Rumsfeld and the Retired GeneralsSix generals have spoken out against him. Is that a lot?

Remarks from the Fray Editor:

Many posters note that the article could use more denominators. How many retired generals served in Iraq, and how many are complaining in public? To weight the figure by rank, how many stars are in retirement relative to the number worn by the complaining generals? Some of the best responses, however, address the qualitative questions of judgment, rather than which quantitative standard to use. Examples are appended below. –G.A.

Remarks from the Fray:

The more I think about it the more I become skeptical of the idea that more US troops would have had a significant impact on the current situation in Iraq. […] What exactly could those more troops have accomplished? I think many of those complaining don't have a clue. They rely on a vague notion that more troops would somehow have better controlled the situation. I'm not so sure.

Some things I'm pretty sure about: more troops wouldn't have changed the fact that Saddam opened the prisons of criminals, sowing the seeds of chaos; nor would it have changed the fact that Saddam and/or his supporters organized a ruthless fedayeen resistance that would have continued the struggle by any means available; or that Al Queda types, present and nearby would have joined it and been well financed and supported by Iran or Syria. I'm also pretty sure that more US troops would have meant jerking more Iraqi's around trying to preserve order. Since US "atrocities" are the source of some of the resistance, wouldn't more troops lead to more atrocities and therefore more desire to resist?

Any Vietnam parallels are tenuous of course, but I remember clearly that many smart military guys kept on saying more troops was the answer there, and it wasn't, at least not anything remotely feasible.

At the end of the day, the American troops are in a foreign land, with some neighbors hostile to our purposes. To control that country requires knowledge we did not and probably couldn't have, and a commitment of troops that is not feasible. Remember that those who opposed us from the beginning were and are reactive. Whatever we focused on to control, they were bound to target what we left uncontrolled. So unless we somehow covered all potential targets, they would have found the means to work their will in some respect. […]

Where this logically leads is the following: the realistic choice may have been: Get rid of Saddam, and try to muddle through a limited occupation and hope for the best; or back off and let sanctions and other measures fail. The thought that there would have been some "perfect" or even well organized occupation after the invasion, is, IMO, a chimera.

--Breaker

(To reply, click here.)

If you have a brain in your head, it shouldn't take any generals to tell us how poorly Rummy has run the war. Too few soldiers on the ground, breaking up the Iraq Army, and the war of attrition since Bush told us that we had won, should tell you all you need to know

--marste

(To reply, click here.)

General officers have no standing to criticize the Secdef. The Secdef answers to the President, the Congress and the Constitution. These officers, even though retired, should stay away from criticizing their superior civilian bosses. Watching general officers do that always makes me think of tinhorn generals leading coups in banana republics. Shut up and enjoy your retirement.

--Barbaricus

(To reply, click here.)

(4/17)

• Robinson: A Little Worried About the Meltdown
• Khaled Hosseini: Sen. McCain, Am I a Pariah?
• Ombudsman: A Puff Piece About the Obamas?
• King: The Anatomy of an Assault