TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- More prominent ex-generals to speak up about Bush's mismanagement of Iraq in tv ads

More prominent ex-generals to speak up about Bush's mismanagement of Iraq in tv ads

quote:

America's Angriest General Retired two-star Army Gen. John Batiste is lashing out at the Bush war in Iraq in ads targeting key Republicans up for re-election in 2008. His offensive may change the rules regarding civilian-military relations. By Michael Hirsh Newsweek Updated: 1:31 p.m. ET May 10, 2007 May 10, 2007 - If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape�and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians�that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing�or something very worrying. No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste�only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars�effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says. Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson. The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected." The issue being raised by Batiste and other vocal ex-generals�he's joined in the TV ads by another recently retired two-star general, Paul Eaton�is whether they should have spoken out more aggressively at the time they were serving about Rumsfeld's refusal to send more troops and resources to Iraq. Rumsfeld's minimalist approach to occupation was a key error, it is now widely acknowledged, that opened the way to the bloody chaos in Iraq today. Now, the civilians at the Pentagon are criticizing the ex-generals for their silence at the time�saying they should have been more activist during their time in uniform if they had wanted their views known. Raymond Dubois, a Vietnam vet who was Rumsfeld's principal staff assistant from October 2002 to May 2005 and later undersecretary of Defense, says he knew Batiste well, and recommended him for his promotion. When Dubois first heard about Batiste's postretirement objections, he says, "I was nonplussed. I thought to myself, 'This isn't same guy who talked to me in my office' about Iraq." Dubois, who says he still admires Batiste, adds: "I was with [former deputy Defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz when we went to Iraq to visit with John and his First Infantry Division in Tikrit. I sat next to Batiste on the one side and Paul sat on other side. I can remember the opportunities�that's in the plural�that both Paul and I gave to John [to speak out]. I encouraged John to have private meetings with Paul. He had worked with him for two solid years [as Wolfowitz's assistant]. I find it a little incredible�and I used that word advisedly�that he would not have mentioned something to Paul." In one meeting, Dubois recalls, Rumsfeld asked Batiste during a visit to Tikrit on Christmas Eve of 2004, with media present, whether he had received the resources he had asked for. Batiste declined to say for the cameras. "He talks now about being put on the spot by Rumsfeld in front of the press," says Dubois. "C'mon, you're a general officer, you're a big boy." Batiste says that Dubois doesn't know the whole story. "I was extremely vocal within my chain of command," he says. Batiste says he communicated his specific concerns about lack of troops to his former superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of multinational forces in Iraq, and his successor, Gen. George Casey. "And yes, I did have a meetings in Iraq with Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld. Regarding the disputed meeting during Rumsfeld's trip, he says, "In our culture within the military, you don't air the dirty laundry, certainly not with the international and national press." But Batiste adds: "I do remember speaking to both those guys about the frustrations of picking up a brigade element of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in contact with the enemy and moving to another location in Iraq 200 to 300 miles away to deal with an emergency. When you do that you create an immediate vacuum. � It's the whack-a-mole game. They're doing the same thing now." Batiste adds that the U.S. Army is now "at a breaking point." America's armed forces won't leave Iraq right away�even if the president agrees to withdraw. "It will take between eight and 10 months to uncoil all that stuff and move it out in good order. We have an obligation to leave that country in best shape we can. But what's more important for us right now is to get our great military home. We need to rearm it and refit it and get ready for next phase. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book." The question lingers: should the debate between military commanders and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have been more robust in the crucial early stages of the war? Even Dubois admits that the Army can't afford to lose top performers like Batiste. As a result, we may be witnessing a new set of rules being drawn up for civilian-military relations�rules that could forever change this crucial partnership in American political life. Today's sense of frustration among the military brass has been redoubled by the knowledge that this is the second time in the last two generations that things have broken down. In Vietnam too, generals stayed silent when they should have voiced their reservations about how the civilians were handling and politicizing a war. Col. H.R. McMaster, a highly regarded Army officer whose tactics in Tal Afar, Iraq, have been praised by Bush, made this argument in his 1998 (and recently reissued) book, "Dereliction of Duty." The point was also raised eloquently by former secretary of State Colin Powell in his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey." Powell wrote: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons�" As we now know, almost all of these military officers did quietly acquiesce, along with Powell. The debate rages on today. Even Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has been recently accused of concealing his true assessment of the Iraq situation by backing Bush's surge plan. (Interviewed last fall by Iraq Study Group members at Fort Leavenworth, where he was finalizing the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus was quite plain in backing an accelerated effort to train Iraqis, not add more American troops, according to former Rep. Leon Panetta, a member of the group.) Batiste says he remains a "diehard Republican" and has no intention of wading directly into the presidential campaign � la McClellan and MacArthur. He took part in the VoteVets.org campaign, he says, because it's a "nonpartisan group." (VoteVets.org describes itself as a political action committee whose goal "is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." The cofounder, Jon Soltz, said he "came up with the concept" for the ad himself. He and Wesley Clark, the former general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, recruited Batiste and Eaton.) Still, Batiste and the other rebellious ex-generals are testing the limits of military decorum, shifting lines that have been in place for two centuries. While they disagree about who said what and when, both Batiste and Dubois concur on one central point: the importance of the military speaking candidly in real time to the Pentagon. "The flip side of civilian control is [for the military] to speak truth to it�not impertinently, not with disdain, but you have an obligation," Dubois says. Will the generals working with the new secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, handle things differently? The course of the Iraq conflict�and the way America wages future wars�may depend on it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1859275...ewsweek/page/2/

Color me surprised.

Hmm and it looks like some generals are finally making requests and needs known outside the chain of command. God what a clusterfuck way to run a war.

quote:

U.S. general wants more troops for bloody Iraq province POSTED: 1631 GMT (0031 HKT), May 11, 2007 Story Highlights� NEW: "I don't have enough forces to get security situation moving," general says � NEW: Diyala province is insurgency hot spot bordering Iran � U.S. must not cede "moral high ground" to enemies, general tells troops � Noncombatants must be "treated with dignity and respect," general says Adjust font size: BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military commander in charge of northern Iraqi operations on Friday said more troops are needed to stem rising insurgent violence in Diyala province. "I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the 25th Infantry Division. Mixon did not specify whether more U.S. or Iraqi forces were needed. He made his comments during a news briefing from Iraq via teleconference at the Pentagon. "We have plans to put additional forces in that area. ... We have put additional forces in there over that last couple months, an additional Stryker battalion, but I'm going to need additional forces in Diyala province to get that situation to a more acceptable level." He said he has been in touch with Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, about more troops in Diyala, even before the troop escalation that the administration calls a "surge" began in February. He said Odierno has been "providing them over time as they have become available." About 3,500 U.S. soldiers, 10,000 Iraqi soldiers and several thousand police officers are stationed there. More than 3,000 additional police are needed, he said. The level of violence has increased in Diyala, Mixon said, because the forces are increasing their offensive operations against the insurgents, many of whom have left Baghdad during the recent security crackdown, and because al Qaeda in Iraq has made Diyala a focus. "It's where many of their high-level individuals have been killed or captured," he said. "They declared it their caliphate a year or two ago. So they have been in there for a while." Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late al Qaeda in Iraq leader, was killed in a U.S. airstrike last year while he was hiding in the Diyala town of Hibhib. The province borders Iran and is an effective hiding place for insurgents. "And quite frankly, there are a lot of former regime elements in there, and the Sunni population in certain areas were providing them support," Mixon said. "So we stepped up our offensive operations, and it was at that point when I realized that I was going to need additional forces." On April 23, two suicide car bombers struck a U.S. outpost in Diyala, killing nine American soldiers and wounding 20 others from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. Referring to the entire region he covers, which includes Nineveh, Salaheddin and Tameem provinces, Mixon said, "We are making progress," but added, "it is slow." The "bureaucracy in Baghdad" needs to do a better job of helping and supporting soldiers, saying "ministries move too slow to provide help," even though the situation has improved. He said the government needs to show the Iraqi people it can provide the proper security and services. Mixon was asked about the U.S. troop escalation called "the surge," and said those issues were being debated in Washington, and that his mind wasn't on possible deadlines for withdrawal that are being debated in Congress. In Washington on Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill that would tie war funding beyond July to a progress report. The bill faced an uncertain future in the Senate, however, and President Bush vowed to veto it. (Full story) However, he said, "we just can't think about pulling out of here just like that." "We need a long-term commitment in some form or fashion to ensure security in the region," he said, adding that it "doesn't need to be in the number we have now." Troops urged to fight fair America's top military commander in Iraq has sent a letter to troops challenging them to "occupy the moral high ground" after a Pentagon survey showed some service members were reluctant to report the "illegal actions" of fellow personnel. In the letter, dated Thursday, Gen. David Petraeus wrote he was "concerned" with the poll's findings. "This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," he said. The survey of ethics, released last week, assessed the mental health and ethical attitudes of more than 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines last year. (Read the report) Results showed that fewer than half of soldiers and Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior. Survey results also showed that about 10 percent admitted mistreating noncombatants or damaging their property when it was not necessary. Only about 47 percent of Army soldiers and 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. In the letter, Petraeus also underscored that torture to obtain information from the enemy was "wrong." More than a third of soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a comrade. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful or necessary," Petraeus said. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/m...main/index.html

on the bright side...


the guys in the navy seem happy.

And that darn librul media has swiftly fired Batiste for speaking out against Bush's asinine policies, while blissfully looking the other way with Bush-supporting advocates on their payroll:

quote:

CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy In a recent VoteVets ad, Gen. John Batiste says, �I left the Army in protest in order to speak out.� Now, CBS has punished him for speaking out. Last night, MSNBC�s Keith Olbermann reported, �General John Batiste loses his CBS job after appearing in an advertisement critical of the president.� CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius spoke to ThinkProgress this morning and confirmed that Batiste�s consulting contract has been canceled due to his participation in the VoteVets ad. Genelius said Batiste �inadvertently violated our standards� and therefore �we and the General mutually agreed to end his consultants� arrangement with CBS News.� When asked what standards Batiste violated, Genelius said he participated in �advocacy,� but noted that she had not seen the ad to verify the charge. Batiste�s only �advocacy� in the ad might be found in this statement: �Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women.� While CBS claims it will not tolerate consultants engaging in outside advocacy, it apparently has no problem paying a former White House communications director to engage in the Bush administration�s advocacy on air. While being billed as CBS News� �political consultant,� Nicolle Wallace has propagated talking points advanced by her old colleagues in the White House communications office. Some examples: quote: �The Democrats have to walk a fine line and be careful. People don�t want to turn on the TV and see every story being about the obstruction of people trying to do things.� [Washington Post, 3/7/07] �Well, you know, people ask me all the time, �Do they [in the White House] get it? Do they get how bad things are?� And the answer is yes.� [CBS Evening News, 12/12/06] At the end of the day, no matter how discontent some voters are, they really don�t want to see Democrats in control of the Congress. [CBS Evening News, 10/23/06] It�s apparently only advocacy when you�re opposing Bush. Americans United notes that it took two weeks for CBS to fire Don Imus for racial slurs, but two days to fire Batiste for speaking up on Iraq. UPDATE: Greg Sargent notes that CBS has allowed escalation advocate Michael O�Hanlon to remain on its payroll. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/11/cbs-fires-batiste/

they are just bitter they are losing a war,not because they started it, besides it's easy to talk now and out of service without ramifications

I say either give the generals what they need to win the war, or pull out. No need to go at it half-assed.

Here is the ad,

quote:

Originally posted by occrider God what a clusterfuck way to run a war.

when has any war in any part of the world never been a clusterfuck?

you are just a critic, nothing more.

Re: More prominent ex-generals to speak up about Bush's mismanagement of Iraq in tv ads

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Color me surprised.

why? Batiste has been a vocal anti-Bush critic for over a year now.

in a stunning display of ethics by a leading MSM'er in a pubescent election season, Batiste has been shit-canned by CBS as a consultant because of this.

which is good for everyone involved IMO. i'm only stating.

so the best way to support our troops is to not listen to them?

wow man, that's deep

btw, love that sig

quote:

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation. "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

sorry, lost the source for that one. and yes, i know that it would take a verified sex tape of dubya and al gore for you to even consider the notion that your president isn't perfect... but fuck, there's neon signs at every corner.

just stating

Bush has shown that he clearly has no respect for men who wear stars on their shoulders in regards to military policy from day one.

He never listened to Powell, he forced out generals like Shinseki who spoke the truth at the beginning, and he has continually changed the leadership on the ground to try and find someone who will give his failed strategy and policies a good light. If Patreus gives one hint of not toeing the line come september, I am sure he will look for some other general to take his place too.


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo when has any war in any part of the world never been a clusterfuck? you are just a critic, nothing more.

Well if I recall the first Iraq war was not a clusterfuck nor was the Balkans conflict. What more would I be other than a critic? You're just a supporter, nothing more, right?

quote:

why? Batiste has been a vocal anti-Bush critic for over a year now. in a stunning display of ethics by a leading MSM'er in a pubescent election season, Batiste has been shit-canned by CBS as a consultant because of this. which is good for everyone involved IMO. i'm only stating.

Umm my surprise was sarcastic. I'm hardly surprised that our gifted military leaders who are in a position to know what they're talking about are highly critical of the methods within which this administration has carried on this war given the state of this war. However, I'm sure you are prepared to tell us why Batiste was an incompetant or ineffectual commander whom we should ignore despite this administration's high praise for him?

Major General (ret.) Paul D. Eaton becomes the second general to come out and speak:

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail I say either give the generals what they need to win the war, or pull out. No need to go at it half-assed.

They have been given a free reign from the beginning and then some, it's not like they have UN, self styled "humanitarian groups" or disobedient media to worry about, no they have had more had more freedom to do what they want than anyone fighting in their own land but the people they are fighting against are bigger bad guys than they can ever be

quote:

Originally posted by erdega They have been given a free reign from the beginning and then some, it's not like they have UN, self styled "humanitarian groups" or disobedient media to worry about, no they have had more had more freedom to do what they want than anyone fighting in their own land but the people they are fighting against are bigger bad guys than they can ever be

Ummm no they haven't. Please read the thread a little more thoroughly. It seems like you're not interested in discussing the primary topic of this thread so if you have a tangental argument feel free to discuss it in a thread of your own.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm no they haven't. Please read the thread a little more thoroughly. It seems like you're not interested in discussing the primary topic of this thread so if you have a tangental argument feel free to discuss it in a thread of your own.

Please explain how they have not been given free reign?
Their rules of engagement are clearly occupational but they bare no responsability for anything that happens on the ground which is nominally contrary to UN chapters of military occupation . I don't see "humanitarian rights watch", "UN" or other international organizations or mainstream media condemning US/UK for the situation they created as occupation powers

I already said everything that needs to be said about this thread on the 1st page, most people realize that US/UK have lost the war in Iraq, or at least they realize they can't win in military style which is all they have and how they got there in the first place , even Bush administration realizes that but they are delaying defeat .

Now we have oposition and retired folks coming out of the woods and since they are not burdened with responsability,even the "democrats" who wanted a war and supported it until recently feel they have no responsability , well it's all just a power grab plot that doesn't change the main problems and issues. I can easily see them changing their tunes once in power

This is an internal american issue but as an outsider I will say they are just using Bush as a scapegoat for a losing war, loss of invincability, loss of credibility and influence ... but the truth of the matter is that it was predictable long time ago when they abandoned the rule of law and start to drive their aggressive imperial policies on corporate deals and based on obedience to some middle eastern states.

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Now we have oposition and retired folks coming out of the woods and since they are not burdened with responsability,even the "democrats" who wanted a war and supported it until recently feel they have no responsability , well it's all just a power grab plot that doesn't change the main problems and issues. I can easily see them changing their tunes once in power

Exactly. And what we have been seeing with these retired and opposition folks coming out of the woodwork is a scene where the needs of the army have been cultivated, manipulated, and ignored to suit the needs of this administration. From the the very start of this administration, generals who voiced a need for much more massive troop levels for the invasion were all edged out. Genereals who tried to voice their concerns within the chain of command were all edged out because they were consistently ignored. Hence we have the current situation where we have all these generals speaking out after the fact. What I am arguing is that the generals were never given free reign to do what they wanted to make Iraq a functional country because all the generals who understood the situation well enough to possibly succeed were all forced out by an incompetant administration that was more concerened with politics rather than winning a war.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.