Generals Break With Tradition Over Rumsfeld

[cal04]

This week, as the chorus of retired generals demanding Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation grew larger and louder, Gen. Peter Pace stood beside the embattled defense secretary and did what some experts say is his military duty.
"As far as Pete Pace is concerned, this country is exceptionally well-served by the man standing on my left,"
General Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon. "Nobody, nobody works
harder than he does to take care of the P.F.C.'s and lance corporals and lieutenants and the captains. He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights.

"People can question my judgment or his judgment," he continued, "but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld." Critics of Mr. Rumsfeld, who agree with the former generals who have derided him as wrongheaded and arrogant, may see General Pace's endorsement as fulsome flattery. After all, some officers contend that the 73-year-old defense secretary has promoted top leaders based largely on their fealty to him, his management of the war in Iraq and his ambitious plan to remake the military.

(snip)
In fact, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribes court martial for any commissioned officer who "uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense" or other federal or state officials. That prohibition, of course, does not forbid serving officers from speaking candidly in private when asked for advice on military matters. Some of Mr. Rumsfeld's critics also fault General Pace and others for not being more forceful in questioning the guidelines put forward by Pentagon civilians that have kept American forces relatively lean in Iraq, and which led to the quick disbanding of the Iraqi Army.

Neither does the prohibition on "contemptuous words" apply to retirees. And the propriety of the onslaught of attacks on Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership from recently retired senior military leaders, including some who served in Iraq, is a matter of intense debate. "It's certainly very unusual to have even retired military officers being this public about their opposition," said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist and co-author — with Peter D. Feaver, now a White House adviser — of a 2004 book on civil-military relations. "But I don't think it's improper at all. They've been careful not to violate the core tenet of civilian control — none of them has said these things publicly while on active duty."

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16generals.html?hp&ex=1145160000&en=78d8bc4a0a552bea&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[jimshoes]

1. It's not that I doubt he's a hard worker

It's just that when he makes decisions, they're usually self serving and deadly wrong. Hang em up Donny, your best days are long since past.

ed:sp

[DS1]

2. If everything you produce is shit, then perhaps you shouldn't be

working weekends.

[lpbk2713]

3. If they go after the generals under UCMJ #88

they need to go after the lying mofo Swifties first.

[Imagevision]

4. After Chenseki, no General's are about to speak against Rumsfeld until

they resign or retire...guess that speaks volumns!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. We DO. Question your judgment, and his judgment.

[Sparkly]

6. Which is why Franks' and Rummy's defenses are so lame.

In case anyone missed Franks on Hardball yesterday, he basically shooed the matter away, dismissing it as one of "personalities." Just conflicts of "style." Rummy used the word "disagree" (yeah, that's all, they just "disagree" a little) and minimized it to "two or three or four" people... They want it to sound like this sort of thing happens all the time, it's nothing unusual... It IS unusual.