Some people want Donald Rumsfeld gone.
“I’m not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld,” Lott, R-Mississippi, told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday morning. “I don’t think he listens enough to his uniformed officers.”
Lott added his voice to that of John McCain, the Man Who Would Be King. Paulie, et al, talked about this topic. Nathan Hale thinks it’s time for Rummy to go, too.
I pay attention to Paulie and the gang because they are far closer to the Pentagon action than I am. But I worry that the “uniformed officers” Lott is talking about are senior ones–generals and admirals–at the Pentagon. They are seldom happy about change, and Rumsfeld has been very (dare I say it?) progressive about the form the military should take. My knowledge of junior officer opinion comes second-hand, and they overwhelmingly support Rumsfeld.
If Rumsfeld manages to make it through eight years as SecDef, the military will change. Eight years is a third of the normal military career. It represents some 24,000 new officers graduating from the military academies and assuming leadership positions. Those commissioned second lieutenants or ensigns in 2001 can end up with gold oak leaves in that time. Bureaucracies change slowly, but military line units adapt far more rapidly than ossified headquarters. And the Pentagon houses many relics in uniform or suit and tie.
Personally, I’d like to see him stick it out for both Bush terms. His attitude can certainly bring change, and the young professionals out there can make sure it meets the requirements of line units rather than those of people far removed from operations.
Bunker,
You’re too kind.
I had a chat with someone lately about “Hillary’s Generals.” Wesley K. Clark who is a guttersnipe of the first order, is the poster boy for the group. “Teethsuckers” is the adjective an old F-4 pilot I know applied to them. These guys reached flag level after the Soviets broke down, and things seemed bleak for them to be able to reach the high ground. Except playing the game.
Rumsfeld hates those guys. As did many, many fine men and women who left the military in the 1990s. I served under Clark twice in the 80s and have an extremely low regard for him.
The fellows on the ground love Rumsfeld. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly, he makes decisions quickly and doesn’t quibble, and he wants the process to follow the form or function, and not vice versa. He infuriates those whom I mentioned above.
I am a big fan of transformation. The Army needs and is getting some streamlining. I am not a fan of disbanding the heavy formations, as some in that school are. Nothing like an Abrams in the intersection to keep the kiddies looking both ways before crossing. 2000-lb bombs make for good neighbors, all that.
I also think that the Army needs another couple or few Active Divisions, plus the appropriate Corps Support troops. We have no reserve, and the National Guard should not be deployed for a year to eighteen months in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s not fair to the Guard, nor to us. We need professionals, and this is not a slight on the Guard. Regulars sign up for the heavy lifting by design.
I personally love Rumsfeld. I wish on some days his neck wasn’t so stiff. On other days, I love him to death when dealing Kung Fu Chops to ignorance.
So there you are.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — December 20, 2004 @ 8:56 pm
Having two close friends who are 4 star rank in the army [OK, one retired two weeks ago…] I take exception to catergorizing either as “playing the game” to gain their rank. Both are distinquished combat veteran’s of several wars…in positions from platoon leaders to brigade commanders and have been “the troops on the ground”. However, in the limited conversations I have had with both on the subject, limited by the amount they could say….I gather that they both respect and support Rumsfeld in the changes he is making but I get the feeling also that they believe his arrogance does lead to, at least, the appearance of not heeding advice to well which at times is a hindrance to the very changes he is trying to implement.
To me the verdict is still out on Rummie, we’ll see how adaptable to change he is. He’d better change his tune and start lobbying for a larger army before National Guard enlistments dry up and the shit hits the fan in some other theater of operations where we’ll have no one to send.
Comment by Wallace-Midland, Texas — December 20, 2004 @ 10:55 pm
Wallace,
In no way shape or form did I mean to impugn all flag officers. The title I bear most proudly is “veteran” and I respect all service. The military life – a military career – is a hard life.
I did mean to impugn some of them, as quite a few namby-pamby types gained (to me) undeserved rank during the 1990s.
And, for what it’s worth, I concur with your assessment regarding arrogance (or perceived arrogance, which is tantamount to the same thing).
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — December 21, 2004 @ 5:40 am
Normally, I give anyone with stars on his collar the benefit of the doubt–for the first star. The subsequent promotions often have more to do with politics, although not all. You don’t get to be the 82nd ABN Division Commander without having commanded at every level within the Division.
But there are some who leap to the top for no reason other than politics. Chappie James is an example. An excellent commander, he eventually got his star. Within only three or four years he had four. He was personable and a good speaker. He was also black at a time when few in the flag ranks were. He probably deserved all the rank, but his rapid promotion came for different reasons.
I’ve known other men who lost their “sponsor” and never went further. Without an advocate, getting the first and subsequent stars is nearly impossible.
We have always had political and warrior generals. Usually the mix is pretty good, and desireable. Think Powell and Stormin’ Norman. The ’90s shifted the balance with Hillary being involved in the promotion process and using the military as a social experiment.
I am a “light warrior” having spent most of my career in the variations of AF SpecOps. But the heavies have a place, and cannot be discarded. Unfortunately, the emphasis in Pentagon budgets is on the big stuff. I’d like to see some of the things Hack writes about be upgraded. Like a 9mm or .45 cal shoulder weapon for the troops–accuracy over 100 yards is not as important as knock-down at close range. Those things will not change unless Rumsfeld can get roadblocks out of the way.
You may find it hard to believe, but I was sometimes described as arrogant, too. I was also accused of not listening to advice. I always did. But I didn’t always follow it. My job was to make the decision, and somone–whose advice I didn’t follow–was going to pissed. If I found they never had advice worth listening to, they no longer had a job.
I think that’s what worries some of the brass about Rumsfeld.
Comment by Bunker — December 21, 2004 @ 5:59 am
Homespun Bloggers Weekly Symposium
The question this week is from Ken at Esoteric*Diatribe: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld now finds himself in the midst of the bitter and often cruel politics which have become a hallmark of the D.C. political landscape. In the past few…
Trackback by The Commons at Paulie World — December 23, 2004 @ 9:48 am