The Generals Are Revolting
There has been much in the news recently about a handful of Democratically-inclined ground-pounding type of former General objecting to the President or Rumsfeld.... I give them their due; one of my heroes, Curt LeMay, talked back to LBJ and Macnamara about Vietnam after he retired (and was just as wrong as Zinni and Co. are about Iraq). (In fact, both Kennedy and LBJ kept him on active duty far longer than he himself wanted, especially during the 1964 Pres. campaign, just to avoid the verbal atomic blast they knew was coming from him when he became a civilian, but that's another story....)
Fortunately, Scott Ott, America's Greatest Reporter, has spoken to the rest of the military's Generals, and quite a few other retired officers (including myself) and reports the following:
I told him what I thought, but my remarks were not printable. Especially the part about Zinni.
Monk
Update 20 Apr 06: Izmud comments:
No, there are no FCC guidelines for blogs, thank God, but the demands of polite society and Christian morality incline me against publishing obscenity. That's why there haven't been any pictures of Cynthia McKinney on the site, for instance. Nonetheless, I have less objection to the Generals speaking out than to what they are saying. As I said, I'd have to fault Curt LeMay (peace be upon him) for the same thing if I objected to that aspect of the matter. And nothing the current crop of revolting officers has done rises to the level of MacArthur's disdain for Truman, or McClellan's various and sundry treasons under Lincoln.
No, I object to the substance of the remarks and to the Generals themselves. Zinni, quite apart from being a sonofabitch, as I hear from people that worked for him, is about the least joint, most ground-centric, mud-minded cavalry general our country has produced in the last generation. If he'd worked on the Army Ordnance Board in 1900 (and yes, I know he's a Marine), he would have been the one to issue the order not to procure machine guns (who needs those newfangled nuisances anyway?) Is it any wonder that Zinni has become a de facto Democrat, undermining an ongoing war effort to the best of his ability, when many ground-pounder types made the leap to that party during the Clinton years after the White House staffer imbroglio. Clinton bought off the Army and Marines, who were up in arms about the insults to men in uniform, by telling them they could have anything they wanted within reason as long as they'd shut up. And they did. And they got what they wanted. So now there's a devil's bargain and an implicit understanding among military muggles and mud-minders that Democrats are better for their Services. (Can you say Wesley Clarke?) I think that motivates a lot of the current revolt. The Army brass, at least, wants out of Iraq so it can go back to doing what it does best: lobbying Congress for money.
Monk
Fortunately, Scott Ott, America's Greatest Reporter, has spoken to the rest of the military's Generals, and quite a few other retired officers (including myself) and reports the following:
April 19, 2006
U.S. Generals Call for Resignation of Media Leaders
by Scott Ott
(2006-04-19) — A growing movement of retired and active-duty U.S. military officers, angry at the mismanagement, arrogance and even deception that have hampered U.S. efforts to secure peace and democracy in Iraq, have begun quietly calling for the resignation of top leaders they blame for the difficulties.
“I believe that it’s time for them to step down,” said one unnamed retired three-star general. “The editors of The New York Times and Washington Post and the news producers at CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC should resign effective immediately.”
“They’ve formed a tight cabal that focuses only on news that reinforces their neo-journ ideology,” said another unnamed general. “Despite the urgent need for actual reporting from Iraq, they have failed to put enough boots on the ground in country.”
“As civilians, they make editorial decisions without any understanding of history or military strategy,” said another retired officer, “and they’re trying to run the war coverage from hotels in the cloister of the Green Zone, without consulting with our leaders and troops on the frontlines.”
The generals who all requested anonymity, in the words of one, “so I won’t be bothered by a bunch of calls from reporters writing redundant stories,” said the leading news media gatekeepers should be replaced by “more centrist voices” who will be honest with America, and not blindly devoted “advancing the neo-journ agenda.”
I told him what I thought, but my remarks were not printable. Especially the part about Zinni.
Monk
Update 20 Apr 06: Izmud comments:
What?!?!?!? Your comments were unprintable? Why is that? I'd like to hear them even if you have to bleep out parts of words to make it printable and meet FCC guidelines. BTW, is that the restriction? I thought you could post just about anything these days, language, pics, etc.
I think you've had discussions in these pages regarding the wisdom of the curretn leadership in their approach to managing the Iraq war so I won't belabor that, but I think it's the right of those retireees to voice their opinions, and certainly their obligation to have an impact if they can. One of the bennies of hanging up the uniform after being a powerful personage. Cheers.
No, there are no FCC guidelines for blogs, thank God, but the demands of polite society and Christian morality incline me against publishing obscenity. That's why there haven't been any pictures of Cynthia McKinney on the site, for instance. Nonetheless, I have less objection to the Generals speaking out than to what they are saying. As I said, I'd have to fault Curt LeMay (peace be upon him) for the same thing if I objected to that aspect of the matter. And nothing the current crop of revolting officers has done rises to the level of MacArthur's disdain for Truman, or McClellan's various and sundry treasons under Lincoln.
No, I object to the substance of the remarks and to the Generals themselves. Zinni, quite apart from being a sonofabitch, as I hear from people that worked for him, is about the least joint, most ground-centric, mud-minded cavalry general our country has produced in the last generation. If he'd worked on the Army Ordnance Board in 1900 (and yes, I know he's a Marine), he would have been the one to issue the order not to procure machine guns (who needs those newfangled nuisances anyway?) Is it any wonder that Zinni has become a de facto Democrat, undermining an ongoing war effort to the best of his ability, when many ground-pounder types made the leap to that party during the Clinton years after the White House staffer imbroglio. Clinton bought off the Army and Marines, who were up in arms about the insults to men in uniform, by telling them they could have anything they wanted within reason as long as they'd shut up. And they did. And they got what they wanted. So now there's a devil's bargain and an implicit understanding among military muggles and mud-minders that Democrats are better for their Services. (Can you say Wesley Clarke?) I think that motivates a lot of the current revolt. The Army brass, at least, wants out of Iraq so it can go back to doing what it does best: lobbying Congress for money.
Monk
posted by Monk | 14:57
