Rumsfeld, and the generals [edited]
Nov. 30th, 2005 10:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumRummy was never all that popular in the Pentagon.
His high-handed way of making changes ruffled more than a few feathers. The way Shinseki was treated didn't help. Lots of people said the war in Iraq gave him the upper hand (finally) because his ideas had been tested on the field of battle and been found dandy.
These days some might say they'd been found wanting. Me, I'll say the ideas for the fight were OK, but the aftermath was botched (see Shinseki, ignoring of).
So how is the brass looking at him today?
How has the slew of policy changes he's made, decisions he's forced down the throats of men who are used to getting their way (that's part of what happens when they pin a star on you and make you a demi-god, you get used to people deferring to you, esp. in your area of expertise) been taken lately?
Looking at the press conference he had with Gen. Pace, USMC, not so well. It was subtle, the sort of thing the press (like the WaPo, which has this article on it) sees, but doesn't really comprehend.
There's a way in which a subordinate can be maliciously obedient. He can, for example, work to standard, or play hard and fast with regulations.
He can also be slow on th uptake, in ways which aren't officially sanctionable.
Gen Pace did that.
Rumsfeld (inventor of, if it can be believed, a clunkier, and less felicitous phrase than, "the Global War On Terror", with "the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism", which while ugly is better, in terms of accuracy) decided calling the Iraqi resistance, "insurgents," was making them too credible proposed, "Enemies of the Ligitimate Iraqi Government."
Gen Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) refused to play along. When Rumsfeld tried to correct him, he blew him off, But Rumsfeld's new description -- ELIG, if you prefer an acronym -- didn't stick with the general. Smiling, he uttered the forbidden word again while discussing explosive devices.
The secretary recoiled in mock horror. "Sorry, sir," Pace explained. "I'm not trainable today."
Whoof. That was the sound of unsanctionable insubordination, and in public.
It didn't end there.
Gen. Pace also said it was the duty of soldiers who saw abuse, committed by anyone to stop it.
Runsfeld tried to smack down that pernicious idea, When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.
But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
Now that's new direction, based on what I was taught, in Basic, and at AIT, when I was studying interrogation. We were told we were to stop it. Esp. if we were the detaining power, because the detaining power is responsible for whatever happens to the prisoners they've arrested, no matter who does it.
Pace responded to this, "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.
The WaPo reporter cast this as Pace meaning what he said. He missed the important part, and Rumsfeld [who's time in the active military was brief] probably missed it too. It was the, "sir." That little formality sounds, to a soldier (and I'll bet it's at least as loud to a Marine) like someone telling a superior they just fucked up.
It's saying that because the reminder of the rank disparity wasn't needful. The regulations are plain, and Gen. Pace could have merely said no, the regs say the responsibility is to stop it, but he didn't, he made the pointed effort to tell Rumsfeld that he was wrong, and he did it in public, in a place where the phrasing was going to be quoted. From the interpretational commment of the reporter, I'd say he was also pretty firm in his reiteration.
I'd like to think that Pace would like to put people higher in the food chain than a few Specialists and Sergeants in the dock.
His high-handed way of making changes ruffled more than a few feathers. The way Shinseki was treated didn't help. Lots of people said the war in Iraq gave him the upper hand (finally) because his ideas had been tested on the field of battle and been found dandy.
These days some might say they'd been found wanting. Me, I'll say the ideas for the fight were OK, but the aftermath was botched (see Shinseki, ignoring of).
So how is the brass looking at him today?
How has the slew of policy changes he's made, decisions he's forced down the throats of men who are used to getting their way (that's part of what happens when they pin a star on you and make you a demi-god, you get used to people deferring to you, esp. in your area of expertise) been taken lately?
Looking at the press conference he had with Gen. Pace, USMC, not so well. It was subtle, the sort of thing the press (like the WaPo, which has this article on it) sees, but doesn't really comprehend.
There's a way in which a subordinate can be maliciously obedient. He can, for example, work to standard, or play hard and fast with regulations.
He can also be slow on th uptake, in ways which aren't officially sanctionable.
Gen Pace did that.
Rumsfeld (inventor of, if it can be believed, a clunkier, and less felicitous phrase than, "the Global War On Terror", with "the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism", which while ugly is better, in terms of accuracy) decided calling the Iraqi resistance, "insurgents," was making them too credible proposed, "Enemies of the Ligitimate Iraqi Government."
Gen Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) refused to play along. When Rumsfeld tried to correct him, he blew him off, But Rumsfeld's new description -- ELIG, if you prefer an acronym -- didn't stick with the general. Smiling, he uttered the forbidden word again while discussing explosive devices.
The secretary recoiled in mock horror. "Sorry, sir," Pace explained. "I'm not trainable today."
Whoof. That was the sound of unsanctionable insubordination, and in public.
It didn't end there.
Gen. Pace also said it was the duty of soldiers who saw abuse, committed by anyone to stop it.
Runsfeld tried to smack down that pernicious idea, When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.
But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
Now that's new direction, based on what I was taught, in Basic, and at AIT, when I was studying interrogation. We were told we were to stop it. Esp. if we were the detaining power, because the detaining power is responsible for whatever happens to the prisoners they've arrested, no matter who does it.
Pace responded to this, "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.
The WaPo reporter cast this as Pace meaning what he said. He missed the important part, and Rumsfeld [who's time in the active military was brief] probably missed it too. It was the, "sir." That little formality sounds, to a soldier (and I'll bet it's at least as loud to a Marine) like someone telling a superior they just fucked up.
It's saying that because the reminder of the rank disparity wasn't needful. The regulations are plain, and Gen. Pace could have merely said no, the regs say the responsibility is to stop it, but he didn't, he made the pointed effort to tell Rumsfeld that he was wrong, and he did it in public, in a place where the phrasing was going to be quoted. From the interpretational commment of the reporter, I'd say he was also pretty firm in his reiteration.
I'd like to think that Pace would like to put people higher in the food chain than a few Specialists and Sergeants in the dock.
