Redstate

Killing the messenger of needed U.S. Army "Transformation" is not new. Both the "Artillery" Army, and "Battleship" Navy feared that potential use of the airplane as a weapon could have an adverse effect on their personal careers. Rumsfeld, like Mitchell, Boyd and other such messengers have been regarded as enemies of military contractors, their lobbyists, Congressmen and senior military, both active duty and retired. How Rumsfeld became such an enemy is explained on "Crusader Cannon" websites.

is a hero of mine-

From a review of Coram's book by Joseph Neff:

Coram describes it well: "Boyd, borrowing from Sun Tzu, said the best commander is one who wins while avoiding battle... "

And

"Boyd's theory didn't sit well with military minds that had marinated in managerial approaches to war. They were even less enamored of his democratic ethos: Trust subordinates. Let them think. "People fight wars, not machines. And they use their minds."

of full disclosure I have been underwhelmed by Boyd for well over a decade. But that is neither here nor there.

But I am really curious as to why this particular Sun Tzu quote, given the past 400 years of military history, is considered to be insightful or relevant in the context of warfare.

I think the context of this particular aphorism leads one to believe that what Sun Tzu was talking about was massing such overwhelming force that the enemy capitulated. Today that is a political, not military, task. I would offer Libya's renouncing of their WMD program as an instance of this.

When one looks at maneuver versus battle as military techniques, Gustavus Adolphus began breaking the myth of victory through maneuver and Marlborough pretty much finished it off. While seeking battle for the sake of battle tends to be a suboptimal strategy, it is difficult to find examples of successful commanders, at least in the modern era, winning by avoiding battle. Indeed, those who we recognize as the Great Captains acquired their fame by seeking decisive battle at a time and place of their choosing.

While admittedly having a general who could win wars without fighting battles would be a huge plus it is sort of difficult to see how that plays out without the severe overmatch in quality that Rumsfeld has been striving for.

I'd argue that the SecDef adheres to the maneuverist theories, enabled by a technological overmatch.

The march to Baghdad was, in many ways, an example of "maneuver" over "mass", and it achieved the military objective.

Someone with far more knowledge of this subject than me should simply count up the number of generals currently being drooled on by the NY Times as "critics," and place that number alongside the thousands of generals who have served under Rummy since 2001. I suspect you would find less than 1 percent are in the current group of generals getting all of this attention. That massive discrepancy should be publicly highlighted and subsequently dismissed by Scott McClellan, or better yet, the POTUS.

you should read Coram's book. Boyd's contribution to both his country and military strategy are undeniable. Your drive-by editorial without any factual reference is intellectually insulting.

As to Sun Tzu, we can have the debate about his applicability to the current state of warfare. However, since his textual remarks are still reviewed by most of our military academy students, I would posit there is still significant value.

There have been numerous examples over the last three centuries of campaigns in which maneuver obviated battle.  Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, Yorktown, Petersburg...in all three cases it was not the decisive battle but the reality of the strategic situation that forced surrender.  Only with the Great War and the static line from the Channel to Switzerland did this really die, and it has been resurrected in some way, shape or form by American strategists whose land-based, airborne and amphibious capabilities limit the stability of any static front.  

Really the only fair comparison would be to the number of retired generals who have served under Rumsfeld. It is literally a courtmartial offense to criticize the adminsitration while you are still serving.

Anticipating the response of the MSM-"Assuming that the number of retired generals has been approximately constant over the last 4-5 decades, can anyone remember an occasion where so many were speaking out at the same time against a sitting SecDef"?  

Let's do that comparison.

survey conducted amongst a large number of we retired military officers - for what they are worth:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Simple situation far as I'm concerned.

Every one of SECDEF's former flag officer public detractors demonstrates an absence of some of the traits that were supposed to have gotten them there in the first place:  Loyalty (to something greater than themselves and their own personal views); Respect (the very same type they each would, and no doubt did demand from others);  Moral Courage (Retiring, then bad-mouthing SECDEF); Dissimilation (Weren't these the same senior officers relied upon by SECDEF to make his plans and policies work? If he is failing, did they indeed not fail him?); Respect (Again, for something larger than themselves and their respective 15 minutes of fame).

 I am no fan of SECDEF myself, but by going public these poltroons politicized their rank, station and their relationships with SECDEF and the administration:  Unforgivable!!!

Moral Cowards all - especially Zinni, and excepting the officer who retired rather than receive promotion and even HE should have kept his mouth shut publicly.

Oh yeah, forgot one thing.

Recall these worthies back to active duty.  Reduce them one grade. Place them all together in a large, well-appointed conference room, direct them to 1) reduce their complaints to writing; 2) propose acceptable solutions for each of their complaints; 3) defend their positions to a panel of field grade officers.  For each who has performed these tasks acceptably, return them to their former grade and permit them to retire once again - after signing secrecy agreements.  THAT is how to employ cry-baby GOs.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There is NO reason  - absolutely - for former GOs to make these comments open to the public - other than for political reasons.  Any officer, especially a GO has not only the right but also the obligation to voice an opposing opinionwhile in service - there are numerous conduits for that purpose.  However, that route requires a particular form of moral courage obviously lacking in them all (less in the officer who refused an appointed carrying an extra star - but visible nonetheless).  The most egregious of all is Zinni.

In my opinion these GO's actions are tantamount to disloyality:  The End!!

What if a survey indicated more than half of retired generals were opposed to the SecDef? Would that change anything? I am not opposed to Rumsfeld, by the way. I am just curious to know what should be done if it was revealed that he was opposed by a majority of retired generals. If we are judging Rumsfeld by his actions, then we don't need to worry about how many oppose him. Counting generals, no matter the outcome,  means we are judging him by the result of a popularity contest, which I do not agree with.

The most complete article I've been able to find that details the actual complaints of the six retired generals is at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?pagewanted=1&a
mp;_r=1&ei=5094&en=bdbb556e9e293705&hp&ex=1145073600&pa
rtner=homepage

In a nutshell, they think civilian, eg political, direction of the military has become too intrusive. This seems to be an odd complaint for the left to champion. Anyone remember what our progressive friends thought of the military objecting to political direction in the years 1992-2000?

we should elimate from the poll those that opposed the war in Iraq and the restructuting of the military  to eliminate these variables from skewing the outcome.

I agree that these complaints are largely politically motivated.  But to say, carte blanche, that retired flag officers need keep their mouths shut (or worse, need be quiet unless you agree with what they say) is ridiculous.  Without question currently serving officers need to keep their opinions to themselves.  Retired officers, however, provide a valuable contribution to the public debate.  Just because you and I disagree with what they have to say does not mean they should not say it.  I find it mildly irritating that the talking heads who generally have so little respect for men in uniform (unless, like Wesley Clark, they are taking part in a low-risk humanitarian adventure) suddenly defer to their expertise.  Again, this does not mean they should not be allowed to speak.  

out in the two weeks following their resignation. Have a mandatory press sonference at the end of the two weeks where the press can quiz them. If they have disagreements, spell them out when it can make a difference

The nation was ill-served in Vietnam by the number of GOs who had reservations about the policies being pursued but kept their mouths shut because of confusion of omerta with loyalty. They owe their loyalty to the American people and if they have differences strong enough to leave the service, they owe it to the people who send their children to die and pay their salaries to tell them what they think. And if their differences don't rise to that level, they should stay on the team and STFU.

What really irks me about this cabal is that they are puppets for the MSM which has decided that the story of the week is Get Rummy. Rummy was probably the first person to put a check on their unrestrained egos in 20 years. No wonder they have it out for him. And they have nothing constructive to say either.

I wouldn't put any confidence into the political analysis of the blog article that was referenced. The ill argued attempt to lable these generals as being Clinton people.

I know a few of these retired generals now speaking out are life-long Republicans and they supported Bush in 2000.  For example, Batiste is a hard-core Republican.

A friend of mine is a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel, and a pro-Bush Republican.  He personally knows three of these generals.  He has been in contact with two of them in the past month.

According to him, these guys were pleased with Bush's victory over Gore and anxious to work with this administration, especially after the 9/11 attacks.  But became dismayed with Rumsfeld and the politicalization during 2002 and 2003.

My friend was particularly struck by the recent statements from Greg Newbold, as he served with Newbold in Somalia and holds him in the highest regard.

His take is that these "attacks" are not politically motivated.  That the reasons given by people like Newbold are genuine and should be taken at face value.

I have read the and having had to deal with Boydians of all stripes, but especially the blue-suit-war-is-fighter-combat-writ-large types I developed my opinions while the man was alive and before the canonization.

As to your opinion of my "drive by" I think the "drive-by" you just rendered is as insulting to a lot of those who have actually studied this "theory" and you'd really do well to know something about people before you characterize them.

Sun Tzu is read by a lot of people beyond service academies. I read him at Leavenworth. The idea is to understand how, and if, the theories are still applicable. For instance, he's credited with the aphorism, "just as you don't use good iron to make nails, you don't use good men to make soldiers." I don't think many would subscribe to that view today.

they are still wrong.

They're fighting the last war, not the Global War on Terror.  Terrorists are different beasts than the "rogue nations" the Clinton-era war planners envisioned.  

Overwhelming force is great, and has been the preferred strategy since Alexander.  But when you may have to mobilize another force to a theater outside of supply reach, you'd better be able to send a self-contained fighting team there, and that means changing the way the teams are constructed.

Too political?  Not a consensus builder?  Just not touchy-feely enough, it appears.  Rummy should have held a Tupperware party or gotten together with their wives for tea or something.

Are you going to seriously contend that either the Civil War or the Napoleonic Wars were wars of maneuver or that maneuver was even important for reasons other than bringing the enemy to battle? That would come as a real shock to most of the participants and the generals.

As to Yorktown, I'd argue that Cornwallis ended up there because he'd gambled and lost on the idea of putting Nathaniel Greene out of the fight at Guilford Courthouse and once at Yorktown, Rochambeau driving off the Royal Navy and the storming of Redoubts 9 and 10 had more to do with the surrender than the overall strategic situation.

I don't want to engage in an unnecessary counting of angels on the heads of pins here but to understand maneuver as the means of achieving victory you need, I think, to appreciate European warfare pre-Marlborough where armies would campaign within sight of each other all season and not do more than skirmish.

I don't know any of these men.

As to my assessment, I think Newbold has a personal axe to grind with Rumsfeld because of Newbold's early retirement. This doesn't mean that I discount his position entirely but I find his stance the most questionable.

Zinni is a foreign policy realist of the Baker-Scowcroft school and clearly believes the wrong strategy is being carried out. His two solutions to the Middle East appear to be 1) blame Israel and 2) you can't do anything else until you've solved the Israel-Palestine issue. I think he's dead wrong but I understand his position.

Eaton was charged with training the new Iraqi army. Things didn't go well on his watch so I don't know if he feels like he wasn't supported or what but I think he's of questionable value here.

The two guys I don't understand at all are Swannack and Batiste. Both commanded divisions and commanded well.

Having said all that, I'm not sure their views are dispositive of much beyond the fact that they don't like Rumsfeld.

Perhaps if they'd said it the day after they left the service. But now they look like hyenas for the MSM no matter how sincere they are.

Not while the war rages.

to the cause that he cannot contribute while on active duty? Omerta is not the issue. Morale is a major (not the only) issue - for our soldiers and for their killers.

All officers owe their loyalty to the constitution - and they swear to it; not to the American people. Hard - but true.

I agree with your comments re:  the MSM.

the MSM which has decided that the story of the week is Get Rummy

You can almost keep a monthly calendar on the Get Rummy meme.  Hmmm, Helen Thomas IS past menopause, isn't she?

The MSM had nothing to do with Newbold and Batiste coming forward with their comments now.

I sense conservatives trying to pin labels on these people, so that they can marginalize what they have to say.  Just because these messages are being headlined by the MSM takes nothing away from the words being spoken.

Newbold retired and didn't say anything because that is the traditional thing to do.   But after three years and the situation worsening, in his opinion, he felt he could no longer keep quiet.  This does not make him a pawn of the MSM or liberals.  It does not invalidate what he has to say.

It is fine to read what he has to say and have a different perspective on it.  But judge his comments on their merits, not on who is printing them.

Should have added that my friend was told that several other retired generals are contemplating coming forward.  But you never know what each will decide to do.

You're right that the idea of a campaign whose goal was not battle was maneuver probably collapsed on the field at Blenheim.  I was merely pointing out that some of the most important victories of subsequent conflicts did not involve the annihilation of the enemy but rather the flanking of an army or the piercing of a line, thus putting the victor in command of the vanquished's objective.  

that you're right.

I'd be the last guy to argue that Grant's perpetual flanking movements of 1864-65 were unimportant. But each of those maneuvers resulted in a significant encounter, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and ultimately Petersburg.

But I see your point and agree with it... for the most part.

Someone should ask these guys if they recall how many levels of approval were required before a bomb could be put on target in... say Bosnia or Kosovo.

Maybe you should add one of these to your proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation_camp

After all, your proposal seems geared to insuring that these retired Generals learn to "think right".

Retired Generals may or may not be political. They may or may not have the kind of loyalty we need in the military.  They may or may not be well informed on reforms necessary to win future wars. Their opinion of Rumsfeld may or may not be helpful.

On the other hand, enlisdted personel are reenlisting at a higher rate than expected. The guys whose boots are on the ground are endorsing Rumsfeld's military. There are many brave and talented officers. There are some who are neither. I'll accept the recomendation of the enlisted men and women. In spite of the mud and the blood and the months of duty away from home, the front line has voted to keep Rummy.

it is best to know how to use whatever weapon you choose, and to choose one likely to hit the target with a modicum of damage.

You failed in each instance.

Intimating a moral equivalency between Vietnamese reducation camps and criticizing the obviously politicized public blatherings of breath-holding, foot-stamping back-shooting retired GOs safely out of reach of their target - does you no credit.

Return to my comments and read them slowly, one-at-a-time.  Reeducation a'int in it. I am calling for thme to be brought to one place, and to be made to offer their crriticisms in writing to a boar of senior officers

it is best to know how to use whatever weapon you choose, and to choose one likely to hit the target with a modicum of damage.

You failed in each instance.

Intimating a moral equivalency between Vietnamese reducation camps and criticizing the obviously politicized public blatherings of breath-holding, foot-stamping back-shooting retired GOs safely out of reach of their target - does you no credit.

Return to my comments and read them slowly, one-at-a-time.  Reeducation a'int in it. I am calling for thme to be brought to one place, and to be made to offer their criticisms and recommendations in writing to a boad of senior officers - which is what might have been expected of them in the first place.

Your proposal is not about finding the truth, truth has little to do with what these Honorably Retired Generals are speaking about. This is more a discussion about the strategy used to conduct a war in Iraq and even the rational to go to war.

Active duty officers are restricted by the UCMJ in regards speaking to matters of political policy and the political leadership of the day, at least while on active duty. Once they are fully retired, save for matters of preservation of classified material, they are free to speak their minds as any citizen of this country is allowed to do as they are now civilians.

Your proposal, by returning retired officers to active duty for potentially punitive measures, would seek to send a message that the concept Civilian control of the Military is a sham. After all, once you have honorably served, we can still bring you back and put the screws to you according to your proposal.  

I'm no fan of him, but what's next, recall Wes Clark to active duty to explain his criticisms of the President?  Where does your campaign for "Thoughtcrime" control end?

Your so-called 'truth' has nothing to do with the fact that a number of disgruntled retired GOs are publicly calling for SECDEF's removal.

You don't get it.

GOs are members of 'the Board'.  Got a problem? Tell it to the Chairman before leaving the company. Don't leave, pretend there has either been an ephphany or a release from obligation - and sob to the press.

They are wimps. Tale tellers. MSM puppets.  They are living proof the the GO selection process is fraught with errors, and with political influence.

What would the military become when GO promotions elevate nothing less than potential public whiners and MSM stringers?

Stop trying to over-intellectualize honor . . . It isn't that difficult - if you have a modicum of a sense of it . . .

Good Bye!

"...In the spring of 1949, in a move that pundits called a political payoff, Louis Johnson was appointed by Truman to succeed James Forrestal as the nation's second Secretary of Defense. Ironically, Johnson, the outspoken champion of preparedness, was charged by Truman with the job of dismantling the vast postwar military arsenal for which he had laid the foundation in the period 1937-40. Johnson ruthlessly carried out the President's budget-cutting orders. By mid-1950, Truman's austere budget targets had been met and the size of US military forces had been dramatically reduced. But Johnson would never receive credit or public acclaim for carrying out his boss's directives. As he arrogantly hacked his way through the military establishment, he made mistakes, he made enemies, and he eventually alienated his old friend, the Commander in Chief. Johnson's cuts fomented a public revolt by several battle-hardened Navy admirals. He fought bitterly with Secretary of State Dean Acheson. And perhaps most damaging to his relationship with his boss, Johnson's presidential aspirations caused him to curry favor with Truman's opponents on Capitol Hill and with the controversial General Douglas MacArthur..."

I think if you limit your search to wartime secdefs, you'll find this is fairly common.

http://www.steptoe.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=ws.getItem&siteType=Office&
amp;pubItemId=10587

you took this as somewhat of a personal assault on you or your knowledge of the subject. I have reread my remarks and frankly don't see where that occurs. Nonetheless, based on your response it appears you did take offense and I offer any apology that may be conceived as necessary.

That said, I found it valid to criticize your statement that you were "under whelmed" by Boyd. This was primarily because on an intellectual level, you did not provide any context to support that assertion. It was an editorial, comment, period. That is why I characterized this as a "drive-by". This was also in stark contrast to the rest of the response (which, by the way I could follow) that was both intellectually stimulating and aptly supported.

Regarding Sun Tzu, I think that particular quote was an attempt to illustrate a point about Boyd's overall philosophical approach. Agreed that used in a warfare context, relevancy is an issue. However, these aphorisms are often used by journalists' (and others) beyond their intended context. For example, I have also seen the phrase from Vegetius, "sic vis pacem para bellum" used to make a similar point.  

Anyway, look forward to this as "water over the dam".