the usual misdirection for one article (Ex. - We had to invade Iraq because repression in Saudi Arabia resulted in terrorism against us).
But, I think the argument advanced in the article - and the general defense of the Administration's policies these days - is little more than the same advice that Otter and Bluto gave (in "Animal House"), when Flounder complained that they had wrecked his car -"Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You •••••• up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help."
"My advice to you is to start drinking heavily." |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
Conservatives were fools for listening to Fukuyama in the first place. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
From the article above:
"Critics of the Iraq war have offered no serious strategic alternative to the president's freedom agenda..."
Peter Wehner makes the erroneous assumption that the president's freedom agenda has a strategy in the first place. It did not, does not, and will not have a strategy. Why? It should have had one but didn't. It doesn't have one now inspite of the need. It will not have one because it is too late to salvage this f----d up ploy.
So, how might one offer a "serious strategic alternative" to a presidential initiative that had nothing but wishful thinking, platitudes, and a desire to "do it on the cheap" from the get-go?
When Fukiyama, Buckley, and Will throw in the towel on this president and his failed initiatives, you know the game is over.
We all just have to wait for the next inauguration and hope that we get a president, regardless of party, who will establish a record of accomplishment.
The current president, with his reputation for braggadocio, bogus, folksy charm, and the phony "heart on his sleeve" Fundamentalist babble, has outrun his headlights. |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 417
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
 Cheers to that Innis! |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 142
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
Joe Sobran has a more nuanced approach to this question:
Battle Cries
March 14, 2006
Quagmire? Did someone say quagmire? Not President Bush. He sees “real progress” in Iraq. This is no time to throw in the towel! Look at all those millions of purple fingers! Who says the Arabians aren’t ready for democracy?
The real problem now is Iran, but they’re not really Arabians. As Condoleezza will tell you, they’re the ones making all the trouble in Iraq. So onward, multicultural soldiers! Our duty is clear!
But these are the times that try men’s souls, especially if they read the opinion polls. Despite the “real progress” in Iraq, the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots are now trying to get out of the weather.
Even some old hawks are chickening out — the “to-hell-with-them hawks,” as the grizzled veteran Richard Lowry nicely calls them. As a triple amputee who regrets that he has but four limbs to give for his country, Lowry, editor of National Review and author of the prophetic 2005 article “We Are Winning!” sees all too clearly that the war on Islamofascism can be lost only at home. And now our warriors face a new domestic problem: the neo-chickenhawks who have lost their stomach for paying the price for freedom.
Guys like Lowry’s (and my) former boss, Bill Buckley, are really showing the yellow streak. Talk about pusillanimity. Buckley and his ilk can’t even go on pecking out columns urging our brave men and women to fight to the death. How cowardly is that?
Happily, some of the true hawks are showing their mettle. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican renowned for his straight talk, still supports the war all the way. He wants to succeed President Bush in 2008, they say, and staying the course in Iraq — or Iran, if it comes to that — is just the ticket. The whole world is watching, and that includes big Republican donors for whom no war in the Middle East can ever be quite big enough.
Paul Krugman, the liberal columnist of the New York Times, sees McCain as a phony who has sold out to “the hard right.” As is usual with liberals, Krugman never explains what he means by right-wing, though you gather it’s something pretty icky. Everything liberals disapprove of is “right-wing,” even things that are mutually exclusive.
Fascist totalitarianism is “right-wing,” but so is its exact opposite, libertarianism. And so are monarchism, theocracy, strict constitutionalism, military dictatorship, neoconservatism, and so on — even, at times, Soviet Communism, though anti-Communism was “right-wing” too. By right-wing, liberals seem to mean everything but us. No wonder people don’t listen to them anymore. They define their enemies as broadly as our president defines terrorism.
Conservatives are finally realizing, with varying degrees of clarity, that you have to define conservatism very broadly indeed to make it cover President Bush, who is rapidly mowing down just about everything they once hoped to conserve. Never mind the Iraq war; look at domestic spending since 2001.
Contrary to a popular impression, conservatism isn’t passive. It can actually be a frantic activity, like rescuing possessions from a burning house. In this world of flux, most things are always perishing, and you have to decide what’s worth saving.
The question now is what can still be saved from President Bush, the political pyromaniac who decided to set the Middle East on fire. The idea was that when everything else burned down, only democracy would remain.
And now, better late than never, the “to-hell-with-them hawks” are dimly sensing that there is something just a wee bit goofy about their fearless leader. Conservatives used to understand that democracy isn’t a synonym for liberty. We owe our freedom much less to occasional elections than to effective checks on power, such as habeas corpus, which can come in handy against George W. Bush as well as Saddam Hussein.
Actually I’d feel at least a little less uneasy about the Iraq war if it were being waged for the purpose of giving the Arabians habeas corpus. But habeas corpus, like the privilege against self-incrimination, is hard to fit on a bumper sticker, and it’s pretty useless as a battle cry.
Well, it’s still my battle cry! Shove your “democracy”! Give me habeas corpus and a fast-talking lawyer, or give me death!
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060314.shtml
Cheers
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Bush's "battle cry" is really nothing but a "baffle cry." |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2781
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
3ring, could you use a larger font when you post these articles and quotes? Or is it just me who seems then all come through at this size or smaller? |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 146
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Rastro,
I'm sorry, I was trying to keep the length of the post down, but now that you mention it, it is a small font.
Cheers |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 884
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
So, how might one offer a "serious strategic alternative" to a presidential initiative that had nothing but wishful thinking, platitudes, and a desire to "do it on the cheap" from the get-go?
Well said, Innis. Opponents of this war took the view that the best alternative to jumping off a cliff would be to NOT jump off a cliff. To which war enthusiasts replied, "Well, you gotta do SOMETHING! The cliff is just sitting there!"
I think the same logic applies to the Bush administration's "fix" for Social Security. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
You mean this Peter Wehner?:
"a memo written by Peter Wehner, an aide to Karl Rove"
http://www.peterhansen.com/iceberg_cometh__by_paul_krugman_.htm
-------------------------------------------
Peter Wehner is Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives for President George W. Bush. [1] (http://www.results.gov/leadership/text/bio_505.html) [2] (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=6250)
"Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner worked for William Kristol when he was chief of staff to then-Education Secretary William J. Bennett." [3] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46994-2002Mar18?language=printer)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Wehner
----------------------------------------------------------
Norman Podhoretz:
Norman Podhoretz is considered to be a "neo-con" (neo-conservative) and believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is connected with the Project for the New American Century.
He is the former editor-in-chief of "Commentary" (1960-95). From 1981-87, Podhoretz served with the U.S. Information Agency. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comes from (and was adapted from) the March 9, 2003 Jim Lobe article "Family ties connect US right, Zionists" (http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/09/int11.htm):
"As godfather of the [neo-con] movement, Irving Kristol played mentor to Norman Podhoretz, the long-time but now-retired editor of Commentary, the influential monthly publication of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Originally identified with the anti-war left in the mid-1960s, Podhoretz converted to neo-conservatism late in the decade and transformed the magazine into a main source of neo-conservative writing, despite the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community itself rejecting those positions.
"Podhoretz and his spouse, Midge Decter, a polemical powerhouse in her own right, created a formidable political team in the 1970s as they deserted the Democratic Party, and then, as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger -- like (Project for the New American Century) PNAC a coalition of mainly Jewish, neo-conservatives and more traditional right-wing hawks like Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - helped lay the foreign-policy foundation for the rise of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan's victory, Decter and Rumsfeld co-chaired the international offshoot of the committee, called the Coalition for the Free World.
"Podhoretz is the father of John Podhoretz, a columnist for the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, who also acts as a ubiquitous booster of the hawks. And his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, who held a number of controversial posts in Reagan's State Department and was eventually convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal for lying to Congress, now serves in George Walker Bush's National Security Council as his top Middle East adviser.
"At Commentary, Podhoretz offered considerable space to such rising lights of the neo-conservative movement as future United Nations (UN) ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (whose late husband Evron Kirkpatrick was a long-time collaborator of Irving Kristol); Richard Pipes, a Harvard University Soviet specialist and top Reagan adviser; Pipes' son, Daniel Pipes, a staunch Likud supporter who has long argued that Washington has been too complacent about the threat of Islamist radicalism both overseas and at home; and all of the Kristols and Kagans."
Note: The Kagan reference is to Robert Kagan, Donald Kagan, and Frederick Kagan.
from here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Norman_Podhoretz
So Norman is another scum bag PNACer.
------------------------------------------
So Arch Paddington and Norman Podhoretz both are from Commentary magazine.
And Commentary Magazine seems to be a mouth piece for the PNAC.
---------------------------------------------------------
What we have here is a split in conservative ranks. The PNACers are watching the cloth coat conservatives jump ship. The PNACers are now attacking the cloth coat conservatives, like a sinking ships Captain shooting passengers who are manning the lifeboats.
SLK Thank you for pointing out this split amoungst conservatives. Continue fighting amoungst yourselves.
I think Buckleys creds are far and above what ever any PNACer brings to the table. Someone like Paul Wehner for example.
--------------
Joe Sobran also forgets to cite the root of Fascism: Corporate owned Government.
|
Jim McLaughlin
Citizen
Username: Jmclaugh
Post Number: 80
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
Newt Gingrich told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota yesterday that the US should pull out of Iraq.
"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003. We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."
Gingrich was at USD for the inaugural Edmund Burke Lecture, named after a man who is known as the father of modern conservatism. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 772
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Fuk u yama??
dave23 should be banned for using such profanity. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2847
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 3:14 pm: |
|
So you didn't even read the first post in this thread? YOu have absolutely no idea what he is talking about? It says a lot more about you than anything anyone could post. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1676
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
I think he was kidding Rastro. I could see no other explanation for his post. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
I assume he was kidding, unless he thinks I have something against that sushi chain, which I don't. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 4:17 pm: |
|
kenney's reading skills and his awareness of the names of key conservative thinkers could use some work, but that's not our problem. Someone else can fetch him out of the toilet.
Now even the generals (carefully described by the media as "retired generals") are calling for Rumsfeld to resign or be fired.
For god's sake, when a Marine Lt Gen (only recently retired) calls Rumsfeld's march on Iraq "casual and full of swagger" and mindless of the results that others have to bury, it doesn't get more serious.
I understand the generals' unwillingness to do so while they were on duty: they could have been brought up on charges and courtmartialed.
Now, however, the SoD can't touch them ( did I really write SoD? how appropriate for Rummy!) I am of course referring to the Secretary of Defense. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Innis- OMG I see your dry sense of humor is again in force.
"the SoD can't touch them ( did I really write SoD?"
TO avoid confusion in the future, especially with folks from across the pond. The Secretary of Defense is sometimes refered to as Sec Def.
Which brings about:
Sec Int , who is not second in the line of sucsession after the President. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 773
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:48 am: |
|
Tread lightly FOJ--Innis might use her considerable wealth and power to track you down. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
It's OK, Kenney. Don't worry.
When we need toilet inspectors in Iran and Iraq, we know how to get in touch with you.
By the way, I think I will keep using SoD to refer to Rummy. Now that Marine generals (retired) Newbold and Zinni are asking for his resignation, we should be able to call him SoD.
And I bet you dollars to donuts that to the generals calling for him to step down Rummy is probably known as Sec "Deaf."
Happy Easter and Sweet Passover to all.
Perhaps by Monday Rummy will be flying a bomber over Iran, co-piloted by Condi Rice. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Dick can ride shotgun. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Montagnard,
WRONG!
Cheney will tell us that he has "other priorities." Then he'll be spotted at the Petroleum Club in Dallas downing a 72 ounce T-bone with several martinis.
But he'll be thinking good thoughts about the troops. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2868
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Innisowen,
SoD is also the acronym for a speed metal band call the Stormtroopers of Death. Make your own determination if it is appropriate. |
Jim McLaughlin
Citizen
Username: Jmclaugh
Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 2:08 pm: |
|
The list of retired military leaders calling for Rumsfeld's resignation continues to grow. Add to the aforementioned retired Generals Zinni (The problem is that we've wasted three years") and Newbold ("We won't get fooled again"), the following:
--Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005,
"I think we need a fresh start...We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the
"replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach."
-- Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004
"Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," adding that Rumsfield was "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically."
--Retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson,
Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war.
--Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs,
Rumsfeld and his advisers have "made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict."
This kind of criticism from their former leaders must be damaging to those presently serving in Iraq. If Rumsfeld truly cared about the morale and safety of the troops on the ground then he would resign immediately. If he refuses to do so than our "Commander-in-Chief" should do his duty and fire Rumsfeld. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 907
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Jim,
You seem to be on top of this. I have stayed away from this thread because I don't get all worked up when people retire or leave a job and then make disparaging remarks. It happens all the time, especially with government positions, and especially with A-type personality military men who all believe they should be the Sec Def.
Maybe you can paint a clearer picture for those of us who don't really know what to think about this. Can you let me know how many generals have retired during this time period, and then let me know the number who have come out with statements. Basically, your previous post is interesting, but without knowing the numbers I can't make a determination of the validity. If 50% of the retiring generals make negative remarks then of course my ears would perk up. But if only 5% make such remarks then maybe it isn't quite that big an issue. Without this type of big picture information I don't the mass electorate can make a decent judgment on the importance of these statements. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Jim, before you do any work doing research for Southerner, I suggest you take a look at his comment to me when I asked him to further clarify his position.
Alley, I looked at exactly 2,356 positions of the Democratic Party. Of those, I agree with 48 of them and disagree with 2,308. That leaves me with a 98% disagreement rating with the Democratic party. I won't bore you with my personal in-depth analysis, because 1)it is very personal, and 2)no one else should care. I hope that answers your question.
You can certainly tell from this response that Southerner doesn't provide much research himself (or if you believe him, he does TONS of it, but doesn't feel he needs to share it with us). Personally I don't feel like he warrants your investing your time on him. |
Jim McLaughlin
Citizen
Username: Jmclaugh
Post Number: 92
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Southerner,
You're probably right. Four star generals often make disparaging remarks about their job after they retire. We all do that. Not significant at all. Nor is it unusual for military officers to make those disparaging remarks or demand change in leadership during war time. Remember how John Kerry "teamed up" with Jane Fonda to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Perhaps Zinni and the others are hoping for a gig with Angelina Jolie.
But tell me the truth, Southerner. Aren't you starting to have your doubts. This list is growing. Gingrich, Buckley, Fukuyama. Even Condi Rice admitted last week that the US had made "thousands of tactical errors." Of course, she retracted it the next day, but Rumsfeld still felt the need to take her publically to the wood shed a couple of days later. Whats up with that?
And then of course, there is the "good soldier" Colin Powell who recently admitted that the administration knew the yellow cake claim was bogus before Bush uttered those famous 16 words in the state of the union. Powell said something to the effect that "we didn't need Wilson to tell us there were no yellow cakes."
And now, Colin Powell has gone public with his concerns about the conduct of this war. "We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and ...it got out of control." It seems to me that Powell is agreeing with a few disgruntled (retired) generals and that is significant to me. |
GOP on you
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 314
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
those retired generals are clearly disgruntled malcontents who are jealous that others get to take credit for the successes in spreading freedom to Iraq. the winds of change are bringing democracy, and our president is getting all the glory. no one should take those generals seriously. what the hell do they know? the rest of the world can easily see that they are wrong and Iraq is a great success. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 908
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Jim,
Why did you take my post as some sort of attack? I gave you credit for giving us some good info. And yes, I am concerned. However, I would like it in context, and Alley is right, I am not going to do the research because I don't want to. That is why I asked you since you initially brought it up. You are under no obligation to me or anyone to respond.
Again, if you are talking a high percentage of retired military brass then of course it concerns me. However, if it is a low percentage then it becomes a cherry picking scenario and becomes engulfed in politics. The Dems will post all the negative comments and the Repubs will post all the non-negative comments. All I'm asking is, if you know the numbers let us know, if not, then your previous post, while absolutely valid for those retired generals, loses a lot of the spark.
As for Alley, I don't know what you want from me. You asked me to explain how I came up with 98% and I did. Are you seriously asking me to spend the next year preparing an in depth report on the 2,356 positions in which I disagree with the Democratic Party? If so, you are nuts. Why can't you take me at my word? If you tell me you are more a supporter of the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, I will not force you to explain it to me. I'll accept it and we can move on with probably disagreeing on most threads. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:54 pm: |
|
C'mon, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you say that the 98% number is accurate. We both know you didn't read through the Democratic Plank and come to that number mathematically. It is silly of you to try to convince me of that. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 10:08 pm: |
|
I am not trying to convince you. Why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer? But I enjoy you, someone I have never met, telling me what I have or haven't done. That is taking snobbery to a new level. |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 427
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
I seriously doubt that retired generals make a habit of publicly criticizing the Secretary of Defense. Even if the % of retired generals doing this is low, it is historically significant and perhaps the best indication yet that Rumsfeld has grossly mismanaged this war. Accept it. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Just read Bernard Trainor's Cobra II about the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq.
Trainor is Marine general number 3, along with Zinni and Newbold, to criticize Rumsfeld's leadership and conduct of the war.
Don't expect active duty general officers to criticize: they could be subject to courts martial and demotion (which has a long-term financial impact on their military pensions). It's the screw that can be turned slowly on them. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11214
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
Actually, it is very unusual for retired military officers to speak out against an individual (in this case Rummy) and rare for them to make critical comments about current military actions. It just ain't done. Most of the generals currently speaking out are West Point or Annapolis graduates. Civilan control of the military is drummed into them almost from their first day at the academy.
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Southerner: I enjoy you too.
you make me horny, wanna shag??? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Rummy on TV, right now-- said something like:
Out of thousands and thousands of Admirals and Generals, I dont worry about 2 or 3.
DO we have that much brass in the military? WOw that seems top heavy.
Southerner-please make some more assumptions. Last time I remember you making an assumption you struck out. >sigh<
Swing- batter- batter- Swing ! |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2664
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:58 pm: |
|
How would I research the number of Generals in the US Armed Forces, or the average number of Generals who retire in any 12 month period? Does someone know of a website? |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 12:03 am: |
|
There are about 300 generals in the US Army, from Brigadier to four star General, over a force of about 550,000. I'm not sure of the number of Generals of US Marines, but the Marines number about 175,000. Therefore do the math. DoD information available on the web will give the same approximation.
Rumsfeld may be thinking of the thousands of generals who have doubtless served this country since the Revolution, most of them NOT on his watch.
His comment about "thousands of generals" is as on the mark as his observation that "... you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want to have,..." and his countless remarks about all the things that are unknowable when you launch an operation.
But, hey, that's why operations should be launched by people who are allowed to do planning, estimating, and contingency planning, before they launch and make sure that they have the resources they need to succeed, instead of getting shunted to the side, demoted, or forced to retire when they're bold enough to give accurate estimates of resources needed.
Let's face it. The strong point of this administration is "action," because they like to appear tough. Their weak points are planning and execution, because they can't see past their own nose. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page