Ret. Generals beat up Rumsfield [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ret. Generals beat up Rumsfield


fxdwngflyr
04-14-2006, 13:10
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191783,00.html


So they "could not accept Rumsfeld's tough management style."

"who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."

Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance." Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack said he also has doubts of Rumsfeld's abilities to understand the principles of war.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," Swannack said.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," said Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

:laughabove:
The funny thing is that these Clinton Army Generals are too ignorant to understand that the same things were said about them by thier soldiers.

I wish someone could do something about this. Let a Soldier start making comments like this and they will be hemmed up pretty quick.

STANDARDS 2X


:frown:

Odin's Underlin
04-15-2006, 08:01
These generals that are speaking up now have no balls. If they felt that the current administration was screwing up then they should have manned up and told them so or they would resign. These jerks are just running to the nearest microphone so they can get a job for the very objective media that exists in this country.

If any soldiers, officer or enlisted, ever told these generals that their plan was screwed up, we all know what would have happened. I know this from first hand experience. I never told a general off before but I have had my fair share of run ins with 0-3's and above.;)

feetpiece
04-18-2006, 20:15
I've met Rummie twice and wasn't impressed. The first time was at the Southcom retirement/change of command for Gen Hill. The second was last October at the Latin American Sec Def conference - which was held at the Ritz on Miami beach:upeyes:. He comes off as a big dude on Tv but he's got a helluva stool behind that podium. He's about 2 inches taller than Frodo and looks older than the cryptkeeper in real life.

I lost faith in him after I read Not a Good Day to Die : The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425196097/sr=8-1/qid=1145412686/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5130177-1847028?%5Fencoding=UTF8). The whole top end needs an:

http://i3.tinypic.com/vx24is.jpg

:upeyes:

Odin's Underlin
04-19-2006, 07:35
Originally posted by feetpiece
I've met Rummie twice and wasn't impressed. The first time was at the Southcom retirement/change of command for Gen Hill. The second was last October at the Latin American Sec Def conference - which was held at the Ritz on Miami beach:upeyes:.That tells us a whole lot. He comes off as a big dude on Tv but he's got a helluva stool behind that podium. He's about 2 inches taller than Frodo and looks older than the cryptkeeper in real life.This tells us a whole lot also. Does it really matter that he has a stool behind the podium? Does it really matter that he's two inches taller than Frodo? Who the hell is Frodo? Rummy can probably kick his ass anyways. Who cares though? Yeah, Rummy is old but he shows that he is capable of handling the task given to him and he's still there.

I lost faith in him after I read [b]Not a Good Day to Die : The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425196097/sr=8-1/qid=1145412686/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5130177-1847028?%5Fencoding=UTF8).Sounds like you never had any faith in him at all. I, too, have read that book. There will always be mistakes made whenever a war is being prosecuted.

I think your post needs one of these:

http://i3.tinypic.com/vx24is.jpg

fxdwngflyr
04-20-2006, 07:39
I think the failure is at the General level. It has been said overtly numerous times by the Bush Admin that "anything" they need they will get. This statement can now be held by any american to ensure that we get what we need. We need to decide on what is a need and what is a want. We also need to remember that our government is not run by a president but it is run by our senate and our house of rep. If WE are too lazy to ensure to vote or to do our homework and vote forthe best for us then we just need to shut up.

I back him and look at the Generals as failures. If they were so important or if they had a greater backbone (than intimidating thier subordinates) they could have fixed the problems.

To take it to the press after they get out? Would you like some cheese with your wine?

CRAZY TALK:freak:

RockSix
04-20-2006, 09:10
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack

Didn't like him when I met him at JRTC, didn't like him when I met him in BiH w/ the 25ID, didn't like him after he said my Co didn't do a proper Battle hand over with B Co 505th (".....that's fine but we've been to Afganistan we know what we're doing.")

CHCB
04-23-2006, 00:57
I wasn't impressed by Batiste when he was an LTC...seemed like a political SOB to me back then.

If these guys had had balls, they'd have spoken up while they were still on active duty and retired or resigned in protest. Article 88 doesn't prevent them from voicing adverse criticism, just personal contempt.

meeko
04-29-2006, 20:31
I think he is an absolute lump head!! I think if he could do away with us for a drone army of robots he would. He'd keep a few humans around to blame when stuff went wrong though.

I'm just a scmuck E-6 however, lets do some numbers.

In the first gulf war there were approximatly 500,00 US troops in the gulf along with however many other contries. We were there just to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwiat not "occupy" (I know but for lack of a better term).

Now 12 years later in OIF we only had what 130,00-160,000 during the first part of the 'liberation" plus 20,000 or so UK forces.

I trully belive that if we would have went in with the right numbers and completly dominated them (I know it's not politically correct) perhaps we could have cleaned this up a little sooner.
I don't think technology is as great just yet that we could reduce our troop strength by more than have.

As far as Generals it dosen't matter wether they are Clinton era or Bush era they are generals so most of the time they forget where they came from. We need them to do more than looking all larger than life giving great speeches saying all the trendy phrases of the moment.

fxdwngflyr
04-30-2006, 08:03
I think this is politically motivated. Maybe not just for the "run for office" politics, but with this coverage it gives them more open doors for other jobs like military liason for the news.

I watch those idiots call a blackhawk an apache and a -58 a chinook.
They are worthless.

td.trmntr
05-26-2006, 13:13
Let's all try to remember that Uncle Donny is a politician before anything else. And politicians in general don't care about winning wars, just about not looking bad during the process. And the same thing goes for all these retired armchair d--s-it generals. Most of those idiots probably wouldn't know a weapon if they saw one. It's easy to talk a good fight from the safety of their quarters when soldiers like us are out there fighting and dying to get the job done. I don't know who I hate more: terrorists or pansy--- desk-jock suits who've never been in a firefight in their privileged elitist lives. May they all rot in he-- for all of eternity.

fxdwngflyr
05-27-2006, 16:57
Those are the idiots that claim to have knowledge and sacrifice us at the same time. They are the more dangerous. If someone does not know but seeks the information they can be trained. If someone does not know the information but denies not knowing it they are the true idiots.

stiletto raggio
06-02-2006, 21:04
The SECDEF has installed a lot of "yes men" and canned the only GO that stood up to him over an issue of major strategic importance: troop strength in Iraq at the beginning of the war. Say what you want about Shinseki, he was right about this. His "retirement" scared everyone else and allowed such other major mistakes as the disbanding of the Iraqi army.

I understand the need for a civilian chain of command and, ultimately, the generals at the top are only advisors. But if you are going to have advisors, listen to them when they tell you something, don't can them and let the implicit threat of getting fired hang over everyone elses' heads. I was a big fan at first, but he treats this whole business with a cavalier attitude that has needlessly cost us lives, money and political capital.

The generals, like it or not, are the subject-matter experts, the SECDEF is just an executive. The man ran a medical company before he was SECDEF (again), but do you think he was a biologist or bio-mechanical engineer? No. He went off the weighed advice of his subordinates. The problem is not in thinking Shinseki was wrong, but pre-deciding his COA and then picking people who would support it instead of listening to his subordinates and evaluating their expert opinions.

fxdwngflyr
06-21-2006, 17:59
Shinseki was not a warrior. He was a good personnel manager but with his idea of war he would have had to many "feelings" trying to fight a war and everyone would be falling out. No, he did make some "comments" but how about his big army fight, the beret. If he would have come up with a better BCT/IET plan on making Soldiers then he would have won my vote but his "hands off/build on the values already instilled" idea of creating Soldiers could not have been farther off.

SCHOO IS THE MAN

IMHO