What would Hawkeye think of this!? Independent thinking at the Army Times?
The Military Times Media – the publisher of the papers avidly read by millions of American military service men and women and their families – has summoned up its collective courage and editorialized upon the man at the top of the Pentagon. First reported by NBC, the Army Times and its partner military weeklies have released the full text of their Monday editorials calling for….
the removal of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
No kidding.
Here’s the direct Army Times link
… 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. (e.g., They drank the Kool-aid too. — w.s.h.) 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.
Amazing…. So far, no comment from the Pentagon or the man himself.
No doubt Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, et.al. will be demanding the government cut off ties to the Military Times Media (owned since 1997 by Gannett) – or “embed” it back directly under the Pentagon. (say, under the “Office of Special Propaganda”) Or they will interview indignant gung-ho spouses saying the papers have “betrayed” their loved ones – that they’re “not supporting the troops.”
To the contrary, I am rather impressed that the editorial begins with a half century old quote from correspondent Marguerite Higgins:
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
Helen,
While I agree with you that this is a remarkable development given that it’s candid and brutally honest, keep two things in mind. First, many of the major neocons already came out and said this war was executed horribly (which is different of course than admitting that the war was one of the most morally bankrupt endeavors in recent history). Second, the op-ed makes no mention of the fact that our servicemen and women are in danger essentially because Bush lied, twisted intelligence, and misled us all into a completely unnecessary war.
Still, this is a step in the right direction. I guess it would be unrealistic to hope army commanders to question the morality of the war they are ordered to fight. At least in this country.
Remember, the 4 service newspapers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corp Times) are not published by the military. They are closely aligned with the military, but they are owned and published by the Gannett company.
This shows how much Bush really cares about our troops. Their safety and well-being require a change at the Pentagon, but Bush is supporting Rumsfeld because he thinks it sounds good to the yahoo base before an election.
The sentiment is nothing new. The uniformed military never liked Rumsfeld, because they viewed him as a threat to their bureaucratic way of life. This mutual dislike between Rummy and the officer corps predated the invasion of Iraq. The only difference is now they have an excuse to go public with their criticism, and an angle of attack that doesn’t involve defending their pork barrell procurement policies. Like everything else in American politics, the argument is not about whatever issue is nominally being discussed. It’s about money and power. Always.