 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 19, 2006 Donny BoyBy GreyhawkA poem from Russ Vaughn. Donny BoyMeanwhile, over at the New York Post, Ralph Peters says: Whatever one thinks of the SecDef, the professional identities of his critics and his supporters tell us a great deal. The retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are recent combat commanders, veterans of Iraq and Middle East experts. They're the men who led from the front and who signed the condolence letters to bereaved families (and they didn't use an autograph machine).Shorter version: everyone I agree with is a hero, everyone else should shut up. I'm not sure that's a defensible position. But hey, Ralphie, I thought the war was all smiles? You are being lied to. By elements in the media determined that Iraq must fail. Just give 'em the Bronx cheer.Pfffffft. Meanwhile, the NY Time offers a correction to an earlier story on the topic: An article on Sunday about civilian control of the military referred incorrectly to the status of retired officers under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits the use of "contemptuous words" against the president, the secretary of defense and other high-ranking civilians. Retirees — along with officers on active duty — are indeed covered by the rule.Expect Ralph's column tomorrow to offer a correction too. Or not. Among the men who've infuriated Ralph Peters are retired Lt. Gen. John Crosby, former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, former assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force; retired Maj. Gen. Buron Moore, U.S. Air Force, who was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm; and retired Maj. Gen Paul Vallely, former deputy commander of the U.S.. Army, Pacific. Their Wall Strret Journal op/ed includes this passage: Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to "transform" the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and World War II war-fighting strategies, which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare. It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.That's as harsh criricism as you'll hopefully ever hear between flag officers. More below, if you're interested. In Defense Of Donald Rumsfeld Posted by Greyhawk / April 19, 2006 6:42 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackH/T to Mudville Gazette Here is the response for the 7 gernerals asking for Rummies resignation:Their Wall Strret Journal op/ed (subscription)In Defense Of Donald Rumsfeld By John Crosby, Thomas McInerney, Buron Moore and Paul Vallely Foes of the Bush ... Read More 6 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I seldom agree with Peters, but today's article was steel on target.
Batiste, Eaton, and Swannack have impeccable reputations within the Army ... that is for certain. All 3 commanded and/or advised on the ground during OIF.
McInerney, Crosby et al. were neither on active duty nor commanders in OIF.
Too bad you excised one important part of the op-ed - Peters' comments regarding the "revolving door". All four of your WSJ heroes are eating from that trough.
I don't think Article 88 would stand a Constitutional challenge.
First rule of being a corporate animal, make sure you have someone else to blame.
The March and April violence in Iraq could be a harbinger.
It could also be a "spring fever" blip, attack trends have always spiked in the spring, in the entire history of warfare.
Lot's of folks have staked their professional reputations on insufficient data.
Some have been exalted as "Prophets", others as "Chicken Littles".
Time will tell.
nicely done, Greyhawk... nicely done
Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers.
It doesn't matter what Zinny's record is. If Zinny and company feel that Rumsfield is too autocratic, perhaps Zinny will present to us the times in which he stopped what he was doing to listen to the complaints of Sergeants and Privates that wanted to talk to him about some plan that they thought was dumb idiotic. In addition, perhaps Zinny would like to tell us what he would do with these sergeants and privates who spoke behind his back about how Zinny is autocratic and how his leadership style is "unfair and arrogant".
If IRR Soldier wants active duty support for Rum instead of backliners, he won't get it. Because the active duty folks are too busy fighting a war to play politics about who or who should not be SecDef.
Please google Admiral Kimmel to see the proper and honorable way to present your arguments and criticisms of an American war. Second link in google.
Leadership in the army isn't based on buddy buddy friendships the Generals have with sergeants and privates. Command ain't about who likes whom, in a big high school. The "Generals" have forgotten this in their attempt to change Civilian Policy. They can air their views all they want, but changing civilian policy is more than talking back to your commanding officer. It really is insubordination. And the Generals who would never have tolerated insubordination from a private or a sergeant in their army, have no right, except the fictional legal one, to say that Rumsfeld's leadership is too autocratic and insensitive to the feelings and thoughts of military commanders.
And the Generals who would have tolerated insubordination? Those Generals aren't of much use, and therefore their criticisms aren't of much use either.
Perhaps the Generals need to be reminded of the chain of command. If you don't like your commanding officer, bump it one chain higher. But I don't think it would gain much "news attention" If the Generals wrote a letter together to the President telling the President what to do. The military would not find that very popular and neither would the American people, except the Democrats that is.
Anthony Zinni and company would have impeccable reputations. Anyone saying anything else would get steamrolled by a tank, a humvee, and a US carrier all at once. Insubordination is not tolerated in the Army and Marines, especially the Marines.
No "trumped up captain" is going to talk about the "autocratic and mean spirited shortsightedness" of Generals Zinny and Co. They're not going to survive complaining to the Media about Retired Gen. Charles Swannack's "micromanagement".
As mentioned before, the military isn't a debate society about who is right or who is wrong, but about who is in command and who is subordinate to whom.
Swannack also criticized the way the war was being run before he retired.
In May 2004, while still on active duty, Swannack told the Washington Post that he thought the United States was losing strategically in Iraq.
Perhaps that may go under the title of "micromanage". And if a company commander in the 82nd Airborne were to disagree with Swannack publicly via the news media... what might you think would happen to said company commander?
In February 2005, Rumsfeld told CNN that he had twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it.
Maybe Zinni and Co's staffers forgot to mention this fact, but I'm pretty sure Zinni already knows about it. He just won't go to the President and tell the President in his face, what he should do.
If it is so "important", maybe Zinni should go to the top and not mess around with the media and the press.