Yesterday I took a look at a bunch of critical reactions, mainly but not exclusively from the left, to the calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign coming from high-ranking military officers. Today I take a look at the reactions to the episode, and the anxiety it is justifiably causing, over on the revolutionary right. Below you’ll find a collection of comedic (at least to me) posts from the right, broken down by the lame sophist arguments that the Black Shirts use to try and explain this whole episode away.
First we have this little tidbit from Westhawk, who goes first because he speaks to my favorite subject:
The American Democratic Party will be greatly tempted to take political advantage of this situation by perhaps enlisting some of these generals as spokesmen and as candidates for appointed offices in future Democratic administrations. They will entertain this temptation at their great peril, not to mention the possible peril of the Constitution.
…
With a little reflection, it should become clear to Democrat politicians that they should nip this idea of rebelling generals in the bud right now. They can do this by refusing to offer these six generals jobs in future Democrat administrations. In addition, Democrat politicians can publicly renew their support for civilian control of the U.S. military.
So a President blatantly flouts the constitution, the Congress neglects its duties as a check on the President, and the Democrats should speak out against the Generals who have exhausted every other option for imposing sanity on this administration? I have a different idea- Draft Anthony Zinni! Honestly, I don’t like the idea of Generals rebelling, but who the hell else is standing up to the Jacobins who have hijacked our nation?
From the Judith Apter Klinghoffer we find out what the real problem is– the generals are pussies!
On This Week Joe Klein, whom no one can accuse of being a Bush fan, said that Bush repeatedly asked the generals in Iraq if they had everything they needed and they repeatedly assured him they did. But when Jerry Bremer asked them what they would do with an additional division, they said, we’d clear Baghdad. Excuse me? The American army in Iraq does not have a single general with enough guts to respond to the president’s question with “depends on what you want us to do?”
Sorry, guys, civil control of the military is not our problem. Gutless military leadership is.
If only our military leadership was as brave as all of the members of the Bush Administration who fought valiantly in their generation’s wars, or the steely nerves of all of the keyboard commandos who choose to fight the good fight from the safety of their computer consoles, we would have already won.
Of course, when all arguments fail, you can always fall back on, via Big Lizards Blame Clinton!
Typically, presidents don’t hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies; think of LBJ and Gen. William Westmoreland. So the first assumption is that if President Bill Clinton elevated an Army colonel to a Brigadier General — or made him Commander in Chief of CentCom (paging Anthony Zinni) — that general is probably a Clintonista.
This author also gets the award for most ill informed:
It’s hardly surprising that some men who have invested so much of their lives in one particular way of running a war would be angry, rebellious, and confused by a completely different way of running a war… or that some of them would lash out at the symbol of that change. They are no different from vice presidents at General Motors or IBM who furiously denounce splitting those companies into self-reliant business units instead of the normal corporate divisions they’ve had for twenty years.
…
Zinni is the epitome both of an Old School general and a Clintonista. To say we’ve “wasted three years” in Iraq is so absurd and demeaning to the troops — including Marines — that only politics can explain (but not excuse) it.
Uh, I know lizards have pea brains, but really, how about reading a book? You might come off as less of a pretentious know-nothing dickhead. Then again, maybe not.
Then there’s the tactic used against John Murtha when he spoke up in the name of “those who cannot” (i.e. uniformed officers who are disallowed from publicly airing their grievances), pretend that the lack of active duty officers speaking out in public means that there are not active duty officers who would like to speak out. Outside the Betway takes this tried and true approach to avoiding the issue:
The problem is that, while a handful of retired generals have spoken out, those actually in charge have not. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not only empowered but required by statute to serve as the president’s chief military advisor and give his unvarnished professional opinion, regardless of their harmony with those of the SECDEF. Similarly, all general and flag officers are confirmed by the Senate. When called to testify before Congress, it is their sworn duty to answer truthfully, irrespective of the chain of command
Actually, I’m sure that these officers ARE speaking up to Congress. The real problem is that Congress has decided that acting as a check on the presidents power is either too hard or it gets in the way of the Glorious Right-Wing Revolution. And what, you might ask, did the above linked author have to say when Murtha spoke out on behalf of the active duty generals?
Congressman John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, has called for the immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. Since Congressman say stupid things on a regular basis, I ignored the story even after several e-mailed press releases.
…
Wounded soldiers are a tragedy and there’s no doubt that the military life is difficult. But asking tired, wounded soldiers about their morale really doesn’t tell us much about grand national strategy.
The author also says of Murtha’s arguments: “these are non sequiturs,” “That’s a lot of unsupported assertions,” “I don’t really see the relevance.,” “This is another rapid-fire set of assertions, mostly emotional, that seem only tangentially related to the issue,” “irrelevant,” “absurd,” and “you haven’t demonstrated anything of the sort.” So- the lesson here is, don’t listen to the military when they retire- listen to them when they’re on active duty, but since they cannot speak up, listen to the congress people whom they report to, but since those congresspeople might say something that I disagree with, just listen to the Bush Adminstration (or at least the little voices in your head).
We can also find the simpletons challenging the generals abilities. I find this almost too pitiful to post. Almost.
These facts beg another question – Was General Zinni too ignorant to fully appreciate the potential likelihood of CENTCOM fighting a war in Iraq in the near future OR was General Zinni too incompetent to make the necessary preparations?
Although it is hard for me to imagine why on earth anyone would oppose such a dynamic, aggressive, substantive and consequential leader, it is nevertheless unnecessary to enthusiastically support Secretary Rumsfeld to detect the rant odor of hypocrisy and ulterior motives underpinning the all too convenient recent statements of General Zinni. In case there is anyone left who hasn’t heard, General Zinni “knew all along” invading Iraq was a “bad idea” but at the time nobody wanted to listen. But what’s new? After all General Zinni enjoys nothing more than another PR opportunity to say again “I told you so.” In an uncanny way I actually agree with General Zinni, it is indeed too bad more people didn’t pay closer attention to what he said and what he did on the eve of 9/11. Just for the record General Zinni – I told you SO!!
Indeed, because when Zinni was asked whether Iraq was a threat- what did he say? Oh, why bother bringing facts into this argument.
Of course, we cannot forget the tried and true tactic of blaming the media, who, you know, snuck into the Pentagon prior to the start of the war burned all of CENTCOMs plans, and forced the President and his Neo-Con Cabal to swap strategy for fantasy. Via Instapundit we find this gem, which is, at the very least, a bit funny (though I’m laughing at them):
A growing movement of retired and active-duty U.S. military officers, angry at the mismanagement, arrogance and even deception that have hampered U.S. efforts to secure peace and democracy in Iraq, have begun quietly calling for the resignation of top leaders they blame for the difficulties.
“I believe that it’s time for them to step down,” said one unnamed retired three-star general. “The editors of The New York Times and Washington Post and the news producers at CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC should resign effective immediately.”
Damned media! Thank the lord that we have faithful servents of the glorious revolution to pick up and carry the President’s water, we all know it’s the media that should be carrying it!
The complete and total asshole award goes, as usual, to John “Ass-Rocket” Hindracker, at Powerline. Wanna know why Rummy shouldn’t resign? How about because things are going great!?!?
When you’re President, you get lots of free advice. Some of it is well-intentioned; much of it is not. Here is why I think so many liberals are anxious for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld: they have staked a great deal on the proposition that the Iraq war has not gone well, and, in fact, has been a disaster. But they are troubled because they are not at all sure that is true. By any reasonable standard, casualties have been low and Iraq’s progress toward democracy has been impressive. This doesn’t mean the project couldn’t still go off the rails; it clearly could. But it is also possible–likely, I think–that the Iraqis will succeed in forming a government, violence will continue to decline, our troops levels will be substantially reduced, and, in a year or two, the consensus will be that the war was pretty successful after all. This, I think, is what liberals fear most. They want President Bush to stipulate, in effect, that the war has been poorly conducted and has been a failure. That’s the way in which firing Rumsfeld would rightly be interpreted. This would largely insulate liberals against the consequences if the war does, in fact, turn out to be successful. The same logic, I think, explains why liberals are always hectoring President Bush to “admit his mistakes.” What they fear, deep down, is that the President’s policies haven’t been mistakes at all.
Right, after all, if the President really is bringing on the Apocalypse than the Messiah is coming!
And last but not least, who could forget that old classic “If we do X, the terrorists have all ready won”? John Podhoretz puts together this weeks incarnation of that tired old jingle:
WHAT’S the dumbest thing George W. Bush could possibly do right at this moment – the action that would, more than any other, suggest his presidency was and is all but finished?
The answer: Fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Either a forced resignation or a dismissal would effectively bring the Bush presidency to an end. …
…
Yet such a move would be an unmitigated disaster for the effort in Iraq.Imagine the aftermath of a Rumsfeld firing: The presumption in the press and from gleeful Democrats would be that Bush was effectively acknowledging that the military campaign in Iraq would be doomed to failure with Rummy at the helm.
It would be a time for endless recapitulations of the supposed errors in judgment made by Rumsfeld and his people before, during and after the war – all spun to support the contention (from the retired generals who are now on the offensive against Rumsfeld and the State Department types who never liked the whole business) that the war was misconceived and has been badly waged.
Days and days of those retrospectives would accelerate the sense of depression and futility among the American people about the prospects for victory in Iraq.
…
If you are among those who now basically think we might as well declare defeat even before we go home, then by all means, shout “Fire Rummy” at the top of your lungs.But if you are among those who believe the war in Iraq must be won and that we can win it, it is madness to join the “Fire Rummy” crew. Even if you think Rumsfeld doesn’t deserve to keep the job, he must. There’s no other way.
Just keep repeating “there’s no other way” while you click your heels together and POOF! we now not only have a strategy for Iraq- we’re already winning it!
Crossposted at Blue Force | National Security Progressives, Progressive National Security