Rumsfeld and the Generals News

The weekend produced a bunch of commentary on topic.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal has a decent discussion, especially with this comment:

If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.

Our point here isn't to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there's a reason the word "snafu" began as a military acronym whose meaning we can't reprint in a family newspaper. But if we're going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.

They have other pointed opinions that really must be considered on the topic.

Then there is the Chicago Sun-Times that comes out and just asks:

But the question really isn't whether Rumsfeld should resign. He has already resigned several times and had President Bush tear up his letters of resignation. He clearly is taking responsibility for his actions on a continuing basis.

But now that a galaxy of flag officers are raining down on Rumsfeld demanding his resignation, no one seems to have bothered to ask which, if any, of these generals had ever submitted his own resignation in protest against the conduct of the Iraq war, or the bumpy transition we are locked in now. The demands for Rumsfeld's resignation began with Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Personally I think this is a good question to ask, but not of the highest value in the discussion. It does give you perspective though. If Rumsfeld was so impossible and unreasonable, why put up with it?

Newsweek has an article on the issue. They point to Shinseki as a case of a general not taking part in the "revolt."

Gen. Eric Shinseki, former chief of staff of the Army, says he is "at peace." But reached last week, he didn't sound all that peaceful. In the winter of 2003, alone among the top brass, Shinseki had warned Congress that occupying Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, had rewarded Shinseki for his honesty by publicly castigating and shunning him.
....
Shinseki, who has retired to Hawaii, was clearly uncomfortable with the role of martyr. He had no desire to join the chorus of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. He was circumspect about criticizing Rumsfeld at all, but he seemed to be struggling to disguise his feelings. He pointedly said that the "person who should decide on the number of troops [to invade Iraq] is the combatant commander"—Gen. Tommy Franks, and not Rumsfeld.

I find it interesting how the writer goes to such details on Shinseki's emotions and discomfort. It strikes me that they are trying to build more into Shinseki's responses than we the reader can hear for ourselves. But then, I don't see Newsweek as being a balanced source of news.

Read the rest for yourself. The Opinion Journal piece gives you the most to think about.