April 26, 2006
Running Rummy Out On A Rail
Lee P. Butler
So why do the six generals and their sudden sycophantic cheerleaders on the Left hate Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Two reasons have become apparent... The overwhelming desire to fight change and the fear of success.
Army Major General John Batiste said, “Civilian control is absolutely paramount, but in order for it to
work, there is a two-way street of respect and dialogue that has to exist.”
In that the words used by the general
are correct, it doesn’t change the fact that the civilian in charge is the one who ultimately makes the decisions after
that leader has heard from all sides concerned.
As it stands, the former military leaders who are now calling for Rumsfeld’s
head on a silver platter have a bone to pick with the civilian SOD because he didn’t follow their plans of action to
either go in with supreme, guns blazing, total annihilating force or we should never have removed Saddam in the first place.
these men, there never was a middle ground. It is of no concern that there were several options on the table and it just so
happens that their suggestions, though given consideration, were not the ones chosen.
Retired Marine lieutenant general
Michael DeLong who was the No. 2 general at United States Central Command wrote, “Mr. Rumsfeld does not give in easily
in disagreements, either, and he will always force you to argue your point thoroughly. This can be tough for some people to
deal with. I witnessed many heated but professional conversations between my immediate commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Mr.
Rumsfeld — but the secretary always deferred to the general on war-fighting issues.”
Even General Tommy
Franks has said that he supports Rumsfeld and the job he has done. It’s fairly reasonable to suppose that some and possibly
many of Gen. Franks suggestions were not utilized by Rumsfeld when he made a decision about an issue.
The reality is
that the military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq were performed in a different manner and with a different set of guidelines
than our military has ever undertaken before.
‘Rummy’ came to the Pentagon with a plan to make the military
more ‘streamlined’. That consisted of a greater use of higher technological military advances and a desire to
implement a more efficient and direct course of action by our military personnel.
What continues to be ignored by those
purveyors of defeat who have done their utter best to paint Iraq as a picture of failure, is the fact that the plan of action
used to invade Iraq was the most swift execution of a military victory the world has ever seen.
The wars with Afghanistan
and Iraq were complete victories and ended years ago, while those victories took place with as little ‘collateral damage’
and with as few civilian casualties that’s ever been allowed in a military conflict.
It is the War on Terror
that now exists in those countries and it is that War on Terror that has caused the most American bloodshed.
Afghanistan and Iraq are countries that have a chance to become democracies in their own right, but will have to work hard
and fight to complete that process in much the same way history has shown every democracy has had to do, military planning
Those generals calling for Rumsfeld to be fired did not want him to change the status quo at the Pentagon
or with it’s military planning. Gen. Batiste admitted that when he attacked the administration by saying they had ‘radically
alter[ed]]] the results of 12 years of deliberate and continuous war planning’ concerning Iraq.
is, would those general’s be just as ready to accept the consequences of the unnecessary death and destruction that
their plan of action probably would have caused?
Fear of Success
The Left in America has a different dog in
They are adamantly opposed to President Bush and every decision he has ever made in the War on Terror, especially
the Bush doctrine of ‘pre-emption’. They oppose every member of his administration and every decision they have
ever made concerning anything, but especially foreign policy decisions and everything that has to do with Iraq.
Left considers the decision to topple Saddam a failure. The invasion of Iraq was a failure. The belief that Iraq and Afghanistan
can be democracies is a failure. The formation of governments in those countries has been a failure. Iraqi women voting for
the first time since Jesus walked the Earth was a failure.
In fact, according to the Left, President Bush should be
Liberals think there has been so much failure in this administration that Thomas Friedman wrote he would
rather let Iran have nuclear weapons than let the Bush administration lead a military strike against them.
there is no one on the Left who has any alternatives to these perceived problems other than leave the region, letting the
Middle East stew in their own discord, oh yeah, and ‘diplomacy’.
Yet this pestilence of pessimism is devoid
of rationalism concerning the premise of their attacks. On almost every layer of negative sentiment they produce, is the reality
that the very subject of their disdain wouldn’t even be possible without the existence of success on some level.
could the toppling of Saddam been so devoid of collateral damage amid the profound military victory if the streamlined military
force had not been a successful endeavor? How could there now be governments in place in Afghanistan and Iraq if the invasion
had not been a success?
Even the fact that terrorist attacks have become the modus operandi of those who don’t
want democracy in those countries proves that our military was so successful that terrorists have been reduced to using the
methods of cowards to fight.
As an Iraqi military moves forward in standing on its own, the eventuality of Iraq becoming
a self-sustaining democracy becomes ever more apparent with each passing day, despite the pontifications of liberals and their
bullhorn of the mainstream media.
Liberals know the only way to thwart the positive aspect of a free Iraq for the Bush
administration is to bring down the administration before that happens. Since Rumsfeld sits at the center of that victory,
they have to take aim at him.
The longer Rumsfeld stays, the more it becomes likely that the success in Iraq will be
accredited to him and the administration that stood behind him.
No matter how much liberals preach that Iraq is a failure,
reality isn’t the stained glass they’ve painted and put in the windows of the church. It’s the activity
beyond that stained glass that will decide success or failure.
The fear of success happening behind that stained glass
is what drives liberal attacks more than anything else.