Cinq généraux américains demandent la démission de Rumsfeld.

Bonjour à tous,


J'apprends avec surprise, dans un article du New York Times d'aujourd'hui vendredi 14 avril,
que cinq généraux U.S. demandent la démission de Donald Rumsfeld.
Même l'ancien pacha de la 82e Airborne est du complot. Leurs mots sont durs.
Le secrétaire d'état à la Défense est traité sans ambages d'incapable et d'incompétent.


"By DAVID S. CLOUD and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 13 — The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's
resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals
said on Thursday.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview.
"But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war
against Saddam in Iraq."

Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday.
Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals
who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.

There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Mr. Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping
aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers
said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages
as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.

Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Mr. Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity
before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke
openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles
is often viewed as inappropriate.

The White House has dismissed the criticism, saying it merely reflects tensions over the war in Iraq. There was no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was
considering resigning.

"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," the White House spokesman,
Scott McClellan, told reporters on Thursday.

Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to
invade Iraq. But a common thread in their complaints has been an assertion that Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily
into military decisionmaking, often disregarding advice from military commanders.

The outcry also appears based in part on a coalescing of concern about the toll that the war is taking on American armed forces, with little sign,
three years after the invasion, that United States troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.

Pentagon officials, while acknowledging that Mr. Rumsfeld's forceful style has sometimes ruffled his military subordinates, played down the idea that he was
overriding the advice of his military commanders or ignoring their views.

His interaction with military commanders has "been frequent," said Lawrence Di Rita, a top aide to Mr. Rumsfeld.

"It's been intense," Mr. Di Rita said, "but always there's been ample opportunity for military judgment to be applied against the policies of the United States."

Some retired officers, however, said they believed the momentum was turning against Mr. Rumsfeld.

"Are the floodgates opening?" asked one retired Army general, who drew a connection between the complaints and the fact that President Bush's
second term ends in less than three years. "The tide is changing, and folks are seeing the end of this administration."No active duty officers
have joined the call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. In interviews, some currently serving general officers expressed discomfort with the campaign
against Mr. Rumsfeld, which has been spearheaded by, among others, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the United States Central Command
in the late 1990's before retiring from the Marine Corps. Some of the currently serving officers said they feared the debate risked politicizing the military
and undercutting its professional ethos.

"I support my secretary of defense," Lt. General John Vines, who commands the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said when questioned after a speech in
Washington on Thursday about the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down. "If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign.
My advice should be private."

Some of the tensions between Mr. Rumsfeld and the uniformed military services date back to his arrival at the Pentagon in early 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld's
assertion of greater civilian control over the military and his calls for a slimmer, faster force were viewed with mistrust by many senior officers, while
his aggressive, sometimes abrasive style also earned him enmity.

Mr. Rumsfeld's critics often point to his treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003
invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that was later provided.
General Shinseki's estimate was publicly dismissed by Pentagon officials.

"Rumsfeld has been contemptuous of the views of senior military officers since the day he walked in as secretary of defense. It's about time they got
sick and tired," Thomas E. White, the former Army secretary, said in a telephone interview on Thursday. Mr. White was forced out of his job
by Mr. Rumsfeld in April of 2003.

Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold of the Marine Corps, who retired in late 2002, has said he regarded the American invasion of Iraq unnecessary.
He issued his call for replacing Mr. Rumsfeld in an essay in the current edition of Time magazine. General Newbold said he regretted not
opposing the invasion of Iraq more vigorously, and called the invasion peripheral to the job of defeating Al Qaeda.

General Swannack, by contrast, continues to support the invasion but said that Mr. Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war in Iraq, rather than leaving it to
senior commanders there, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. of the Army, the top American officer in Iraq, and Gen. John P. Abizaid of the Army,
the top officer in the Middle East. "My belief is Rumsfeld does not really understand the dynamic of counterinsurgency warfare," Gen. Swannack said.

The string of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's removal has touched off a vigorous debate within the ranks of both active-duty and retired generals
and admirals.

Some officers who have worked closely with Mr. Rumsfeld reject the idea that he is primarily to blame for the inability of American forces to defeat
the insurgency in Iraq. One active-duty, four-star Army officer said he had not heard among his peers widespread criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld, and said
he thought the criticism from his retired colleagues was off base. "They are entitled to their views, but I believe them to be wrong. And it is unfortunate
they have allowed themselves to become in some respects, politicized."

Gen. Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003 before retiring, said in the planning of the Iraq invasion, senior officers as much as the Pentagon's
civilian leadership underestimated the threat of a long-term insurgency.

"There's shared responsibility here. I don't think you can blame the civilian leadership alone," he said.

Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army general, called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in March.

The criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld may spring from multiple motives. General Zinni, for example, is in the middle of a tour promoting a new book
critical of the Bush administration.

General Riggs, who called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio, left the Pentagon in 2004
after clashing with civilian leaders and then being investigated for potential misuse of contractor personnel.

But there were also signs that the spate of retired generals calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's departure was not finished. Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who is retired
from the Marine Corps, said in an interview Thursday he had received a telephone call from another retired general who was weighing whether
to publicly join the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld's dismissal.

"He was conflicted, and when I hung up I didn't know which way he was going to go," General Van Riper said."






Ca chauffe pour Rumsfeld.





Fritz.

Bonjour Fritz
Pas si surprenant que cela . Le devoir de réserve
n'existe pas aux USA ou plus tôt il est allégrement
violé dès l'atteinte d'un certain rang .
Plus sérieusement avant Rumsfeld et consort
quant le chef de l'armée disait que cette guerre
ou cette opération n'était pas une bonne idée
les civils l'écoutait . Hors ici non seulement ils
n'ont pas écouté les avertissements ,mais en
plus ils ont réédités le cas vietnamien .Pire
pour se prémunir d'une mauvaise volonté de
l'armée Rumsfeld a non seulement gonflé au-dessus
de la raison les corps à destinations spéciales.
Mais en plus ils encourage le retour des mercenaires
sous forme de sociétés d'assistances privées
L'expérience prouve que les corps à destination
spéciale Si ils peuvent remporter de beaux succès

n'ont jamais gagné une guerre d'occupation. ILS
NE SONT PAS FAIT POUR. Plus sérieusement Rumsfeld
c'est pris au piège de la "victoire" afghane .Sauf
que comme tous les communiquants il travaille dans
l'immédiat et que reconstruire un pays ne se fait
que sur une période calculé en années au minimum
Seulement l'Irak n'est pas l'Afghanistan et la résistance
bien plus organisée que prévue .
Les militaires l'avaient prévu dès le départ les troupes
d'occupation étaient largement en dessous du ratio
permettant d'espérer une victoire ...
Maintenant que l'échec est patent et qu'il va bien
falloir trouver une porte de sortie . A mon avis c'est
pour le prochain président .Les militaires qui pratiquent
ces faucons qui n'ont jamais tiré une cartouche de
leur vie sauf dans les fesses d'un autre chasseur.
Ne veulent pas porter le chapeau . Ils se contentent
de lister les bavures des néo-cons et elles sont
nombreuses Mais à cette aune ils oublient leurs parts
de responsabilités Une démission en bloc bien avant
l'affaire Irakienne aurait peut être eu une impacte
Mais à un certain niveau professionnalisme et carriérisme
ne font pas toujours bon ménage

Bonjour Mauser,


Je pense qu'il faut relativiser cette affaire. Tous les généraux qui se sont exprimés sont à la retraite. Ils ont participé à la campagne d'Irak
et leur principal reproche se limite en gros à dire que Rumsfeld et ses aides se prennent trop souvent pour des stratèges.
En conséquence ils prennent des décisions stratégiques sans tenir compte des objections des militaires.
Ne serait-ce qu'un des innombrables épisodes de la guerre entre politiques et militaires ? J'en ai fortement l'impression.

Je ne pense pas que Rumsfeld soit menacé d'une quelconque façon. Suite à cette affaire il a reçu le plein appui de GW Bush qui faisait dire
par Scott Mc Cellan son porte parole que "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period
in our nation's history,"

Du côté du Pentagone quelques officiels viennent à la rescousses et affirment que Rumsfeld ne prend jamais de décisions qui vont à
l'encontre de l'avis des militaires. Son interventionnisme malheureux pour les uns devient de l'implication et un haut sens du devoir pour les autres.

Plus intéressant à mes yeux est l'intervention très neutre de Paul Van Riper, brillant général qui avait prévu et mis en œuvre la tactique
employée par les insurgés d'Irak.

L'invasion de l'Irak avait été précédée d'un immense exercice baptisé Millenium Challenge. P. Van Riper commandait les forces ennemies.
A la surprise générale il ordonna de laisser tomber tous les moyens de communications classiques et l'essentiel du matériel lourd. Les transmissions
se faisaient par coursiers à moto et de nombreux ordres étaient lancés depuis les minarets des mosquées.
Au cours des premières heures de l'invasion il causa des pertes importantes aux forces classiques, fit des prisonniers et se permis le luxe de couler
deux navires de guerre.
Devant le désastre on voulu le faire remplacer d'urgence par quelqu'un qui collerait plus aux scénarios prévus. Il refusa d'abord mais fini par
s'incliner après avoir reçu l'ordre formel de céder son commandement.
A ma connaissance il n'a pas servi en Irak.


Th.


PS Fritz, ne poste plus d'images trop larges stp. Pour les retours à la ligne c'est infernal.

Bonjour Thermic
La notion de règlement de compte civil
militaire n' a pas tout à fait le même sens
ici qu' aux USA Où les généraux en retraite
passent facilement dans le domaine politique
En fait je suis en train de relire PLAN DE GUERRE
de B. WOODWARD D'après lui la majorité des
militaires étaient contre Ceux qui étaient aux
commandes du pentagone n'ont pas crié assez
fort Remarquez avec la bande d'autistes qui
entoure Busch
Les leçons de l'exercice Faucon Millénium
N'ont pas été pris en comte car bien trop
dérangeant pour certain . En effet en
dernière analyse il marque la faillite des 2
plus grandes options de la politique militaire
US des 10 dernières années
A savoir le champ de guerre électronique et la
RMA qui en découle
La doctrine du zéro mort .
En fait il ne fallait pas être grand clerc pour
pressentir le M..irakien si la reconstruction du
pays loupait