WASHINGTON, 14 April 2006 — A fourth recently retired Gulf War general yesterday joined the chorus of brass calling for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Retired Army Major Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the first Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, told CNN: “We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork.” Noting that his peers are a pretty tight-lipped bunch, Batiste said: “It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense.”
Batiste has the expertise to back his criticism: Before going to Iraq, Batiste worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.
And it is widely known within the Army that he turned down a promotion to three-star general because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Batiste said the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort.
In previous interviews, Batiste said the violation of another military principle – ensuring there are enough forces on the ground – helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and untrained troops.
Last week, a three-star Marine Corps general who was the military’s top operations officer before the invasion of Iraq expressed regret in an article published in Time Magazine, that he did not more energetically question those who had ordered the nation to war.
Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who retired in late 2002, called for replacing Rumsfeld and “many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach.”
Gen. Newbold served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 through the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the war in Afghanistan. He left military service in late 2002, when the Defense Department was deep into planning for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11’s tragedy to hijack our security policy,” Newbold wrote in Time.
“I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat – Al-Qaeda.
“The decision to invade Iraq was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results.”
Batiste and Newbold’s criticisms follow two retired officers, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi security forces in the year after Baghdad fell, and Gen. Anthony Zinni, who previously led the military’s Central Command, responsible for operations in the Middle East.
In mid-March, Army Gen. Eaton wrote an op/ed article for the New York Times, criticizing Rumsfeld’s handling of the war, and said: “President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once.”
Marine Gen. Zinni said in a television interview on April 2 that Rumsfeld, among others, should be held accountable for mistake in Iraq and should step down. Zinni has also written a soon-to-be-released book on Iraq entitled: “The Battle for Peace.”
Other retired generals have told reporters they do not think criticism of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease.
“ A lot of them are hugely frustrated,” in part because Rumsfeld made them feel that “military advice was neither required nor desired in planning the Iraq war,” retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson told the Washington Post. Gregson commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater before retiring last year.
Gregson believes “The Administration’s handling of the war and the continuing criticism from military professionals will fuel that anger as the November elections approach,” said the Post.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs agreed, telling the Post that Rumsfeld and his advisers “made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict.”
