Why Does the U.S. Military Hate America?

[Lamar Mundane]

No link yet, but apparently the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corp Times and the Air Force Times are running an editorial calling for the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

It is to run in Monday's editions, one day before the national elections and less than a week after George Bush said that Rumsfeld would stay through the end of the Bush term.

This is an unbelievable slap to the face of Bush from the voice of the American soldier. They claim that Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of the military leadership, and needs to be replaced.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity must be shitting their pants right now trying to figure out how to respond to this.

[Loopydude]

Pretty damn cool, if it's true. Is there at least a link to whatever harbinger story must be out there?

[Fear Itself]

I just heard it on Olbermann's show, but no online news story yet.

[uglybeech]

Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corp Times and the Air Force Times

I'm going to display my ignorance of the military. But are these as "official" or representative of the miltary as they sound?

[Lamar Mundane]

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/648

Just confirming what I heard, but here you go.

[uglybeech]

Sweeet....but the Republicans are still going to sweep.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by uglybeech

I'm going to display my ignorance of the military. But are these as "official" or representative of the miltary as they sound?

They are all part of the Army Times Publishing Company, which is owned by newspaper conglomerate Gannett.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by uglybeech

I'm going to display my ignorance of the military. But are these as "official" or representative of the miltary as they sound?

They are privately held, and hold no official status at all, but they are widely read by the military and are distributed almost exclusively to military personnel.

[Valgard]

Here's a copy of the article:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/fore...entry_id=10582

[Loopydude]

Well, rather blindingly obvious analysis, but at least it'll be widely distributed to, and hopefully read by, what must be the Republicans' most core of core constituencies, besides the fundies (who answer to a higher power, of course, and don't need to read the news).

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

besides the fundies (who answer to a higher power, of course, and don't need to read the news).

higher power = gay prostitutes and/or drug dealers?

[Loopydude]

I dunno. Which one best describes James Dobson?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin

higher power = gay prostitutes and/or drug dealers?

Well, Jeff Gannon wrote for a newspaper, so maybe they'll read it after all.

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by The Editorial

"It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

The question should be why does Bushco hate America? Or why does Lamar Mundane hate America?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Well, rather blindingly obvious analysis, but at least it'll be widely distributed to, and hopefully read by, what must be the Republicans' most core of core constituencies, besides the fundies (who answer to a higher power, of course, and don't need to read the news).

And often can't. Talk radio works for them for a reason.

[Boyo Jim]

This may not be a much of a big deal after all. According to this CNN story, this is the 2nd time the publication has called for his resignation.

I guess we all know what an impact it had the first time.

[Zoe]

Can Congress remove a Cabinet member?

If so, the timing is suspicious and perhaps appropriate.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

This may not be a much of a big deal after all. According to this CNN story, this is the 2nd time the publication has called for his resignation.

If the story has it right, the first time, the Army Times did not actually specifically call for Rumsfeld's resignation or dismissal.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Can Congress remove a Cabinet member?

Interesting question... I'm not sure. But they can make his/her life miserable and essentialy force him out of office if they push hard enough on investigations. And Rumsfeld has to be pretty vulnerable. I couldn't find any poll numbers, but he can't have any higher numbers than Bush. Question is, who would take his place?

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by uglybeech

Sweeet....but the Republicans are still going to sweep.

Every crime they commit under a rug?

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Can Congress remove a Cabinet member?

From today's Washington Post Politics Trivia Question:

Who is the only Cabinet member to be impeached by the House of Representatives?

William Belknap, Secretary of War under President Ulysses Grant, was impeached by the House on charges of bribery and corruption in 1876. The Senate narrowly acquitted Belknap, in part, because had resigned his post.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Can Congress remove a Cabinet member?

Any "federal officer" is subject to impeachment (as John would have known he'd bothered to use The Google just a bit instead of once again informing us of his ignorance).

Rummie wouldn't even be the first in the job - Sec of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876, although for bribery, not incompetence.

[uglybeech]

Originally Posted by LouisB

Every crime they commit under a rug?

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

No link yet, but apparently the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corp Times and the Air Force Times are running an editorial calling for the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

It is to run in Monday's editions, one day before the national elections and less than a week after George Bush said that Rumsfeld would stay through the end of the Bush term.

This is an unbelievable slap to the face of Bush from the voice of the American soldier. They claim that Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of the military leadership, and needs to be replaced.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity must be shitting their pants right now trying to figure out how to respond to this.

This is not surprising at all, however I very much doubt the average soldier is really properly equipped to assess Rumsfeld's administration.

The fact of the matter is, when Rumsfeld was appointed he had a very admirable, and laudable goal. Furthermore, it was a goal guaranteed to earn him the enmity of the top brass.

It's often glossed over now, but Rumsfeld's goals when he was mad SecDef revolved around restructuring the U.S. military to deal with the new threats faced in the modern world, to make our military more mobile and responsive and to move thinking and structure away from that which was developed to handle the Cold War.

Make no mistake, when we invaded Iraq we were invading Iraq with a military that was still largely set up to fight in the Cold War. Our military is wholly unsuited to deal with the kind of threats we're dealing with now, and we've been playing catchup ever since we invaded Afghanistan.

The resistance to change seen by the top military brass has directly contributed to making the military more anachronistic and outdated. And while our spending and technology advantage will keep us the world's preeminent military power for the time being, unless we continue to implement the reforms Rumsfeld has been talking about since day one, that isn't a situation that will likely last very long.

What's unfortunate is, Rumsfeld has fumbled the ball several times as SecDef, meaning his ideas for reform are being dismissed and resisted based on his failings in other areas. With that in mind I'd like to see Rumsfeld replaced with another SecDef who will continue his reforms but not have the tainted image Rumsfeld does that hamstrings his ability to get things done. Ultimately, we can't really listen to input from the top brass here, at least until the current top brass dies off*. Because these are men who grew up and were trained to fight a Cold War, and are wholly unwilling to modify their way of thinking.

The fact that most of them have very valid criticisms of Rumsfeld in response to his handling of the Iraq situation does not erase the fact that they themselves are contributing to an systemic problem in the U.S. military.

*There's some top Generals who I think definitely see that things need to change and we need to retool our military in response to changing geopolitical realities. But by and large many of our top military leaders are digging their heels in.

[casdave]

Why does the US military need to become more mobile ?

Think about it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Any "federal officer" is subject to impeachment (as John would have known he'd bothered to use The Google just a bit instead of once again informing us of his ignorance).

You're just too funny!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

It's often glossed over now, but Rumsfeld's goals when he was mad SecDef

"was"? Isn't he still the mad SecDef?

Daniel

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

"was"? Isn't he still the mad SecDef?

Daniel

Lol,

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

This is an unbelievable slap to the face of Bush from the voice of the American soldier. They claim that Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of the military leadership, and needs to be replaced.

It's not unbelievable at all. Many in the military have been unhappy with Rumsfeld since almost the beginning of his tenure.

As was already pointed out, the various military Times newspapers aren't the official voice of anyone, and most of the time they're more of a voice to the military or for the military rather than a voice of the military.

Stars and Stripes (AKA Stars & Lies) is closer to an official military newspaper.

[David Simmons]

Here is the Army Times editorial.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Why Does the U.S. Military Hate America?

It's kind of a love-hate relationship.

[gonzomax]

There are things we know. There are things we dont know. There are things we know that we dont know. ETC. He should have been laughed out of office that day.He has old timers disease.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

This is not surprising at all, however I very much doubt the average soldier is really properly equipped to assess Rumsfeld's administration.....

This is an absolute insult! Martin Hyde not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives!

These Americans who are risking their lives in the fight against terrorism in Iraq deserve better than to have their service demeaned by a Straight Doper! Our soldiers need Martin Hyde's support, yet Martin Hyde offers nothing more than disparaging commentary!

The poster's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful! The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer armed forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots -- and Martin Hyde owes them an apology!


_link.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by RickJay

If the story has it right, the first time, the Army Times did not actually specifically call for Rumsfeld's resignation or dismissal.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The I was referring to this sentence:

This is the second time the military publications have urged Rumsfeld to vacate his post.

[FormerMarineGuy]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

It's not unbelievable at all. Many in the military have been unhappy with Rumsfeld since almost the beginning of his tenure.

As was already pointed out, the various military Times newspapers aren't the official voice of anyone, and most of the time they're more of a voice to the military or for the military rather than a voice of the military.

Yes and no to your first paragraph. When Rumsfield first started nobody really cared about him, let alone knew about him. When all the shit originally hit the fan, I think most military men and women liked the fact he was a hard ass and did not back down. However, things have not gotten better and he has the same attitude. He has shown little regret for lives loss, and it seems he is basically against one of our biggest sayings: adapt and overcome. He seems to have no desire to adapt to the situation.

I was reading that the Times (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force) has a circulation of 250,000, but I must point out that it is read by probably 4 times that number. When I was in an infantry platoon, we only would have one amongst our whole platoon, but I bet at least 50 of us read that one Times. Very few actually know that it is not published by the actual service it 'represents'.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike

This is an absolute insult! Martin Hyde not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives!

These Americans who are risking their lives in the fight against terrorism in Iraq deserve better than to have their service demeaned by a Straight Doper! Our soldiers need Martin Hyde's support, yet Martin Hyde offers nothing more than disparaging commentary!

The poster's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful! The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer armed forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots -- and Martin Hyde owes them an apology!


_link.

I've never seen any personal evidence to suggest that the average soldier has any more information about political affairs in the United States than the average American citizen; which is not near enough.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I've never seen any personal evidence to suggest that the average soldier has any more information about political affairs in the United States than the average American citizen; which is not near enough.

Ah, so not only are soldiers ignorant, so are the rest of us. Perhaps its just as well that Kerry didn't mangle the speech you wrote.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I've never seen any personal evidence to suggest that the average soldier has any more information about political affairs in the United States than the average American citizen; which is not near enough.

But we're not talking about "political affairs" and the SecDef is not a political position anyway. We're talking abotu the competency of the SecDef, and the average soldier is better positined than the average citizen to know about that. If the leader is not respected, he'll almost certainly be ineffective.

I would say, however, that I'd be more intersted in what the mid-top level officers have to say about Rumsfeld than the rank-and-fiel soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. The fomer are in a better position to see what policy is and compare it to what if could or should be.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by John Mace

But we're not talking about "political affairs" and the SecDef is not a political position anyway. We're talking abotu the competency of the SecDef, and the average soldier is better positined than the average citizen to know about that. If the leader is not respected, he'll almost certainly be ineffective.

I would say, however, that I'd be more intersted in what the mid-top level officers have to say about Rumsfeld than the rank-and-fiel soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. The fomer are in a better position to see what policy is and compare it to what if could or should be.

The SecDef absolutely IS a political position, by definition, being appointed by and serving at the "pleasure" of the President. All Cabinet positions are political.

As to how the top brass view Rumsfeld... the best evidence I know of is in Bob Woodward's newest book, A State of Denial. I think it's by and large accurate -- the White house trashed it, but AFAIK couldn't directly refute any of its specifics. Rumsfeld is widely hated at the Pentagon. You can find fairly extensive excerpts of Woodward's book online.

[Cubsfan]

I can tell you that most of us AF types refer to the AF times as the "Air Force Enquirer". I read it because they have it in the base library but they do sensationalize pretty much everything and they sell their papers by convincing young troops that they have inside info in the paper when in reality all of the information can easily be found free and is routinely disseminated through official memos or email distro long before hitting the newsstand.

If you open one up you will find that there isn't much real info or reporting in them. In fact they are all wrapped in plastic so they can't be browsed at the checkout line. You could get all interesting facts out of that rag in the 2 minutes waiting in line, then you'd never buy it.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

I dunno. Which one best describes James Dobson?

Uh, gay prostitute?

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I would say, however, that I'd be more intersted in what the mid-top level officers have to say about Rumsfeld than the rank-and-fiel soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. The fomer are in a better position to see what policy is and compare it to what if could or should be.

I think this is one of great unackowledged truths of our current foreign policy dilemma. I get so tired of people quoting to me what troops in the field think, as if it somehow carries more weight than anyone else's opinion, or as if those guys knew more about foreign policy just because they joined the military.

I think soldiers in the field field don't deserve to be hung out to dry. That does not equate to blind loyalty for military goals/foreign policy, not does volunteering for the military give a person any more votes come election time than I have.

Unfortunately, all too often I see and hear blind loyalty to the current Establishment from military types. I try to be fair to them, since obedience to the chain of command is hammered into them from Day One in the military, and independent thinking is actively discouraged as being counter-productive to military success. But dealing with civilians who don't understand that gets on my nerves.

[ElvisL1ves]

Unfortunately, Bush's strongest personality trait being sheer pigheadedness, the more people call for him to make a change, the more likely he is to refuse to make it. We have to remember that he's not our ruler but our employee, and take the decision out of his hands using the methods available to us.

Originally Posted by John Mace

You're just too funny!

Just pointing out the silliness of posting "I don't know" in a site devoted to fighting ignorance. Maybe you get that, maybe you don't. I doubt it.

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

But by and large many of our top military leaders are digging their heels in.

Many of the general officers who testified at the House Democrats' hearing on the war said that Rummy had purged the top ranks of all but yes men. The firing of Gen. Shinseki for testifying that 500-600000 troops would be needed in Iraq was a clear warning.

[Cervaise]

Originally Posted by Lizard

independent thinking is actively discouraged as being counter-productive to military success

Independent thinking like "the military knew back in 1999 that invading Iraq was going to be a disaster" (link)?

[David Simmons]

In the aftermath of the estimates that they present as told in this story,I don't see how Rummy, Wolfie, et al even have the gall to show their faces.

And the thing that is most infuriating is that none of them will be damaged in any material way by their blunders that have needlessly killed and maimed so many and cost so much. Wolfie will continue at his plush World Bank post and still be listened to, and Rummy will go off to some think tank where he can expound on global matters based on his wisdom gained from experience.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by Cervaise

Independent thinking like "the military knew back in 1999 that invading Iraq was going to be a disaster" (link)?

I'm not talking about at the command level, I mean for the everyday footsoldiers onthe ground, the guys who went through basic training just a year or two ago. The whole point of their training is to teach them to follow orders, no matter what.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Just pointing out the silliness of posting "I don't know" in a site devoted to fighting ignorance. Maybe you get that, maybe you don't. I doubt it.

Admitting ignorance is much preferable to the wild-ass guessing that may posters partake of. I'm not accusing anyone in particular; people need to get past the notion that admitting ignorance is bad.