Seeking to dismiss their concerns, Hume falsely claimed generals pushing for Rumsfeld's ouster have not been "critical of what's happening now" in Iraq
SUMMARY: Brit Hume asserted that the seven retired generals calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation are doing so exclusively "based on an old argument" about prewar planning for the invasion of Iraq, and that the generals are not linking their criticism of Rumsfeld to "what's happening now" in Iraq. But contrary to Hume's assertions, several of the generals have criticized what Rumsfeld is "doing now" in Iraq.
On the April 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume asserted that the seven retired generals calling for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation are doing so exclusively "based on an old argument" about prewar planning for the invasion of Iraq, and that the generals are not linking their criticism of Rumsfeld to "what's happening now" in Iraq. In fact, Maj. Gen. John Riggs has blamed Rumsfeld for continuing to provide an insufficient number of troops to effectively fight the war in Iraq today. Similarly, far from focusing only on the initial stages of the war, Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold has cited Rumsfeld's "unwilling[ness] to fundamentally change [his] approach" in Iraq as grounds for his replacement, while Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton has stated that the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review indicates that Rumsfeld "fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces." Other generals have cited another failing that could have direct implications for the current situation in Iraq -- Rumsfeld's "intimidating" and "abusive" management style, which has prevented generals from "feel[ing] comfortable [with] providing Secretary Rumsfeld their honest beliefs."
Asked by host Chris Wallace to comment on the generals' criticism of Rumsfeld, Hume responded that "there doesn't seem to be anything new about it," and that "Rumsfeld is not being attacked ... for the recent conduct of the war in Iraq," but rather for the "decisions that were made ... before we went in [to Iraq] about the size of the force and all that." He later asserted that the generals are "making a new call for resignation based on an old argument" and suggested that they do not have "something intelligent and useful to say about what we're doing now" in Iraq.
But contrary to Hume's assertions, several of the generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation have criticized what Rumsfeld is "doing now" in Iraq:
- On the April 13 broadcast of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Riggs asserted that the United States still lacks sufficient troops to stabilize Iraq. He stated that Rumsfeld and then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had "downplayed" the number of troops required for the Iraq mission for "political" reasons, and that "we just grossly underestimated the numbers of soldiers that would be required in the stability phase, which we're still in, in Iraq."
- In a March 19 New York Times op-ed, Eaton cited the absence of any "call for enlarging the army" in the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review as evidence that Rumsfeld "fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces." Eaton stated that, as a result of Rumsfeld's restructuring, the Army is "severely undermanned -- cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14."
- Citing "successive policy failures" by the Bush administration before and during the Iraq war in an article in the April 17 issue of Time magazine, Newbold called for "replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach" in Iraq, adding that although "[t]he troops in the Middle East have performed their duty," the United States needs "people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them."
- In an April 13 interview with CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack appeared to address current problems when he said that Rumsfeld has "micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces [in Iraq] to achieve our strategic objective," adding that "our generals" do not "feel comfortable providing Secretary Rumsfeld their honest beliefs."
- Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste cited Rumsfeld's "intimidating" and "abusive" management style in calling for the Rumsfeld's resignation in an April 14 interview with NBC Today co-host Katie Couric. Batiste also stated that "[t]here was not a two-way street of respect" between Rumsfeld and top military leaders.
From the April 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Brit, what do you make of the criticism and the critics?
HUME: Well, the only problem I have with the criticism is that there doesn't seem to be anything new about it. Rumsfeld is not being attacked, as far as I can tell, for the recent conduct of the war in Iraq, the recent policies put in place, for what generals [George W.] Casey [Jr.] and [John P.] Abizaid are doing over there now.
This all seems to be about the decisions that were made when we -- before we went in about the size of force and all that. Now, that is a debate that we have had in this country. In fact, I think it's fair to say that we had it, really, almost in the 2004 election. It was there to be argued.
Abu Ghraib prison came and went. Rumsfeld offered to resign over that. His resignation was not accepted. His resignation is not going to be accepted. So, while, I suppose, it's interesting that these generals -- and there are a great many other generals, I'm sure, who do not like Donald Rumsfeld and didn't like him before this war because of the changes he sought to bring about in the Pentagon.
Now, I'm not attributing ill motives to these people. It just seems to me that they're making a new call for resignation based on an old argument.
[...]
HUME: Let's ask this question, Chris. We've had most recently two Rumsfeld critics, [New York Post columnist] Ralph Peters and [Washington Post columnist] David Ignatius, come back from Iraq and they reached the same conclusion, although from a different starting point, which is what's going on over -- they got it right now. Abizaid and Casey have put in place the right plans and policies and people to do the job now going forward.
Let's listen and see if these generals are critical of what's happening now. If they're still angry and upset about what happened three years ago or more, then I think we can dismiss that. If they have something intelligent and useful to say about what we're doing now, then I think we ought to take that very seriously. I don't sense that they do. They seem not to.
From the April 13 broadcast of NPR's All Things Considered:
RIGGS: Well, I think that, you know, the war itself, as far as the combat phase of it, what General [Tommy] Franks and others did, was, you know, highly admirable.
But I think what happened is that we just grossly underestimated the numbers of soldiers that would be required in the stability phase, which we're still in, in Iraq, as well as the impact that it would have on the United States Army and the other services over the long haul. So, I think that where General [Eric] Shinseki, the then-Army Chief of Staff, gave a fairly realistic estimate on the number of troops that would be received, you know, Mr. Wolfowitz and the secretary of Defense downplayed those numbers because of whatever reasons. I assume they were political.
And I think we just grossly underestimated what would be required in order to stabilize Iraq and then be able to bring stability throughout that whole area. And we did it because we just eased into the numbers instead of realistic estimates to begin with.
From Eaton's March 19 New York Times op-ed:
Mr. Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his cold warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the Army finds itself severely undermanned -- cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.
Only Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff when President Bush was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Mr. Rumsfeld retaliated by naming General Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since.
Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Mr. Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the Army; rather, it increases only Special Operations forces, by a token 15 percent, maybe 1,500 troops.
From Newbold's article in the April 17 issue of Time:
What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results.
[...]
To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress--from both parties--defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs [Gen.] Joe Hoar and [Gen.] Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.
So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.
From the April 13 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
STARR: Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack retired last year, after commanding the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq. He's the second combat commander from Iraq calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to step down.
SWANNACK: I feel that he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objective. I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense.
STARR: Swannack, along with Maj. Gen. John Riggs, both speaking for the first time today, makes six retired generals who have called for resignation. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says generals should speak in private while they are still on active duty.
GEN. PETER PACE (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff): We had then, and have now, every opportunity to speak our minds, and, if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there.
STARR: But generals who want to keep their jobs and get promoted keep quiet. If you don't like the policy, you retire.
SWANNACK: I don't think our generals feel comfortable providing Secretary Rumsfeld their honest beliefs. I think it almost boils down to, "Explain the party line and stay loyal to me," or you might end up as Gen. Shinseki did, at odds with Secretary Rumsfeld.
From the April 14 broadcast of NBC's Today:
COURIC: What do you hope to accomplish, though, General, with this criticism? For example, if Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were to resign, what impact do you think that would have on the war effort?
BATISTE: I think the war effort will continue, and I think we're going to be successful in that endeavor. We have no choice. We have to be. But I think it's a question of accountability. Accountability for the war plan that was -- was built to invade Iraq but failed to build the peace. Accountability for what happened in Abu Ghraib. Accountability for a leadership style which is intimidating, abusive. There was not a two-way street of respect.
This rebuttal has been used many times: You didn't object when you had your chance.
This rebuttal has equally wicked step-sisters:
You're not objecting in the right way: through the proper channels and to the proper people.
You're not serving your country in objecting (This one is harder to apply because generals are objecting.).
Your objecting is disingenuous because it's a cover for personality conflicts.
Etc.
The bottom line is that some people lack the courage, the grace, and the decency to engage change. Hume is such a mini-man.
...General Zinni is a guest on Al Franken's show and, among other things, he's detailing the incompetence of most things Rummy.
Zinni made it clear that one of the final straws for the star-shouldered critics was the failure of Duhhbya and The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight to accept any responsibility for anything.
That and Condi's "tactical mistakes" bullscat, which implies the responsibility for this clusterfuk lies with the military vs. its rightful owners: George W and the Neocons.
Rice's comments about no strategic (administration) errors, but thousands of tactical (errors by the guys on the ground) errors p___ed me off too. It reminded me of St. Rudy of New York's comments during the election when the munitions dump was left for the looters because the troops had to get to Baghdad for their photo op and flower shower.
All of the blame and the deaths of more than 2300 people are on the bloody hands of the administration. They should be as ashamed of themselves as I am of them.
The item cites a senior spokesman for the Fox Broadcasting Company (the broadcast arm of the RNC) as defending the Secretary of the DOD against public criticism; specifically criticism by seven retired Generals, who have called for the Secretary's resignation.
The General's criticism of the Secretary, as outlined in the item, includes: a planning failure, i.e. "an insufficient number of troops to effectively fight the war in Iraq", a rigidity or lack of flexability in planning, i.e. an "unwilling[ness] to fundamentally change [his] approach"; also that the Secretary "fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces", and that the Secretary has an "intimidating" and "abusive" management style.
I'd like to ask, that if we gave the Secretary the benefit of all doubts, and said that he were in fact flexible and responsive to change; and said also that he understands all that can be understood of "counterinsurgency warfare"; and that he was both pleasant and inviting in his management style; and above all, were we to say that either there were more than enough U.S. Troops already dedicated to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or else that no one could have possibly known (or provided) such Troop strength ahead of time...
I say, if were we to remove all grounds for criticism of the Secretary, would we then be left with grounds for the continued presence of U.S. Troops in Iraq?
Do you see the point of my question?
I say that I can see no level of competence, nor any level of Troop strength either, that has ever justified the presence of U.S. Troops in Iraq, or that justifies their continued presence there now.
And I take it that this is too subtle or an otherwise too difficult distinction for many to make, because I see so few making it; or so few in the media anyway, and none at the Fox Broadcasting Company.
It's wearisome to continue to point out the reason why Congress passed H.J.Res. 114, authorizing the President to use the Armed Forces "to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"...
It's wearisome to continue to point out that the "threat" was based on FALSE or otherwise FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence', and that therefore the "national security" concern was likewise FALSE or otherwise FALSIFIED...
It's wearisome to continue to point out that FALSE or otherwise FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence' continues to go without a complete and thorough investigation, despite it being years now that the American People and their Congress (and the entire world) have known the 'pre-invasion intelligence' was FALSE or otherwise FALSIFIED...
The continued (and pointless) debates about "competence" are also wearisome, in the face of no real justification for the continued presence of U.S. Troops in Iraq; no justification at all, "competence" or "incompetence" being beside the point.
The occupation itself is far more than wearisome; it's deadly, and it's unjustified, and it's continuing.
(In the first 18 days of April, 2006, we have so far the confirmed identities of 39 U.S. Troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice by way of hostile military action in Iraq; they are mostly young, more than half being no older than 22 years; and they are overwhelmingly among the enlisted ranks, there being, strangely, only one officer having made that sacrifice this month due to hostilities in Iraq, versus 38 enlisted men.)
"Abu Ghraib prison came and went. Rumsfeld offered to resign over that. His resignation was not accepted. His resignation is not going to be accepted." - Hume
Since when does somebody have to ASK their boss for permission to resign? Anyone in the world who wants to resign from their job can resign. A boss has no hold on anyone to stay at a job that they don't want to be in. Clearly Rumsfeld offered his resignation because he thought there were reasons that he shouldn't be Secretary of Defense.
Maybe he knew that his resignation wouldn't be "accepted". I'm with you that it is ridiculous to talk of someone "accepting" someone's resignation. In my business, you "accept" someone's resignation when you both know you are going to fire them anyway and want to save them the embarassment of being fired and save your company the unemployment claim. I wouldn't "accept" Rumsfeld's resignation, though. I would want it explicitly known that he is being fired for incompetence, and not let him take the "I Want to spend more time with my family" way out without accountability for his incompetence. I'd be willing to pay the unemployment claim just for the satisfaction of firing him. But then, I work for a business that would be bankrupt if it was run as poorly as this administration is.
I saw this Sunday morning. He was very ugly with the only discenting member of the panel (can't remember his name) He rolled his eyes and was generally out of control. Once the camera was on him when he didn't know it and he was scowling. He looked at the camera quickly and managed a strange smile. It was pretty entertaining.
Bush in the National Security portion of the Presidential debate, when he kept sighing and moaning and pouting and, quite literally, frothing at the mouth. The truth is that dissent has been so stifled for so long that I think these people honestly can't believe people could find fault with this administration and are shocked when they hear it.
This was Rummy's War. History will judge him harshly. He is thoroughly incompetent. Yes his plan for a small, high tech force to take out Saddam in lightening speed worked great. Hell we could have done it with 50,000 troops. The fact that he ignored the ethical, cultural, and religious heritage of the region is unforgivable. Now I am reading that Shiites are leaving Sunni areas and vice versa. Get ready for barricaded neigborhoods with their own militias. He should be crippled by guilt, instead his ego keeps him swimming along and in front of the cameras. He ignored 10 years of military planning, thanks for all your hard work though Zinni. He cut out the State dept. He fired the army and then debaathified, although now our ambassador is trying to get the baathists back. He secured the oil fields but nothing else in the country after the fall of Saddam. Yes, we are told democracy is messy as the country falls into choas. Last month NYT had an article on the battles on the way to Bagdad. Commanders on the ground were telling Tommy Franks that resistance was fierce in short, sharp engagements from paramilitary groups. Commanders wanted to stop and engage groups, not wanting these groups in their rear. Also knowing that these groups could fade into the population. Gen. Franks response. Question the commanders manliness and threaten to fire them unless they stuck to the plan to get to Bagdad as fast as possible. Rummy should have been fired 2 years ago.
About the rush to Baghdad. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about military strategy knows that the first order of business is to secure your supply lines. Rummy and Franks were so intent on demonstrating their new brand of "Lightning War on the Cheap" to follow that maxim (yes, I am aware of the connotations of "Lightning War"). This led to the Fedayeen setting up shop on our flanks and attacking poorly protected convoys while our combat forces met little resistance at what they mistakenly assumed was the "frontlines".
But then, if they had followed time-tested strategy, we would have been robbed of that feel-good moment of Jessica Lynch being "rescued" from an unarmed hospital that had already tried to turn her over to the American forces. And then we would have been robbed of that nauseating TV movie about the rescue.
It probably looked good on paper, but right now doesn't it look more and more like Roscoe P Coultrain trying to chase down them bad ol' Duke boys?
Perhaps it's dangerous for us to focus our critique on one fellow. Does anyone think that if Rumsfeld fell on his sword and Bush replaced him that the replacement would do any better? Is Rumsfeld incompetent or has he simply executed a plan based on a seriously deranged ideology of American hegemony? I fear that his ouster would result in an equally dedicated Bush idealogue who will simply continue to bash America's head against a set of policies proven to be a failure, and predictably so. All the while, Bush would be able to gain some breathing room by appearing to take out the trash in his administration.
It's the ideology and resultant policy that is the catastrophe, not the works of one man. Let's not let Bush off the hook on this one.
The ideology is flawed. Rumsfeld just executes that failed ideology, which is to attack, believing that the people living on the far side of our imaginary lines matter less than we do. He would just be replaced with another arrogant, unChristian moron.
Holly and Scott Johnson,
Started reading the Cobra II book recently; according to Gordon and Trainor, the impetus to invade Iraq came from Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other post-Gulf War denizens of DC who saw the "failure" of the 90's sanctions on Saddam. So he is guilty of more than just executing bad policy; he is an architect of that very policy.
After 9/11, Donny-boy didn't think dealing with Afghanistan and the Taliban was enough; he wanted a second, larger battlefield chosen where the US could make a definite impression on the al-Queda organization.
The retired generals are right: Rumsfeld is not competant to run this military, and his mistakes have gotten a lot of our brave soldiers killed or badly wounded. I'm ex-Navy, and I think he should have resigned at the end of 2003, when it was apparent that the "liberation" wasn't.
My point wasn't that Rumsfeld wasn't an architect or subscriber of our failed PNAC-inspired foreign policy. He was and is. The point was why would we let Bush off the hook by allowing him to make Rumsfeld the scapegoat for the policies he lovingly embraces? Say Bush does fire Rumsfeld, do you think his replacement won't have the same philosophy in regards to use of American power? Of course he will because Bush won't put him there unless he does. The whole ideology is corrupt. We need all of America to see this. If Bush succumbs to the pressure and offs Rumsfeld, which thankfully I don't think he will, there is a segment of the population that will mistakenly think, "Well, there you go. Now we can start to fix things there in Iraq." Dropping Rumsfeld would help Bush but he's too stubborn to do it. It would be like admitting a mistake, something he's unwilling to do.
and his administration can do that will bring criticism from fox. time to change the name to the brown nose network. there is no one who criticizes the administration, whatever their credentials, no matter how long they have served the country, who is not a target of the fox jackals.