Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Former military officers reprehend Rumsfeld

September 26, 2006

Advertisement

— Recently retired military officers who served in Iraq blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday for the morass there, said he should resign and urged senators to subpoena active generals to testify about their own similar concerns.

In extraordinary testimony from former senior military men during wartime, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton said Rumsfeld "continues to fight this war on the cheap" and denounced him as "incompetent." Retired Army Major Gen. John Batiste called the United States "argu-ably less safe now than it was on Sept. 11, 2001." And retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes compared the shifting of insufficient U.S. troops from one Iraq hot spot to the next to a game of "Whac-A-Mole."

The three headlined the first of what Senate Democrats say will be a series of oversight hearings they're holding on the Iraq war. They say Republicans haven't exercised enough oversight since the March 2003 invasion.

But Democrats also are trying to focus public attention back on Iraq because polls show Republicans are vulnerable on it and congressional elections will be in six weeks.

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., denounced the two-hour hearing, packed with anti-war activists and reporters, as "simply another partisan media event. And while it may rile up their liberal base, it won't kill a single terrorist or prevent a single attack."

Democrats repeatedly cited Sunday's New York Times disclosure that a six-month-old National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the Iraq war has worsened the threat of global terrorism and inflamed jihadi sentiment throughout the Muslim world. That was the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Democrats called for the report to be declassified.

For the most part, the testimony played to the Democrats' strategy of emphasizing disarray in Iraq and the Bush administration's responsibility for it.

Batiste, for example, said Rumsfeld had surrounded himself with "like-minded and compliant subordinates," underestimated the need for ground troops despite arguments to the contrary and was so insistent that there wouldn't be an insurgency that "he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a postwar plan."

But Hammes faulted Senate Democrats, too, saying they'd failed to raise important questions before the Iraq invasion because they'd feared being tarred as weak in 2002 elections.

Increasingly, Democrats tend to favor a vague call for an indefinite phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, while Republicans decry such calls as "cut-and-run" weakness.

Comments

xenophonschild 8 years, 3 months ago

Every conservative who posts on this site should read the NIE, word by word, and spend some time on the passage that "the war in Iraq has worsened the threat of global terrorism and inflamed jihadi sentiment throughout the Muslim word."

Former senior military officers rarely attack a sitting president or his appointees; this president surely must be a "profoundly mediocre" man, and his appointee (Rumsfeld) an arrogant ass to elicit such an unusual response from such extremely conservative, but patriotic men.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.