While the frustrated generals named Rumsfeld in their complaint, they clearly aimed at Bush. They know that the commander in chief is implicated in every bad decision perpetrated by the Pentagon civilian leadership. They understand why he cannot take their advice to dump Rummy, as Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon pointed out: "For Bush to fire Rumsfeld is for Bush to declare himself a failure as president."
But the generals cannot demand Bush's resignation or direct their critique at him. To do so would set off even more false alarms about their supposed violation of America's traditional civilian control of the military.
That is only one of several bogus ripostes to retired flag officers who are now private citizens, with all the rights and privileges that the rest of us enjoy -- and considerably more knowledge than most of us possess. Predictably, they are enduring the usual barrage of chaff and nonsense fired off from the right at every prominent White House critic. They have been attacked for speaking up at all, and they have been attacked for not speaking up sooner. They're talking about policy, and they're accused of obsessing about personality.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the most feeble defense of his boss: "He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld." Nobody has questioned his work ethic or patriotism. What the flag officers have questioned are his spectacular incompetence and his catastrophic arrogance.
As if to confirm their observations, Rumsfeld airily dismissed his critics by assuring Rush Limbaugh that "this too will pass." That remark was almost as dishonest as his forgotten claim that he knew where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would be found. He is well aware that anger has festered in the armed forces for years, not weeks, and won't evaporate with a wave of his hand.
Expressions of that discontent were first heard following the public assault on Gen. Eric Shinseki by Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, because the general had dared to urge more "boots on the ground" in Iraq. They were heard when eight retired admirals and generals sent the president a letter demanding a sweeping investigation of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, which meant holding the guilty Rummy accountable. They were heard when a dozen retired flag officers decided to endorse John Kerry at the Democratic convention in 2004.
And they are heard again this year, louder than ever, with scores of Iraq veterans stepping forward to run for Congress as Democrats.
Among those candidates is Joe Sestak, a retired vice admiral seeking to unseat Curt Weldon, the enternched (and truly egregious) Republican incumbent in Pennsylvania's Seventh District. His Navy assignments ranged from commanding a battle group in the Persian Gulf to serving on the National Security Council staff and overseeing the Quadrennial Defense Review. (He also happens to have earned a doctorate in government from Harvard.)
"One of the primary reasons I entered this election is that I believe invading Iraq was not the right decision," explains Sestak, who sees the war as a damaging distraction from al Qaeda and Afghanistan. He now warns that we must find our way out of "a prolonged occupation with rising death, injury and cost. . . . The result will be continued loss of U.S. military and diplomatic credibility."
Yes, the president hears the voices and doesn't like what he hears. So his henchmen scourge those who dare to speak out, regardless of their previous service. But he will never escape the judgment of the men and women in uniform who had to carry out his orders.
© Creators Syndicate
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.
April 20, 2006 (http://www.albionmonitor.com)
All Rights Reserved.
Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for permission to use in any format.