http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/rumsfeld.resign/index.html

Why do the troops hate the troops?

Here's the editorial:

<i>"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.</i>

amazing disclosure, within the military this energy has been brewing for years on Rummy but the timing just before the election is still curious.

regardless, i didn't think it possible bush/rummy could repeat the same mistakes as johnson/mcnamara, but it seems they have.

Yeah, the timing is convenient. Everyone has an agenda. But it's still worth noting that alot of the military feels this way, and has for quite a while.

Now it is all FOUR branches of the U.S Military that are calling for Rummie's resignation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061104/pl_afp/usvoteiraqmilitary_061104172840

here is where someone from the conservative end of america's political spectrum comes in and notes that editorials written and run by a few don't necessarily reflect the views of everyone that receives the paper

From having worked with a lot of millitary over the past few years, the general opinions seem to be support for the war but exasperation as to the way it's being run.

A lot of marines are feeling handcuffed by their superiors for fears of another civillian casualty event that they feel like they can't do their jobs at all while the insurgents are able to run rampant. Most want a shitload more troops and less politically correct orders.

Now it is all FOUR branches of the U.S Military that are calling for Rummie's resignation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061104/pl_afp/usvoteiraqmilitary_061104172840

It always was those four.

the reason we won the korean war is that we did things like roll up in their cities, fire into the air, and then when they jumped out of their skin and opened fire on us we let them eat hell. now there are reporters and cameras everywhere and everyone thinks sherman, the man who made our nation what it is today, was being speaking regretfully when he said "war is hell"

Now it is all FOUR branches of the U.S Military that are calling for Rummie's resignation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061104/pl_afp/usvoteiraqmilitary_061104172840

Well, all the mags are run by the same guys, but yeah.