The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.
"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."
Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN.
Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld.
And it appears that Batiste isn't the only general who is critical of Rumsfeld. Consider this:
[Batiste's] comments follow similar recent high-profile attacks on Rumsfeld by three other retired flag officers, amid indications that many of their peers feel the same way.
"We won't get fooled again," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in an essay in Time magazine this week. Listing a series of mistakes such as "McNamara-like micromanagement," a reference to the Vietnam War-era secretary of defense, Newbold called for "replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach."
Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."
Also, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld and the administration's handling of the Iraq war, has been more vocal lately as he publicizes a new book, "The Battle for Peace."
"The problem is that we've wasted three years" in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he "absolutely" thinks Rumsfeld should resign.
When I read this story, I was struck by the amazing contradiction here. These generals are the professional soldiers, who have given their careers to the service of their country. These are the men who have experienced combat, who know and understand the horrors of war. They have sent young men and women to die--as they are also willing to die for their country. These professional soldiers march into battle because President George Bush--their Commander-in-Chief--has ordered them into war. And yet, here they are criticizing their civilian boss at the Pentagon--Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld--for making a complete mess of the military.
There is something else here in this story. I would say the story goes deeper, into how Rumsfeld wants to change the way the military currently thinks, into a whole different strategy--the Rumsfeld Doctrine. In future wars, the Rumsfeld Doctrine emphasizes high technology and superior air power to destroy the enemy, while using small, nimble ground forces. This is completely opposite of the Pentagon strategy of using overwhelming force, as defined by the Powell Doctrine. The problem I see here is that while the Rumsfeld Doctrine can work on a tactical level in fighting against an armed enemy force, the doctrine does not provide sufficient ground forces to secure and occupy an entire nation. On a strategic level of invading and occupying Iraq, the Rumsfeld Doctrine is a complete failure. The examples are numerous--not enough U.S. troops to secure Iraqi weapons depots, or to police the country from widespread looting, or to fight against a homegrown insurgency in the outlying towns and Iraqi countryside. These generals have realized this mistake, have attempted to explain or argue against Rumsfeld regarding this issue, and have failed.
How much longer will this go on?
No comments:
Post a Comment