[analogbear]

I get the idea, but look: shouldn't the civilian leadership decide on the mission, and then allow the military to execute?

There should never be former general officers bitching about the secdef, and there should never be a former chairman of the jcs trying to label those generals as traitors and then try to defend the secdef.

Whether or not there were enough troops for whatever mission is under discussion should be a military, NOT POLITICAL, question.

It is unfortunate that Rummy, in keeping with the cavalier manner of the Bush admnistration as a whole, insisted on applying undue influence over the generals.

[clutchslip]

Here is RETIRED GENERAL JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF Richard Myers:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1847815
He seems to have a different viewpoint. But, WTF does he know?

[analogbear]

Clutchslip,
I watched him this morning on geo steph...You are showing me nothing new, and I even alluded to his comments in my first post...Can you read?

[seamus]

One of the 16 leadership traits is delegation, which also happens to be one of the hardest things to do. Once you're in charge, you will be held to a standard (fair or unfair). You are responsible for everything those below you do or fail to do. America has become tired of this war and, as the days count upwards, will come to blame the face they see as in charge, whether or not it's his fault. As this war is viewed more and more as a failure, you'll find more people step up and call for someone's head. SECDEF's will be first.

I can't say whether Mr. Rumsfeld is or isn't allowing the generals to fight the fight since I haven't even been in the same room with him. I have found that with the new climate of leaders being responsible for everything from mission execution to a Soldier crashing his personal vehicle while doing something squidly that micromanagement is the new term for good leadership. I won't say who sent it, but I received an email a couple weeks ago that specifically stated "micromanagement is not a bad word."

[Mojave954]

I don't the retired generals calling for Rumsfields head other than for their own political game. Lot of the upper echelon changes their tune once they are working on "the Hill" to appease who ever appears to be incharge in hopes of securing a nice job after retirement.

Generals ought to be recalled to active duty, tried for treason.

[analogbear]

As I said, I get it; I just don't get it.

Gen Myers said Rummy was pushy...I was just reporting.

I don't care to have Rummy's head, and I too am upset about the talking out of school, and I don't think it was fair to take Shinseki's comments out of context.

But, it cannot be disputed that the war is becoming unpopular, and some people, polarized, want heads to roll.

My comment was more aspirational: Whay cannot the secdef and the rest of the NON MILITARY leadership choose our missions, but leave the achievement of those missions to the actual military types? I get the whole delegation thing, but this is beyond delegation...We delegate, as leaders, but that is different than this...I would liken this to an "assignment" of a mission...Then leaders, the generals, delegate authority for the mission to those it deems proper. Rummy, as sec def would be responsible for some level of failure, but it should only be for a failure BY CHOOSING or ASSIGNING a BAD MISSION; he should not be held responsible for failed missions(because he should have no influence on how a mission is executed).