• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld

K

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I found this is an extraordinary and facinating article to read, finally, it looks like our military is not in lock-step with the Republicans and it seems there is true dissension and debate in our military at all levels. Read it.

President Bush and his invasion of Iraq is responsible for all facets of the military questioning authority and I find this remarkable and refreshing!

Thank you President Bush, it seems that some good has come from your attack on Iraq.









http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/w...a77b877dfd6&hp&ex=1145764800&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, April 22 — The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.

Many young officers have expressed concerns about the quality of the relationship between the military and civilian leaders.

Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign.

In recent weeks, military correspondents of The Times discussed these issues with dozens of younger officers and cadets in classrooms and with combat units in the field, as well as in informal conversations at the Pentagon and in e-mail exchanges and telephone calls...
 
Last edited:


Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW ABOUT THIS! Have you ever been in the military? How about immediate family? If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that this type of discussion/debate has always exited in the military, regardless of the President/war/peace/whatever. Spirited discussion has always been especially prevelent at academies. Remember Clinton's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'? You don't think that stirred serious debate?

If you knew anything, you would definitely know that the level of dissatisfaction, dissent and outright mistrust of civilian leadership was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher during the Clinton administration. Ask any military person (or immediate family mamber) in service during that era.

Nice try, but this means less than nothing.
 

Wow, if this means "less than nothing," why are you in such an uproar? Hmmmm.

I am glad to see officers speaking out about how they feel. I have friends who are officers who support this war and who are totally against this war (and have served in Iraq for a minimum of a year). So while this is nothing new, I like being reminded that not everyone follows their leadler blindly.

So what does the level of dissatisfaction during Clinton have to do with the current expressions about Iraq? Oh, that's right, you all always bring up Clinton when something negative is said about Bush. :roll: When you can bring forth something other than Clinton, like address the issue at hand, I'll take you more seriously then. For now, let me just laugh at the fact that this clearly bothers you. LOL :lol:
 
Does this mean that President Bush will now fire Don Rumsfeld? Nope. The president spoke out about his satisfaction the the Secretary just a few days ago. What is the point of this thread?: Kidrocks hates everything Bush. Yeah, we got that already.
 

The point is that not everyone in the military who has NOT spoken out necessarliy agrees with the president. I think it's good to know that there is dissent on multiple levels. This was an article in the New York Times. It's not like kidrocks pulled this information out of nowhere. It was important enough that an entire article was written on this subject. Thus, someone other than kidrocks considered it newsworthy.
 
Of course, it's newsworthy. That's fine. The president has already publicly stated his approval of Rumsfeld. The dissent and op/eds that follow mean nothing.
 
KCConservative said:
Of course, it's newsworthy. That's fine. The president has already publicly stated his approval of Rumsfeld. The dissent and op/eds that follow mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Huh? They mean nothing? They may not amount to a change in the Secretary of Defense, but the last time I checked, dissent meant something. Just because nothing happens as a result of dissent doesn't mean it's "nothing." Obviously it means something to you if you feel the need to be so dismissive of it.
 
Okay, aps. It means everything. Good luck with that.
 

Of course it bothers me, that's why I responded. I guess your attempt to 'jab' me was fruitless. :mrgreen: What bothers me is that (perhaps) you and (perhaps) others think there is some sort of military 'renaissance' occuring. As if this is not a regular occurence and that it speaks volumes about the president. The fact is, that is not true at all.

Also, for your information I brought up Clinton to lillustrate the point that the military did the same sort of thing under another president. Maybe I should have said LBJ or Reagan or Carter. I voted for Clinton twice, so you can shut the door on that quip! And, as opposed to your claim, I was DEFINITELY adressing the issue at hand.

I think it was you who was blinded by your 'cherry-picking' of key-words from my response. You seemed to have completely missed the point I was trying to make. I hope it is clearer now.

I mean no offence by this response, though it may be a bit curt. But I felt like your response to me was a bit condescending.
 
"Young Officers." That's funny. Most of them have no idea what these retired Generals are realy angry with. The military as an institution is changing. It must change to suit the needs of today's and tomorrow's threats and the Army Generals, who look towards the future while clinging to the old order, don't like it. Former LtCol Peters enlisted in the Army as a private, and spent ten years in Germany working in military intelligence......

"Where this Cold War heavy metal mentality lingers most profoundly is in the armored community and our Army General Corps. I mean, this is their life. And it's sad to me that, instead of getting on board with lighter vehicles and a medium-weight force with the spirit of the cavalry, which is what the medium-weight force is . . . when faced with the chance to do it, to get there fastest with the mostest, we're clinging to these old twentieth-century behemoths. So I see the medium-weight force as innovative, certainly, in terms of what we have today. But it really is a return to the great traditions of the cavalry of getting there fast, hitting hard, doing the job, and being gone before the enemy knows what hit them."

America has a wide range of interests. Some are vital, and some are not so vital, but are interests nonetheless. There are some humanitarian interests. Stop making excuses. Do what you need to do for our country, or else stop taking the taxpayer's money. We pride ourselves in the army on a can-do attitude. Always did. At this point, it's a can't-do attitude. No matter what the president asks us to do, it's always too hard to do. We need this, this and this. And the army has lost its credibility, as the Department of Defense has overall, by always crying wolf.

But at this point there's so much lobbying power--PAC contributions, and revolving doors of generals and admirals getting out and getting these tremendously lucrative defense industry do-nothing jobs, which encouraged them to keep their mouth shut on active duty about whether or not we really need this system. The corruption at this point is horrendous. And it's not just the defense-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned. It's a defense-industrial-congressional complex. Congress buys ships even the navy doesn't want, and buys aircraft the air force doesn't want. It's really sad and really corrupt and it's a disservice to this nation.

The Marines do a terrific job. They're a small elite force. They're a bargain for the taxpayer. There are not enough of them. This medium-weight force is not a threat to the Marines. It doesn't even compete with the Marines. The army forces will always be heavier than the Marines, have more logistics, more tail. But the Marines and the army have to work together. We need to learn from what the Marines have done with medium-weight or quasi-medium-weight forces. At the same time, they have to be willing to work with us in good spirit, and not circle their own wagons and feel threatened.

The fact is our ground forces today, Marines and army, are very, very small numerically, and in terms of capability for our global responsibilities. Given the tremendous and potential requirements we face around the world, we have a miniature ground force military.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/future/interviews/peters.html


So, to summerize, the Army as an institution refuses to move beyond the threat of a Cold War, which is in the best interest of the country and to the wishes of the White House (Something shared during the Clinton years also). Another issue is of the numbering down of our troop strength, which is a sore spot between our Generals and the White House. (The Marine Commandant threatened to resign a month ago if Marine troop strength doesn't stay at least where it is today.) So, there are a few different issues going on here that are behind the scenes of the headlines. This isn't as simple as what is in newspaper print.
 
beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:
Many DP posters here believe all military people are for the war--what a blow to them--I'm sure they still won't wakeup.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't know of any DP posters who believe that. You should work on your credibility. Statements like the above are damaging.
 
KCConservative said:
Okay, aps. It means everything. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. I guess it has to be one extreme or the other with you.
 

Okay, yes you made your point. And I apologize if I sounded condescending. Peace. :2wave:
 
beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:
Many DP posters here believe all military people are for the war--what a blow to them--I'm sure they still won't wakeup.
Click to expand...
I don't know of a single poster who believes this. Can you cite examples? What a blow to your credibility.
 


Bu the truth is they don't have to agree. NObody has ever said they agreed or they had to agree. And personally I don't care if they agree. THey have to do what they are told while in the military. Other then that you can have your own opinion, long as you going in the direction your pointed... YA .. the newypork times... the bastion of all things liberal...LOL
 
beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:
Many DP posters here believe all military people are for the war--what a blow to them--I'm sure they still won't wakeup.
Click to expand...

Do you ever bother posting anything thats factual? Or is posting assumption, misinformation and just basic horsesh1t all you can muster?...... PLease povide some type of proof of this ...poll, individual responses.....anything
 
Moderator's Warning:


Moved to appropriate forum after 48 hours
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…