<b>pervert</b>, let’s look a little closer at that quote of yours.
If the meeting took place in “the Tank”, a secure and private room, how did this correspondent know what happened? Could his source possibly be . . . biased?
Compare that characterization of Shinseki with this:
Now, I will grant you that all we have are duelling sources. And my source, a British newspaper linked from The Center for Media and Democracy, could certainly be tainted with the same whiff of partisanship redolent of the National Review, although that’s a subjective judgement (and one that doesn’t hold much water, IMHO.)
But the facts on the ground are this: Shinseki stated as early as autumn 2002 that there weren’t going to be enough troops in post-war Iraq. He testified in front of members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 25, 2003 that “several hundred thousand American troops could be required to provide security and public services in Iraq after a war to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm his military.”
Shinseki lost his job as Army Chief of Staff less than six months later, then subsequently retired.
Bringing this back full circle to the OP, does anyone still think that John Kerry’s statement isn’t proved by what happened to Eric Shinseki?
I didn’t mean to pick on you individually. I assume you mean that if I added the following:
Which I can agree with. If an army official actively opposed a policy decision, it would amount to questioning the civilian authority over the military. However, this would depend on just what sort of opposition actions were taken. If an official in his official capacity simply wrote reports or testimony before congress as to his opinion on the “facts on the ground” as I said, this should not be considered “impeding accomplishing the task”. Especially if he is simply pointing out things that need to be done in order to accomplish the task in the first place.
Now, if said military official were going on TV and giving interviews and claiming that the Administration was really trying to instigate a neo conservative Imperial take over of the world, or that soldiers should not obey orders, then he is committing a crime (morally if not legally). But I don’t think that Shinseki is accused of anything like this. If I’m not mistaken, the only thing that is agreed on is that he proposed a much larger force for Iraq than the administration liked.
Mind you, I still say that the administration had every right to fire him. I’m just not sure it is fair to accuse him of anyting inappropriate. I’m willing to be proven wrong. Does anyone have a cite that shows Shinseki talking out of turn?
Ideology isn’t a prism. A prism separates white light into fractions defined by color. Thus, it breaks things down to their components. Ideology is a kaleidoscope. It distorts & deranges.
If we really want to get into what a US Army officer’s highest duty is, let’s check the text of their oath:
The oath to defend the Constitution therefore takes precedence over chain of command. I certainly agree that an officer who can’t accept an order has a tough decision to make, but I certainly do not agree that he’s obliged to shut up - quite the opposite, in fact. Honor requires it, and the oath reinforces it.
I’ve always wondered what “domestic enemies” are, haven’t you? Could that include administration officials lying to start a war?
This is a blatantly false accusation as regards Gen. Shinseki. From before 2000, Shinseki had been pushing for a leaner, more mobile army, very close in at least basic premise to Rumsfeld’s desires, and so much a departure from previous goals that aside from “mere” organizational and procedural changes, it also required a new, lighter combat vehicle. He did, of course, run into resistance, but it was not universal. As I understand it, the feeling that new missions, such as peacekeeping, required a new structure was fairly widespread in the higher tiers of the command structure.
On the face of it, Gen. Shinseki should’ve been Rumsfeld’s strongest ally in the Army leadership as regards redesign. This is a man that was cursed by the lower ranks for his desire to change fundamental Army concepts, for him to be fired for being too traditionalist requires a complete reversal of character. I don’t buy it at all.
No one is saying that during the planning phase disagreement is a no-no. From my experience it is encouraged. However once the boss says, “OK here’s how we’re going to do it.” it’s time to stop arguing and get on with the job. Military commanders as far back as Joshua have learned that one way to kill an operation is to talk it to death. Sooner or later you have to decide to start a certain way with certain forces and that’s that. And that doesn’t mean that things can’t change as events unfold. I think Rummy et al are open to criticism for sticking to a rigid force structure in the face of indications that a change upward might be useful.
I remember a story about when they were War Gaming the invasion of Iraq (before the invasion of course) that a retired Marine general playing the “iraqi” side came up with the neat idea of loading those typical sailing ships of the Persian Gulf full of explosives. Apparently he managed in the game to sink a troop ship and damage several others.
They then stopped the game… said he was playing unfairly and were going to start another game. He stomped out pretty pissed off.
Still the way Rummy wants to reform the military (rightly so I think) and he acts pretty heavy handed I bet there are several officers suffering in their career progress. If any did speak out against Iraq and therefore had their careers ended I don't know... but these individuals should be praised for it. ;)
I agree with everything you are saying. However, I’m not exactly sure what Shinseki is being accused of that crosses this line. As far as I understand all he did was to answer a few questions to a congressional committee concerning his opinion. I really don’t see how that crosses this line you are drawing.
I’m not at all sure that this is true. They have always said the if the commanders want more troops they will get them. As I recall, it was not like Shinseki wanted 400,000 troops and Rumsfeld vetoed him. If I recall correctly, when Shinseki made that claim, the troop levels needed were still being discussed in the Pentagon.
I’m willing to grant that that particular source is biased. I’ll even grant that details he claims are untrue. My only point was that the tension between Rumsfeld and Shinseki was old by the time the bruhaha over the Iraq troop levels made the papers. And your source seems to agree with me.
That is, going back as far as March 2001. My only point is that sources which claim that the only reason that Shinseki is being retired is his public statement about Iraq troop levels are simply sensationalizing the story. Not lying, exactly, but certainly accenting the most sensational part of the relationship.
And so,
No, I don’t think so. I think that Rumsfeld and Shinseki had a fallin out long before the Iraq war. Exactly what it was about I’m willing to say I don’t know. But the implication that Shinseki was a respected (by Rumsfeld and the administration) member of the Armed forces who was sumarily fired (or the equivilant) for suggesting that more troops were needed in Iraq than the Administration wanted is not true.
Well, yes, and no. As I understand it, he has been pushing for these LAVs in order to improve the number of divisions which could be moved in a short period of time. Partly, at least, this is so that he can justify keeping a larger number of divisions active than others want. So, yes, he is advocating a leaner military, but not necessarily a lighter one.
But the specifics of this claim were not my point at all. I’m willing to concede that the Shinseki Rumsfeld fued was over something entirely different. What, I frankly have no idea about. The author of the piece I quoted claimed it was over differences in the way the Army should be reorganized.
Well, the bitterest fueds are those between like minded individuals. If Rumsfeld and Shinseki both agreed that the army should be reorganized around a leaner more agile philosophy, but Rumsfeld felt that fewer regular army units was the way to do this, while Shinseki felt that more but lighter regular army units was the way, their fued could have become quite heated.
Again, my only point is that the fued between the two men was not something which happened out of the blue due to a single statement made to congress concernign Iraqi troop strength.
Just an additional note (I finally read the whole thing) that the link **Airblairxxx
** posted is an excellent one. Far better than mine. It has some interesting things to say regarding the Rumsfeld Shinseki relationship.
The guardian article put it this way,
So, they tangled over the exact means to make the military leaner and meaner, Rumsfeld decided to get ride of Shinseki, and did so. In between the time that Rumsfeld decided to get rid of him and the time he left, Shinseki gave testimony to congress which called into question the troop levels needed in Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz called Shinseki’s estimates “wildly off the mark”. 6 months later, as Airblairxxx points out, Shinseki lost his job. However, this was exactly 18 months after it was anounced that he was going to loose that job.
Is it really honest to think of this ouster as revenge for his statements about Iraq alone?
I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m defending Rummy. It would suit me if the generals would say to GW, en mass, “Get rid of him or we will retire.” All I’m saying is that this sort of thing has happened throughout history and by itself doesn’t indicate any nefarious goings on in DOD.
But, of course, if you cut short the careers of a couple, the others could very well get the message and not ask for more.
I find myself defending this administration on points I don’t really agree with about. I do so mainly because so many are willing to attack them on these points. I have a decidedly anti populous attitude which will, I’m sure, get me into trouble some day.
I agree with this sentiment entirely. Pehaps I misread your original posts.
It seems that we may differ in our answers to your question,
I really don’t think he did. At least not in the same way that Patton advocated war with the Russians, for instance. When Shinseki made the comments which caused all the fuss, he was answering a question put to him by a Congressional committee.
Now, I think I could make a case that he should have answered the question more indirectly. Something like “Those force estimates are being put together now…” (which I believe he did mention IINM). And I think he could have refrained from giving the numbers he gave in public. He could have simply handed over the reports that his estimates were based on.
Putting that sort of criticism aside, however, I really don’t think Shinseki did anything wrong in answering the question. I certainly don’t think that he was fired for it. (Although, it could have added to his ouster).
But that is the question we are asking here. I’m not entirely convinced that such a thing is happening. Have any of the commanders placed in charge of Iraq been asking for more troops? Have any of them been removed for hinting that they wanted more troops?
And I guess that’s the reasoning behind the legal maxim about witnesses that if you are false in one thing you can’t be cleared of falsehood in anything. It is difficult to trust a group that exaggerates evidence about some national peril, and then when called on it changes the story - several times.
So Shinseki’s retirement, or whatever, by itself doesn’t prove anything but added to a lot of other stuff, well …
And, since I don’t really know anything about the details, I’ll shut up too.
I don’t think that is the question. If Shinseki’s career was unfairly cut short, it wasn’t because he asked for more troops, it was because his estimate did not support the admins Iraqi war sales pitch to the American public. So I think it’s irrelivant what the current commanders have asked for. I’m more concerned about those who said or did anything that went against the administrations carefully crafted (some would say completely dishonest*) justification to the American people for going to war.
