Copy of the Military Times editorial that KO referred to:

[AnnInLa]

"Time for Rumsfeld to go"

An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.

Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.

----------------

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

snip

read the entire editorial at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582

[BattyDem]

1. Has anything like this ever happened before?

Has the military ever called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense? :shrug:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Not during my lifetime, 50+ years. n/t

[AnnInLa]

4. I'm not sure, but I don't think it is the military

calling for the resignation, but rather the editors of these magazines. Now, who these editors are responsible to, I don't know. As far as I know (am not military), the different service branches cannot call for a resignation of their boss. Well, not in this country, anyway.

[AnnInLa]

5. P.S. sarge43, from another thread, explains

sarge43 (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-03-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. They're newspapers published by the Gannett Publishing Group

They're not gov't owned or funded. There's a paper for each branch. 99% of the time the papers figures articles about who's who, policy changes, new equipment, etc. Essentially, it's the branch career force talking to itself. Generally, they stay away from politics because that is mine field, but once in awhile the lifers have it up to here with the politicians and you get a nuke like the forthcoming editorials. That all four are in on it is thermo nuke.
What does not kill you will keep trying until it gets it right.

(Thanks sarge43!)

[BattyDem]

6. Oh ok. I thought it was published by the military.

Still, it's a source of news for the military and their families, so I would imagine it's a big deal - especially since all four papers are doing it.

[MADem]

25. In addition to the info already posted, they are HQ'd in Springfield, VA

and they have a very professional staff, that has a lot of DOD/military knowledge, boatloads of sources in high and low places, and their reporters are quite seasoned overall. They are well known at the Pentagon. When Clinton was running things, they had the run of the place (at times they'd be an annoyance, to be blunt, but in hindsight, that was probably a good thing).

Since BushCo took over, they're much more constrained on where they can go and to whom they can chit-chat. I'm guessing they get more done 'off site' than on, nowadays.

[Aviation Pro]

11. Maybe during the Civil War....

...but I scratch my head and come up with nothing.

[exlrrp]

13. They weren't called Secretary of defense then

In civil war times, and up through WWII, what we now know as Sec of Defense was Secretary of War. They weren't so public image conscious in those days.
This is unheard of.

[finecraft]

3. After subscribing to the Navy Times for the past 24 years

they finally print something I can totally agree with! I knew I kept our subscription active for a reason! :)

[kurth]

7. "Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for

the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves."

Thanks to the Chimp.

[Straight Shooter]

8. That's a broadbrush statement and may be an unfair criticism.

A lot of Iraqi soldiers are dying, as they try to save their country.

This editorial pulls no punches, but I tend to think that if there is a problem with the Iraqi soldiers, it's because Rumsfeld's style of mismanagement has trickled down into that aspect of the war, as well.

[exlrrp]

14. Same mistake as Vietnam: "Corporatizing" the war

Its not the problem of the Iraqi troops so much as Rumsfelds' corporatizing the war. By that I mean letting what used to be done by US soldiers, such as training of police and security forces, rebuilding is now largely done by contractors. Its gone way beyond manageability now.
I think that once there was a chance to win this war--i.e., set up a viable friendly country but Bushco blew it out of sheer mismanagement and lack of imagination. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
This is Rummy's own stamp on the war and must surely come from above. What Democrats should really be focusuing on is not said here. One of the conservatives most cherished myths is that the Vietnam war was lost through ther meddling of civilian politicians (by which they mean Democrats) (which is true to some extent--the VN war was fucked up by both parties)
What we should be screaming loudly and longly is that the civilian politicians meddling with the military have fucked this up to a fare thee well. Rumsfeld has created an environment of fear, with no dissent in the military by pushing the neocon agenda first last and only, including their rosy assessments of the success.Rumsfeld is the one who determined the number of troops that was later seen to be inadequate. Rumsfeld is the one who hampered the military in many ways, not the least in getting all his intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi and his phony self serving INC. Vote Republican!!--Vote Chalabi!! is what we should be saying.
We need to keep hammering at Rumsfeld's incompetent civilian leadership of the Pentagon, hown its been inadequate in every way from Abu Ghraib to scrap iron armor welded to humvees.

As a veteran who once read the Army Times regularly, I know that what theyre saying is what a large majority of current soldiers are saying, including the leadership. A news organization with such heavy connections to the military isn't going to publish something like this unless they know there's a significant amount of soldiers and l;eaders who think this way.

[emald]

20. " a chance to win this war" ......WTF???

There has never been a chance to win this illegal action against another country for the reason that it is NOT a war. Never has been. Invading Iraq was a criminal enterprise brought to fruition by lies and manipulation of greedy corporations and their human enablers. In my experience any enterprise based on lies will eventually disorder into chaos, as this has. But, please, don't carry the lie that this is a war. Fucking hilarious. And fucking deadly. Crazy fucked up nation with it's certifiable lunatic leader can't even get definition of war right. Hilarity ensues.

[Straight Shooter]

23. Thank you for a thoughtful response.

I hope Rumsfeld gets hit with an avalanche of criticism that is so overwhelming, he is forced to step down.

bush is an ignorant, arrogant fool to keep Rummy on.

[AntiFascist]

29. If I may make another broadbrush statement....

one of the major problems with this whole war has been the administration's use of money as a motivating factor rather than a well thought out plan, or even a solid ideological basis (which seems to have changed from one week to the next as the war progressed). Using money as the sole guiding factor for the war leads to the total corruption we are seeing with Halliburton, the murderous use of privatized mercenaries and torturers, and the problems now reported with the Iraqi troops. This only highlights the overriding purpose of the war to begin with: the advantage of maintaining control over economically strategic oil fields, and the profit-making potential for war profiteers.

[alfredo]

9. thanks for posting this.

[Felinity]

10. Surprisingly brief

I was expecting a longer piece, but the editorial's reliance on the the point that Rumsfield has lost the confidence of the organization he is supposed to be leading is appropriate.

At this point a litany of his incompetencies is irrelevant. It's too late for a post mortem (pun intended). We need to replace him with someone who knows what they're doing.

Which brings us to the scary part. What are the chances that Bush will select someone better for the job. How about Lieberman? Or better yet, Wolfowitz.

Here's a mind blower--how about someone with military experience?

Let us pray.

[onager]

17. Rumsfeld has military experience

He was a Navy pilot in the Fifties. Though typically for this bunch of arrogant ignoramuses, he doesn't seem to have learned a damn thing.

Rumsfeld's original mission, as SecDef, was to resurrect Reagan's "Star Wars" programs. In other words, he was originally intended to fill a job for which he had PLENTY of experience--a glorified bagman carrying sacks of cash between his boss and the defense contractors.

As it did with so many other things, 9/11 changed that and showed Dumsfeld to be, like Bush and Cheney, the emptiest of empty suits.

[Auggie]

12. The timing of this is incredible,

especially since chimp just gave Rumsfeld another ringing endorsement.

[KharmaTrain]

15. This Is Mutiny Folks...

Boooosh finally did it...his announcement that von Rumsfeldt would stay in iron fist control of the DOD and this disastrous war for the next 2 plus years isn't going over very well in the military community. This story is very big as this comes from a structure where speaking out...especially in the time of "war"...is akin to treason. This is a total repudiation of not only Rummy but of the entire Iraq misadventure and the boosh regime.

I can't remember a parallel to this bold step during Vietnam and this very much reminds me of how Germany ultimately was defeated in WWI. It was when the military mutinied and forced the Kaiser into exile. If this editorial reflects what the active military is feeling, this regime has a major problem on their hands.

[civildisoBDence]

21. DUUUUHbya being Captain Bligh, and the 200 million Americans against this war

all being Mr. Christian.

That's one heckuva mutiny, retired generals, the CIA, the NIE and all.

Checkmate. (Except that Chimpy McFlightsuit and his cabal don't give a damn what their bosses, much less their subordinates, think.)

Newsprism

[MADem]

26. While the Military Times newspapers are certainly reflecting popular opinion throughout the ranks

they are NOT an arm of the military. Thus, this is neither mutiny, nor treason. This is simply the first amendment in all its glory, at work and play.

It would not surprise me if some of the recently operational flag and general officers might have planted the seed of the idea in the head of the editorial writer, but that thing was written by a civilian and published by a civilian outfit.

[Polesitter]

31. You need to read some of the earlier posts - this is not "the

military" calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. A single private publisher puts out multiple papers that are basically the same with some differences to provide individual service flavor. For example, while most news stories appear in all of the military times papers, letters to the editor will appear only in the paper of that service. Stories about aircraft carriers will be in the Navy Times and usually won't run in the Army Times - unless they are are really hard up for something to print. The TAILHOOK Scandal got lots of coverage in the Air Force and Army papers even though the scandal was confined to the Navy (when Jim Webb was Navy Secretary coincidentally) And in this case, it's the publisher of the military times group that is running the same editorial in all the different variations of his paper.

It's not mutiny - because these folks are not the military or even civilian government personnel - but are instead private sector civilians selling a product (the papers) primarily to active and retired military personnel. It's no more mutiny than if Burger King called for the Surgeon General's resignation because they didn't Like the food group chart.

[Clarkie1]

16. I disagree with one of the premises of this editorial.

"although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."

Rumsfeld has been proven to lack both competence and leaderships skills, but as Truman said, "the buck stops here." The blame for our failures in Iraq does not rest with Rumsfeld, it rests with the George W. Bush. I agree with the conclusions of the rest of the editorial entirely.

[MADem]

27. Well, it rests with both of them, really. Monkey seems to think everything is going just fine.

Is this because Rummy is treating him like the Boy in the Bubble? Or has the Monkeystaff told Rummy not to give the Chimp bad news? Or are they BOTH incompetent, or do they just not give a shit, all of them? In any case, Rummy should have submitted his resignation and said that Monkeyboy wasn't taking his advice, if that were the case. And Monkey certainly is not let off the hook entirely:

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples....And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term...This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

You're right that there's plenty of blame to go around--the Monkey, FuckU Dick, the cretins on the WH staff, the Rosy Scenario Neocons (all deserting like rats on a foundering vessel) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_critics;_ylt=AvkXTvEvKJhZ5G8Yo90AS1fMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM- AND Dummy Rummy...they're all a bunch of bums!

I do think the writer of this editorial deliberately didn't want to go too far afield, because any serious discussion of Bush's failures would lead, logically, to the "I" word, and there are plenty of military leaders who might balk at that (especially those who have been trying and failing to execute Monkey's bad policies--they'd be afraid THEY'D take the fall after he's dragged off the world stage).

Also, from the standpoint of military leadership, the Commander in Chief is one thing, the SECDEF another. One is elected by the people, the other is appointed, and sometimes they are good (Bill Cohen) sometimes they suck (Dummy Rummy). It's way easier, on a lot of levels, to take a potshot at an appointed crony who didn't have to win an election to get his place in government. It sends the same message up the chain, without having to get mutinous.

[Squatch]

18. Keep in mind that Army Times, etc are "for profit" publications

[NavyDavy]

19. and? they were cheerleading the admin up until recently

[rbottoms]

22. Big Deal?

It's not a big deal.

It's frakkin' nuclear.

The College of Cardinals just told the Pope he's made a grave error.



http://www.tacticaltelevision.com

[renate]

30. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[MADem]

24. Navy Times already has it up as well--they weren't waiting

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

Gee, wonder if this will be an agenda item on "Meet the Potatohead" on Sunday....

[Ratty]

28. Remember that detestable urban legend about Clinton... ?

That the military wouldn't properly salute Clinton during his presidency because they held him in such contempt? There was another one about how they turned their back on him once when he was getting off a plane, or some tripe like that. My RW'er family often likes to tell that one despite it's being thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Typical Republican Rovian tactics: get the lie out into the public awareness, get so many of them out that some eventually seep in no matter whether it's debunked, refuted or ridiculed.

This incident is a keeper folks. I can't wait to see my RW relatives now. "Hey, remember when you told me about the military refusing to salute Clinton?"

Heh heh.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Rightwingnuts are sooooo stupid, they still believe in...

Saddam's "woodchipper".

"incubator babies"

"Nuking Japan saved *insert favorite number here* American GI's lives."

"America is #1 for freedom and/or democracy."

"bush has never lied"

Doesn't matter how many times their bullshit myths are shown to be bullshit myths; rightwingnuts just keep on being duped/conned/tricked by them.

[uppityperson]

32. kick for the military

[LooseWilly]

34. Just What IS the job they're doing so well?

Bush insists that Rummy and Cheney are doing a fine job. What no one seems to be willing to consider is that maybe they ARE. Of course, that could only be possible if the job in question was something other than what the talking points might otherwise indicate.
If the job is to bring democracy to Iraq, obviously they're job is a complete failure... unless sectarian violence is a newly validated form of "public discussion" in a democracy. If the job is to find WMDs that were the original goal of the invasion, well... ok, that job's a failure too.
But, what if the job is to just make sure that we're there long enough to be sure that Halliburton and all the other corporate cronies are assured reconstruction and other contracts? Suddenly "stay the course", and everything else the administration has argued for and done makes sense... even down to not bothering to worry about the equipping of US troops... since that isn't a corporate objective, and would only detract from monies that could be spent on contractors.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid... but I have a horrible feeling that they ARE in fact doing a wonderful job... we're just not being told what the job is.