Lately, SecDef Rumsfeld has been taking a lot of heat in the media over a handful of retired generals complaining about his style of leadership.

What hasn’t received as much attention is that there are more generals, with as much or more knowledge on said situations, defending Rumsfeld. Monday’s Wall Street Journal ran 3 separate pieces on the story, one of which was an opinion piece co-authored by 4 distinguished retired generals. Retired chairman of the JCS General Myers was quoted on the front page refuting the claims put out by the disgruntled retirees.

So long story short, there are more retired generals and flag officers defending Rumsfeld than there are criticizing him. I suppose it all comes down to what a person wants to believe; they’ll listen to what supports their preconceived notions of the issue.

Why much of this is happening at all is mostly due to Rumsfeld’s long association with the military reform crowd going back to the 70s; Gary Hart (D) Chuck Spinney (the guy behind the A-10) John Boyd (the radical who started it all) and so on. They’ve been pushing a leaner, more flexible military for decades, but they’ve been met by the status quo defenders who stand to lose both their bloated bureaucracy of a military (the fatter the bureaucracy, the more funds they qualify for – kind of like a welfare momma, having kids to get the checks) and the retiring generals who most often turn to the defense contractors for 6 figure consulting fees i.e. they’re being paid to lobby for more gold-plated weaponry and bureaucratic largesse.

More Background

This one is especially enlightening

Dubya may be dumb but he ain't stupid.. he's not about to dumpa guy who is lower in popularity polls more than he is and takes the heat off him in the press...

A lot of the action of the [ some ] generals and such against Rummy may be because he's shaking up the system, true, but the bottom line is the plan to ' save' Iraq after knocking out saddam has come a cropper and the situation is pretty ripe there now.. No one was saying the attack phase wasn't planned right, but they sure are claiming that the ' pacification/democratization '- save the Iraqi people '- phase is far from looking like anyone read the discussion paper or that there even was one..

And everyone knew that it would be Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats. Thus the timing of it all.

Read the Marine Corps' Small Wars Manual I guarantee you Rumsfeld has (he and Bush love the Marines). These wars are not winnable in the traditional sense of the word "win." There has to be a strategy that says, "we're going to get the natives up to a point of governance, and then let them alone."

And usually the natives fail miserably, but our larger point can't be just to democratize everyone, we always go in with a larger reason, and try to leave with enough trappings of democracy as possible.

A book you'd enjoy is by Max Boot The Savage Wars of Peace. It's not meant to be a book on the Corps, but it relies heavily on Marine stories as the Corps was the tip of the spear during our days of "gunboat diplomacy." (No oxymoron there, the Marines came by boat of course.)

Rumsfeld has never been a favorite of mine but I have always agreed with the concept of using a lean and more maneuverable military (let us think Army here) without all of the bloat. He is difficult to get along with but I can relate to that also. And as we all know, people do not take kindly to change, even if it benefits them.

I think the invasion plans did not take into consideration the after action plan in a realistic manner which caused a great many of the problems we are seeing today. To me, the real problem lies with the State Department. It is kind of kept quiet, but they were in charge for a period of time (sort of) and that is when things got worse.

I fully believe that it does not matter what the generals think unless too many of them are against him – it only matters what the President believes because, unless there is some sort of crime, it is his choice and his alone.

It is difficult to know the true story but I have heard enough, even from those generals who support him, that he is a difficult man.

If ya really want to know how Rumsfeld really thinks, you oughta read Rumsfelds Rules

Rumsfelds rules

I dont get this whole rumsfeld thing, cant they just enjoy there retirement in hawaii and watch the whole administration go home on CNN in 2.5 years and hopefully get someone in that doesent bankrupt our country and start unnessasary wars, of course bush is definatly not the first guilty of all of this nonsence so it will no doubt happen again, you could almost start a long term pool with some friends to see what nation the US will attack next. I dont think we have ever attacked australia, but there is not much reason to so if someone bet on that they would have to get odds, maybe it will be main land china.

I am truely amazed that Poll-sters always run to a general to get thier Opinion, be-it many are either retired or near outbound status, and again many have thier political futures or book deals in the works, When are these folks going to wake up and ask some E-7's and above be-it retired or not, who either is or been on the front lines, thier Opinion?? Geezz if it was not for the NCO"S teaching these officers many would not have made it to general, but then again there are a few of the political type (generals) that just should not be a General.....

I still think we need to invade Tahiti.....

Gunny: We never get too old for those things, do we?

not us for sure! as for never having invaded Australia and Mainland China....repearso is wrong on both accounts, we've had Marines in both of those countries....and a good time was had by all! We invade Sydney with 5000 plus Marines and Sailors on an annual basis. (and the women there all love us for it!)