Army Times vs Rumsfeld; Update: DoD responds
posted at 6:12 pm on November 4, 2006 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
First, read this great post by InstaPundit, which sums up a lot of the back and forth over the much-discussed Vanity Fair hitpiece on the SecDef.
Now, noted military expert Andrew Sullivan (tongue firmly in cheek) is flogging the big story about the “four military papers” calling for Rumsfeld to go. Does Sullivan know that the Army Times does not equal the Stars and Stripes? Does he know that AT and the other “military papers” with similar names are privately owned by Gannett? Thus, they’re not officially representative of anything other than themselves and possibly Gannett’s position. And I’d be willing to bet that a poll of the Army Times’ readers would find that the papers’ position isn’t all that strong among them.
Sullivan won’t care about any of that, of course. It’s one of those facts that inconveniently get in the way of his worldview, like, just to cherrypick, the president’s position on gay marriage being no reason to throw away an entire war, especially when the opposition party claims to hold a similar position on that issue.
I’m still supportive of Rumsfeld. There have been mistakes, such as not putting Syria and Iran in their places and stopping their interference in Iraq when it might have done some good, but that mistake doesn’t start or stop with Rumsfeld imho. I do think in retrospect it would have been a good idea to wait on the Pentagon’s transformation until after the first round of the GWOT was won and behind us, but I’m open to contrary arguments on that. And it’s very possible, even likely, that taking out al-Sadr before he became such a menace would have gone a long way toward quelling the violence, but as far as I know the decision to leave him alone was made in the field and in line with the Iraqi government’s wishes. Ultimately, the SecDef serves at the pleasure of the president, and the president is fine with Rumsfeld. That doesn’t mean everything, but it doesn’t mean nothing either.
Additionally, it’s hard to see what’s going on in Iraq right now as being as much a failure of our policy as it is a failure of their culture. When a bombing at a golden mosque can trigger months of sectarian bloodletting, and it’s impossible to stop all bombers everywhere in a country the size of Iraq, then the culture may just be too brittle in the short run to achieve peace. Maybe it’s possible in the long run, after the hostilities have run their course, but the short run looks like a brutal affair that we can at best manage from above. It’s hard to see how any policy calibration on our part can, at least in the short run, make up for the gaps in what looks increasingly like a tribal and very retrograde society. And I’m not just talking about Iraq.
Update (Allahpundit): Defense has issued a point by point response to the Army Times’s editorial.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
(I’m still supportive of Rumsfeld)
Here here. So am I. . .
Texyank on November 4, 2006 at 6:19 PM
I bet somewhere in that Sullivan article he said “gobsmackingly vile.” For some reason that’s about the extent of his vocabulary.
Capitalist Infidel on November 4, 2006 at 6:21 PM
When I saw the report this morning I had to chuckle because all of those papers have a primary reader…..the guy who wants to check up on the current promotion scores!…other then that it is a contractor look at the military.
BTW…I read the Stars & Stripes daily. For you lefties out there you might be surprised to learn that the S&S is very careful to balance their reporting. Both sides get their say. If news is bad, they tell the troops. If news is good, they tell the troops. Damn good paper for just reading the news instead of slogging thru an Olberman or Clift.
Rummy…..mistakes…..Sadr is one big one. Stay…yep!
His main detractors in the military are those who still want the Army that can charge across the stepps of Russia.
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Well said, Bryan.
Christoph on November 4, 2006 at 6:48 PM
How many regular folk (whatever that means) know these ‘mag rags’ like the Army Times are owned by Gannett?
I sure hope it’s a well known fact, but I don’t think it is.
shooter on November 4, 2006 at 7:46 PM
The only thing I’ve discovered Andrew Sullivan being noted for is wrong on almost all issues of consequence. This time, he doesn’t even bother to write his own article - just copy and paste someone else’s. I suppose one steaming pile is just like any other. Of course things are not great in Iraq right now. We can’t simply flip a switch and the nation changes from a dictatorship to a democracy. The population of that country will have to want freedom and want democracy.
thedecider on November 4, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Thank you so much for this post. I was irate when I saw the editorial from the so-called “military paper,” the Army Times. Rumsfeld’s regard and respect for our troops is obvious every time I hear him speak. Americans who rely strictly on the MSM may well have a negative perception of Rumsfeld, since that is all they are fed. Those who listen to him speak, and who have a chance to talk with the troops themselves, may well have a different perspective. Journalistic integrity appears to be a thing of the past. Today’s press is doing Americans and our military personnel a huge disservice by not separating politics from their journalism.
eucher on November 4, 2006 at 7:55 PM
Sully knows full well who writes the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Times papers. It is, as alread mentioned, inconvenient for him to bother saying so, because his point depends upon the reader supposing these articles equate to the Army calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster.
Of course, he also knows that could never happen, active duty servicemembers cannot call for the resignation of a superior in the chain of command. This does not mean they are without recourse, there are numerous avenues by which servicemen can seek redress of wrongs done up the chain. But you will never hear uniformed folks demanding the resignation of the Commander in Chief, SecDef, the Secretaries of the several branches, or other civilian staff members of those offices.
During my last deployed tour (began 11 November 2001), Navy Times stopped being delivered to the battle group, in response to an assortment of anti-military/anti-war articles, which were demoralizing to the crews. Limerick is right, the only thing those are good for are promotion and award listings.
Freelancer on November 4, 2006 at 8:06 PM
The more the left speaks, the farther right the majority of the country is going to swing.
See ya on Tuesday, at the polls.
.
The Machine on November 4, 2006 at 8:08 PM
If all the bad new about Iraq has got you second guessing the President and Rummy, then this is the site you need to visit, here you will find just how grossly the news has been distorted. Thanks to Bryan and Allahpundit for bringing it to our collective attention. Read and see the mainstay talking points of the left concerning Iraq get knocked flat one at a time. Truly a breath of fresh air, and just what I needed !
Maxx on November 4, 2006 at 8:11 PM
Bryan,
You’re last paragraph is the same sort of thing I’ve been telling folks for months, well said.
A mistake that the administration is allowing to continue, is calling the current state in Iraq war. We are not at war in Iraq, the war is over. We are trying to help the Iraqi government reconstruct how their country functions, while Iranian, Syrian, and some Iraqi terrorists continue to fight against the development of a free society.
For those who think that if the war is over we should have left, the war in Germany was over in 1945, and we still haven’t left. We’re still in Japan and Korea as well. No other nation in history has put an effort into helping rebuild, ON BEHALF OF THE ORIGINAL CITIZENS, the country they defeated in war. Even Great Britain simply established Imperial protectorates in their conquered countries, assuming primary sovereignty over the indigenous people. The U.S. has never done that. Ever.
AP, that response from DoD is excellent, thank you.
Freelancer on November 4, 2006 at 8:19 PM
This is not the first time that Gannett Publishing has printed some trash under the Army Times. Perhaps it’s time for the DOD to consider terminating the contract for the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Times from Gannett. I’m sure that their are serving personnel that could perform the service without the bias.
gmaninatl on November 4, 2006 at 8:26 PM
Mr Rumsfeld can just issue and order saying DOD will not pay for Subscriptions as they do now. DOD via their many units, offices etc, pay a lot of money for these papers.
StuLongIsland on November 4, 2006 at 8:43 PM
When I was on active duty the only time I would purchase a copy of the Army Times was A) When cut off scores were posted B) A new pay chart was posted or C) when the E-7 or E-8 list were posted. Otherwise it didn’t offer a lot that I had any desire to read.
SPIFF1669 on November 4, 2006 at 8:45 PM
I think I’m gonna start a paper called “Democrat Times” and then call for the Democrat leaders to resign.
Perchant on November 4, 2006 at 8:59 PM
The thing about Sullivan is: If President Bush had just allowed him to marry his boyfriend, Sullivan would probably still be on ‘the right side’ of this argument.
But yeah, I notice that even FOX news is reporting this as if it is the universal opinion of the military rather than a political effort by an essentially liberal owned publications group who merely happens to be selling papers to people in the military.
Back in my day, I only remember reading the Army Times three times; The first was the one free night in Ft. Greely after after finishing the Arctic Warfare course, and absolutely nothing to do but read the paper someone left behind in the barraks. (Headed for Jungle School in Panama the very next day….. Talk about ‘Climate Change… Whew!)
The other two times I read it I was looking in the ‘want ads’ for something to do in my field after my enlistment was up.
LegendHasIt on November 4, 2006 at 8:59 PM
Gee, I think I need a new mouse…. I didn’t click anything, yet my post got ’sent’ before I was through….
ANYWAY, Rumsfeld is by far the best SecDef in my lifetime, if not in the history of the nation. He is not only preparing us for the actions that we are fighting now, but for the ones we are most likely to fight in the forseeable future. Most of the Generals that don’t like him (and most of THEM being retired conventional force leaders with some sort of political aspirations) are ones who see their old cherished units and/or weapons systems falling by the wayside on the road to the future of the military we will most likely need to survive.
Facts are, that unless we go to war with China, we are going to need more Special Forces type troops than conventional units. And ‘Leg’ leaders hate the ’snake eaters’ about as much as they hate the enemy. Been that way since the first Green Beanie was worn, if not earlier.
Elite unit service is, in general, a ‘career killer’ for people who plan to have more than one star. Most of the big brass that even have a Ranger Tab on their shoulder just went through the School to ‘get their ticket punched’… Not because they believe in the Ranger (or any other Spec Ops) mission.
But that is the direction that world events have led, that is the world that Rummy is preparing for; and most of the ‘brass’ resents it.
I for one would be glad to put in the uniform once again if Rummy had any use for a decrepit old guy like me; I’d be proud and honored to work for him.
LegendHasIt on November 4, 2006 at 9:17 PM
…in a related story, the Army Times, in its latest issue, gave over the entire last page to the article (published elsewhere in civilian publications) to the essay written by Pat Tillman’s brother…the one not the least approving of the entire war effort. It was very much talked about when it came out. I read the excerpts printed in big type on the table of contents page and a few lines off the page itself, but couldn’t get all the way through it without wretching….
…were I in a position to write something for him to read, I’m sure that he’d say the same about me, if he were to say anything.
The Army Times is a more or less official organ of the Army, but has long had a slant…it seemed more contended under the Clinton adminstration, for instance.
Puritan1648 on November 4, 2006 at 9:21 PM
…and, it’s a failure of *our* culture, as well. The Left began the war promising that it would be a morass, a mire, and “Bush’s Vietnam”…and it’s taken ‘em three years to deliver, but they gave us what they promised.
Once again, we win on the ground, with casualties, under extraodinarily difficult conditions — for one thing, they’re surrounded by tribal and combattive people many of whom aren’t the least bit interested in peace, justice and civil order — and are being constantly told — even by Cronkite, once again — how messed up things are, and how immoral we are as a nation for interfering in other peoples affairs, etc.
I wish that the Left, just once, would promise us pie and ice cream. They’d deliver, and I could use some right now.
Puritan1648 on November 4, 2006 at 9:25 PM
President Bush should have accepted Rumsfeld’s resignation offer after Abu Ghraib, which was as amateurish a piece of military intelligence work (and control of the issue, once it was leaked by a non-com) as I have ever witnessed. That they did not have as many video cameras in that prison as are in the average 7-11, or in any regular U.S. prison, and that they did not forbid anyone -in or out of uniform- from bringing in a “personal camera” was a stuptifyingly self-defeating bit of “bad planning”.
The propaganda value of the photos (obviously relatively-harmless incidents, when compared to having an electric drill used on your skull, as the Iraqi sectarians do to their own doomed prisoners) and the tactically-exaggerated events (that were recorded and released by the moronic soldiers involved) has probably cost us a extra 1,000 military casualties that need not have ever happened. And it created a refreshed insurgency that might never have had as perfect an excuse to attack us as these images of rank American decadence, arrogance and sheer juvenile imbecility. If jihadists had staged them, they could not have done a more effective job of defamation, desecration and demoralization.
Someone in charge needed to accept responsibility for this “gaffe”. Why Bush did not clean house (and why he never has, on any issue) and get someone in control with a little more psy-ops savvy, remains baffling.
The cureent DoD strategy is possefootingly infuriating and it would be good to get a new face in front of it to steer our efforts in a stronger direction. The Islamic Imperialistic threat requires a fresh fighter. Rumsfeld had his shot. He’s good at talking into a battle, but not very capable of handling these Maoist guerrilla methods that the jihadists/Baathists/insurgents/sectarians are utuilizing to erode and rattle the troopers who have to drive around in sitting-duck-mobiles, waiting to see if the shaped-IED or CNN-ready snipers will get them before their tour of duty is extended once again.
I am in favor of battling harder, smarter and dirtier.
Not mouthing platitudes that are as stale as popcorn from the premiere of “The Sands of Iowa Jima”.
Time to get a Patton in charge and let Rummy fade away.
profitsbeard on November 4, 2006 at 10:31 PM
So who’s your Patton, prof? I’m not being snarky–just asking. If we had somebody better than Rumsfeld waiting in the wings, I’d be all for putting them in. Because you’re right about what you say–the Pentagon has bungled the infowar from start to finish (though they’re getting better at it lately). But in the current environment, firing Rumsfeld is more likely to give us a George McClellan than a George Patton. And that would not be an improvement.
Bryan on November 4, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Very insightful comment regarding Rumsfeld. He’s made a lot of changes to modernize the military which was still operating under a ‘cold war’ mentality. The world has changed and so have our enemies. The Pentagon can either change with it, or look like an ancient dinosaur. Bureaucracy’s create complacency and some people don’t like change.
thedecider on November 4, 2006 at 10:53 PM
You don’t think Rumsfeld would do that if given the opportunity? The man is an absolute master of that kind of stuff.
I agree that it would be great to see that kind of stuff happen.
Unfortunately, The President won’t let him do that because if you think the media and the Democrats in the legislature, and our so-called allies and ‘world opinion’ are bad now, the furor from them over fighting the ruthless way would be overwhelming.
You know what we face, I know what we face and most of the people that frequent Hot Air and Free Republic etc. know it… But the rest of the world doesn’t.
We do it the way that you would like to do it and we will be at all out war with ALL of Islam at once…. And we will have to do it all by ourselves (Well, maybe Australia and Poland would stick,) but Great Britain, Italy and the others will not only quit helping, they will do everything short of declaring war on us to impede our efforts.
Yeah, it will probably come to that eventually anyway, but I reckon that while there is any hope of pulling it off short of another world war we ought to try it the kinder, gentler way.
If it works the way President Bush is trying to do it, if we are REALLY, REALLY LUCKY, President Bush will be honored as the greatest visionary of the 21st century and millions of lives and millions of trillions of dollars will be saved.
If it doesn’t work, then at least we tried, and we will have managed to eke out another few years of comfort, prosperity and the opportunity to sit at our keyboards and express our opinions on how stupid everyone else is..
LegendHasIt on November 5, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Sorry, I left out a very important part:
Unfortunately, The President won’t let him do that because if you think the media and the Democrats in the legislature, and our so-called allies and ‘world opinion’ And the sabotaging clintonian and socialistic bureaucrats in the State Department, DOD, and CIA are bad now, the furor from them over fighting the ruthless way would be overwhelming.
Yes, it would be wonderful to see the Administration “clean House” in all those places. But that ‘ain’t a gonna happen’ short of an attack on our soil that makes 9/11 look like a minor irritation. We, as a nation, are too soft and too ignorant to do anything that would cause any deprivation or discomfort.
LegendHasIt on November 5, 2006 at 12:12 AM
My nephew just got back from his first tour in Iraq on Thursday. He essentially said the same thing. When asked what we should really do, he said, “Carpet bomb them back to the stone age.” (please don’t ban me for that - I am just relaying something he said.) He also said that many Iraqis are soooo ignorant that they think the Americans (in Bradley’s, with kevlar, m16’s etc) are Sunnis and that’s why they engage American soldiers. He also said that most of the iraqi army is corrupt. He said it’s absoluntely nuts over there and that it really doesn’t matter if we pull out now or in 5 years, the outcome will still be the same. most likely, failure. It was a very sobering conversation, to say the least. And my nephew is NOT a flaming liberal. Oh, he also said the only reason he’s alive is because the insurgents are really bad shots - snipers shoot often, but they usually miss.
pullingmyhairout on November 5, 2006 at 12:09 PM
but he didn’t say that it was Bush’s fault - he said the violence is really a cultural thing. they have no problem blowing each other up over different prayer rituals. seriously. they are fighting each other, not us, in many cases.
pullingmyhairout on November 5, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Interesting opinion about USA Today’s purchase of these 4 newspapers:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/11/05/why-did-gannett-buy-the-military-times/
The editor of these newspapers, Robert Hodierne, has this quote about his Vietnam coverage on his very own web site, he appears to wear it as a badge of honor:
“… such stories do not border on treason — they are treason.” — U.S. Army spokesman in Vietnam, 1969
http://www.hodierne.com/sandssplash.htm
JustTruth101 on November 5, 2006 at 1:48 PM
You hit the nail on the head. It is GWB that is the problem.
We already are at war with all of Islam, it is just that the Bush administration still thinks “Islam is the Religion of Peace”
We will get nuked if we do not start taking the Islamic Fanatics seriously. They have declared War on America but GWB still thinks he is going to spread Democracy to a bunch of people that still live in the 7th century and are subservients to a Religion called Islam.
pullingmyhairout nephew’s is right and if we would fight this war like we fought WWII, we would be winning. We should have carpet bombed Fallujah and killed Al Sadre a long time ago.
Appeasement does not work, never has.
ScottyDog on November 5, 2006 at 6:19 PM
Some of you really do seem to want to bring on Armageddeon; Odd that you seem to share the same goals that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs do.
Oh, I share the same feelings of frustration and even hatred for Mohammed’s cult members all too often, but then sanity (and hope for the future for all mankind) take over.
LegendHasIt on November 5, 2006 at 8:56 PM
LegendHasIt said, on November 5, 2006 at 12:02 AM,We do it the way that you would like to do it and we will be at all out war with ALL of Islam at once….
Kralizec on November 5, 2006 at 9:37 PM
Let’s try this again. LegendHasIt said, on November 5, 2006 at 12:02 AM,
You must grant that the Americans will no longer be at war with whomever they kill. The Arab and Persian portions of the Dar al-Islam are very fragile; if American armies kill the rulers, destroy vital infrastructure, and seize oilfields, the rest will take care of itself. This sort of warfare is “post-colonial,” or “pre-colonial”: Without the burdens of colonial administration and “nation-building,” war becomes fast-moving, frugal, and productive.
The problem is that most Americans, including the President, don’t have the stomach for this sort of warfare. They’re not satisfied merely to avoid targeting populaces; either they’re too fastidious to make war at all, or they feel obligated to try to provide aid, security, order, freedom, and even prosperity in the aftermath. This present American moral education, reinforced over a lifetime, delivers the greatest military power that’s ever existed into weakness.
Kralizec on November 5, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Well said indeed.
The American soldier has the skills to win - they must be allowed to do so by those who lead them, whether on the battlefield or at home in government. No matter what party.
Without the will to win total victory on our terms, there will be no victory at all, except in the pages of propaganda.
The point must be made to those who lead whether on the battlefield or in the halls of power in Washington to allow our warfighters to win their war without restraint upon the “niceties”.
Be assured that our enemies will not play by the “rulebook” or be nice to others - or even worry about playing well with others.
In war, nice loses. Strength, will, and determination wins - we have the best Armed Forces on the planet - let them do their job!
Emmett J. on November 5, 2006 at 11:13 PM
I subscribe to Army Times and have for quite some time seen their bias. They are not the Stars and Stripes (which can be just as bad sometimes), but are exactly as AP said, for profit.
There is some good reporting and up to date info on gear and Army news, but I don’t believe I will be resubscribing. A lot of the anti-leadership and anti-Army views in it seem a bit out there for an ARMY newspaper.
thomashton on November 6, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Actually appeasement and hand wringing will bring the wrath of war and defeat. Sanity has nothing to do with it.
Many people fail to realize that they have declared War on America and unlike our diplomats they mean it.
Do you think they were just kidding?
ScottyDog on November 6, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Here is a little game, should any of you folks like to play:
Stand in the middle of the room, away from all chairs, furnishings, supports etc.
Raise your right hand if you ever served in any direct combat military unit at all.
Raise your left hand if you were ever a member of an elite combat unit (Ranger, Special Forces, Seal, Marine Recondo, Air Commando, {SAS, SBS etc. for Brit’s or Aussies should they choose to play this game.}).
Raise your right foot if you are a graduate of any of the U.S. Military Acadamies or the Army War College. (Or Sandhurst, Duntroon etc.)
Raise your left foot if you have a Masters or higher in International Management and Strategic Planning or a similar field.
Still standing?
OK, just what are your qualifications for wanting to start and direct a world war?
Look, I’m not disagreeing that it will PROBABLY come to that, eventually.
I’d just like to give the middle path a try before forcing the American people to have to make sacrifices like they did during WWII, without having the strong allies that we had back then.
If by some miracle Bush’s plan for Iraq and the middle east in general works, we can maybe avoid all that. If we do as some of you want right now, the whole world is going to be sorry.
LegendHasIt on November 6, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Aw, Heck. Please disregard the above.
I promised myself a couple of years ago I’d quit getting in these stupid ‘Mine is Bigger’ games. All too often, I backslide into what only leads to irritation or frustration.
As Emily Litella famously said:
“OH! Nevermind.”
LegendHasIt on November 6, 2006 at 9:35 PM