The retired generals, all white and all male, who are calling for Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation as Secretary of Defence have brought dishonour to their country. They have participated in mass murder in Iraq; three were in uniform in Iraq and signed on to the war plan of imperialism, racism and barbarism in 2003. They did not question the immorality of using force when there were many rational and plausible alternatives to war. Why did not they resign and take off their uniform when the war began and refuse to carry out an illegal order of preemptive invasion of a sovereign, non-threatening nation? Mr Batiste resigned only when he knew the war was lost and did not want a third star due to his disgruntlement over war execution and not the ethics or legality of warmaking. Why did not they say that officers are not obligated to enforce or carry out illegal orders where there is a moral choice? Why did they not denounce American torture, indiscriminate killing of civilians, persistent bombing of civilian targets and the use of W.M.D. at Falluja? No they are merely scared that their reputations as warriors are under attack and are merely questioning the tactics of war and not the act itself. Shame on you and the shame you have brought on yourselves and our country, the United States of America!
General Anthony Zinni, General Charles Swannack, Major General John Batiste, War Criminal General Barry McCaffrey (who is a war criminal as I have noted in earlier posts for his despicable slaughter of a retreating Iraqi army at Basra in the Gulf War), Major General John Riggs, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold and Major General Paul Eaton. You should be tried along with the national civilian leadership for what you have done to Iraq and the slaughter of 2,400 American troops for nothing but your anticipated enhanced military reputations and for American oil and neoconservative militarist interests.
These cowards are not complaining about the ethics of war but are whining and trying to scapegoat Secretary Rumsfeld over tactics!! This is what the arrogant, immoral Major General Charles Swannack (U.S. Army, commander 82nd Airborne) had to say about the secretary on April 13:
“I really believe we need a new secretary of defence because Secretary Rumsfeld carries too much baggage with him…I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is.”
The U.S. should be more “ruthless?” Use thermonuclear weapons over the Sunni triangle and Anbar province? Build more Abu Ghraibs and Camp Namas and exterminate more innocent Iraqis who resist the occupation of a ruthless arrogant superpower? Increase force authorization to 200,000? Order the marines to commit more Haditha war crimes in country as at My Lai?
These generals steal $440 billion a year in defence appropriations. They are in control of America. There is no effective civilian leadership in that the military rules American foreign policy and makes most strategic decisions on war. No these complaints and demands for Mr Rumsfeld's departure are nothing more than a cynical attempt to blame one person for a war that is lost. They should assume personal responsibility as officers and gentlemen to surrender oneself to an international tribunal for crimes against humanity, conspiracy to commit aggressive war, war crimes and utter violation of international law such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the U.N. Charter.
These calls for Sec Rumsfeld's resignation are not inspired by morality and ethics but by a thirst for power and a desire to place the blame on America's defeat on the secretary of defense. Had you called for resignations due to an immoral and unjust war, then you might have earned the respect of those who seek alternatives to war and ruthless power maximizing. What America needs is peace and not recriminations over whose tactics in waging war failed.
Also I think it is very revelatory that not one of these retired generals has called for an immediate or even staged withdrawal of American forces that would adhere to a fixed or even suggested timetable. If I am wrong, I will correct this assertion if someone e-mails me the evidence to firstname.lastname@example.org. Trust me there are no Eisenhowers or Marshalls anymore. They were men of honour and distinction who saw the use of the military not as the extension of politics by other means but as an act of last resort that should be prosecuted with restraint or at least reflection on the meaning of killing other human beings in a world crying out for justice, nutrition and diversity.