|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: More Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Citing an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the top civilian leaders at the Pentagon, another retired general is calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Retired Maj. Gen. John Riggs sees fault in the handling of the military's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I think he should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic," Riggs told NPR's Michele Norris on Thursday.
Riggs served in the Army for 39 years, attaining the rank of three-star general. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions as a helicopter pilot during Vietnam. He retired in 2005 with the loss of one star in rank after the Army said he had misused contractors.
Riggs said Rumsfeld and his civilian subordinates do not listen to, or even seek, the advice of professional military officers, except when it is convenient.
"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda," Riggs said. "I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."
Riggs says he thinks the military needs more troops on the ground in Iraq to successfully stabilize the country.
"I think what happened is that we just grossly underestimated the number of soldiers required for the stability phase," Riggs said.
"As a soldier I supported the war in Iraq," Riggs wrote in an e-mail, answering a follow-up question Thursday afternoon. "What I did not support was the way it was being mis/micromanaged by [Office of the Secretary of Defense-Rumsfeld]. Not sure what his agenda was, but it certainly was not to dominate and stabilize the situation on the ground."
Four other retired generals have come out in favor of Rumsfeld's resignation. On Thursday, The Washington Post quoted retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste as saying the Pentagon needed a change in its leadership. Batiste commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, something that gives his opinion more weight, according to Riggs.
The Post article also notes three other prominent Rumsfeld critics among the ranks of the recently retired: Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000-2002; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who supervised Iraqi troop training in 2003-2004; and retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was chief of the U.S. Central Command (overseeing Iraq and the rest of the Middle East) in the late 1990s.
Rumsfeld has publicly said that he has offered his resignation to President Bush in the past. The president has refused his offer to leave the Pentagon. |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5340711
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:27 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SirFink
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: More Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation... |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
If you go to war, you must give much weight to what your theater and ground commanders advise. Failure to do so shows poor judgment.
|
On the other hand, if your plan was to create a war that would turn into a quagmire that would never end and cost $1 trillion dollars and you and your friends stood to benefit financially from such a war... it would show good judgment, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| SirFink wrote: |
| On the other hand, if your plan was to create a war that would turn into a quagmire that would never end and cost $1 trillion dollars and you and your friends stood to benefit financially from such a war... it would show good judgment, right? |
Hmm.
The way that you so quickly hijacked this thread, the way you so obviously resorted to sarcasm fueled by antiwar bitterness to articulate your view, is an excellent illustration of everything that is wrong with the Current Events forum.
Can you think of no other way to state your view that Rumsfeld's leadership is not the issue than what you said above? I believe your point is that it is not so much Rumsfeld and his incompetence as it is the President, "his friends," and what you seem to believe is a cynical war contrived mostly for personal profit or for the profit of U.S. elites, correct?
Why was it necessary to state that view sarcastically? |
Gentle, gentle. Use the fine art of rehijacking a thread instead.
Although I'm not sure what to say about Rumsfeld. It doesn't really get much worse than him but I have no idea how to get rid of him. Do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| ...I have no idea how to get rid of him. Do you? |
Political appointees, once confirmed by Congress, serve entirely at the pleasure of the President.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember Rumsfeld offered his resignation, and Bush refused to accept it.
If I remember correctly it was before the election, so maybe spring or summer of 2004?
When Bush refused, many (including me) figured that it was practically a punitive move, forcing Rumsfeld to stay and clean up the mess he made.
Now... more confused than ever by that.
Obviously it was a vote of confidence rather than a punitive measure, as hard as that is to comprehend.
But Bush has- I believe I recall hearing- shuffled his cabinet and advisory positions less than any other president (I don't know if that's 'ever' or 'in recent history').
As for SirFink's post- sure that's a totally crazy idea, but at the same time it's a lot less crazy than some of the things the average conspiracy theorist seems willing to believe these days. Not to give any real credibility to the idea, but I think it was bound to pop up in a discussion about Rumsfeld at some point anyway, so now it's out and we can move on.
Iraqis themselves have some pretty wild conspiracy theories about Americans (and jews of course). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SirFink
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Can you think of no other way to state your view that Rumsfeld's leadership is not the issue than what you said above? |
It is the issue. My point is that his supposed incompetence is a ruse. Would you rather be simply fired for incompetence or be brought up on war crimes and impeached and imprisoned for intentionally planning a war poorly so that you and your friends can benefit financially from it at the cost of countless lives?
Why the sarcasm? To conceal the ire I feel not just for Rumsfeld but for the folks who are falling for this "he should resign cuz he's an idiot!" propaganda. While we laugh at "Rummy" jokes on the Daily Show, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank and retirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SirFink wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Can you think of no other way to state your view that Rumsfeld's leadership is not the issue than what you said above? |
It is the issue. My point is that his supposed incompetence is a ruse. Would you rather be simply fired for incompetence or be brought up on war crimes and impeached and imprisoned for intentionally planning a war poorly so that you and your friends can benefit financially from it at the cost of countless lives?
Why the sarcasm? To conceal the ire I feel not just for Rumsfeld but for the folks who are falling for this "he should resign cuz he's an idiot!" propaganda. While we laugh at "Rummy" jokes on the Daily Show, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank and retirement. |
Gopher's right, although, I might have dealt with your hijacking a little differently. Dude, he doesn't have to be malevolent to make a lot of money. He's hooked up no matter what happens. I tend to believe that he's just honestly incompetent and arrogant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It doesn't matter how badly things are going--which is for the politicos to spin; war is and always has been *beeping* great for the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| SirFink wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Can you think of no other way to state your view that Rumsfeld's leadership is not the issue than what you said above? |
It is the issue. My point is that his supposed incompetence is a ruse. Would you rather be simply fired for incompetence or be brought up on war crimes and impeached and imprisoned for intentionally planning a war poorly so that you and your friends can benefit financially from it at the cost of countless lives?
Why the sarcasm? To conceal the ire I feel not just for Rumsfeld but for the folks who are falling for this "he should resign cuz he's an idiot!" propaganda. While we laugh at "Rummy" jokes on the Daily Show, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank and retirement. |
Gopher's right, although, I might have dealt with your hijacking a little differently. Dude, he doesn't have to be malevolent to make a lot of money. He's hooked up no matter what happens. I tend to believe that he's just honestly incompetent and arrogant. |
yeah. mr. fink gives the man way too much credit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| I remember Rumsfeld offered his resignation, and Bush refused to accept it...If I remember correctly it was before the election, so maybe spring or summer of 2004? |
It was in the wake of Abu Ghraib.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
yeah. mr. fink gives the man way too much credit.
|
I agree that the current fiasco in Iraq is likely the result of the war architects hepped up on their own PR and believing that there was no real need to envision any postwar scenarios beyond how to cope with the bags and bags of fan mail they'd be getting from grateful Iraqis.
However, I also don't think that Mr Fink's theory is entirely implausible. I'm sure if you combed the history books, you'd find examples of nations striving to bring about chaos and factionalism in jurisdictions under their own control. Just off the top of my head...
| Quote: |
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
|
Now, if anyone had said in 1980 that Carter and Brzezinski thought that the Soviet invasion was a good thing, and that they were happy their under-the-table machinations had helped bring it about, that person would have been dismissed as a crank. But what governmets claim to want to happen and what they actually do want to happen are often two different things.
Back to Iraq, consider the following statements by Bush, made during the same speech in July of 2005...
| Quote: |
| We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to win the war on terror. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. |
| Quote: |
| Iraq is the latest battlefield in the war on terror. Our work there is difficult and dangerous because terrorists from across the region are converging on Iraq to fight the rise of democracy. |
Now, okay. Bush doesn't QUITE come out and say "We're taking the fight abroad and we've made Iraq into one of the battlefields". He just says "We've taken the fight abroad" and "Iraq is one of the battlefields". Maybe the listener is meant to understand that it's just a total coincidence that Iraq became a magnet for international terrorism after the US invaded it, and that when Bush and Co. were making plans to bring the fight abroad, Iraq wasn't one of the countries they had in mind, despite its being smack dab in the middle of a region known for anti-American terrorism.
Having said all this: I do think that the "flypaper" rationale was just an improvised attempt to account for the inconvenient fact of an insurgency in post-invasion Iraq. And again I do ultimately come down on the "colossal stupidity" side of the debate. I'm just saying that if you want to argue that Bush and Rumsfeld were deliberately trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq, you'd find a fair bit of circumstantial evidence for that idea in their own pronouncements.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050704.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there are 2000 generals or ex generals out there.
Tommy Franks opinon matters just as much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
