One of them, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, wrote an essay in Time magazine this week not only calling for Rumsfeld to retire but for those in uniform to speak out more forcefully against their civilian leaders and their policies to Congress.

"A leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak," wrote Newbold.

Officers at the Pentagon say an atmosphere of intimidation exists behind closed doors, where Rumsfeld meets with his military advisers. Dissent and criticism are greeted with the same withering "push back" to which he subjects reporters. It can be an uncomfortable place to be the bearer of bad news.

Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had not read Newbold's criticism, and suggested he didn't even know him.

"I guess he was working on the Joint Staff," Rumsfeld said.

Newbold was the director of military operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff for two years, including during the invasion of Afghanistan and the September 11 terrorist attacks. As the "J-3," Newbold regularly conducted detailed operational briefings for Rumsfeld, President Bush and the National Security Council.

Civilians close to Rumsfeld say his aggressive and demanding questioning of officers is not meant to intimidate or bully. He wants and he expects to be challenged head on, and full-throttle. If you don't have the guts to speak up forcefully, you don't have the right to question.

It was a management style on full display Tuesday at a Pentagon press briefing. Take this exchange between ABC's Geoff Morell, sitting in for Jonathan Karl, and Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, with the freedom and perhaps na�vet� of someone filling in over here, let me attempt another question on Iran, if I may," Morrell said.

"A fool's errand," Rumsfeld said, to light laughter from the veterans in the room, who knew exactly where this was heading.

"You've dismissed talk of war plans as 'fantasyland.' Now the president called them 'wild speculation.' But..."

Rumsfeld interrupted him mid-sentence. "You should be very careful about quoting me. You've already started..."

Morell interrupted: "I have here a quote. It's 'fantasyland.'"

"I used the word, but I did not use it specifically in the context that you're using it," Rumsfeld said. "And I would caution you to read very carefully precisely what I say ..."

"Well, let me use the president's quote, 'wild speculation,'" Morell said, still trying to get his question out.

Rumsfeld continued his sentence as if he had not been cut off.

"...and not what you'd like me to say or what you want other people to think I should say. You're -- when you're in a hole, stop digging."

"Welcome to the Pentagon," one of the reporters chimed in.

It's good theater, and no doubt many television viewers were cheering, as they enjoy seeing reporters get put in their place. And most reporters at the Pentagon don't mind it. It is one of the few press rooms in Washington where a Cabinet official actually says what is on his mind, and where reporters consequently feel no question is off limits.

And for officers trained to fight wars, pushing back professionally should not be a problem, said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace.

"We ... have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us because the opportunity is there," said Pace, who opened Tuesday's press briefing with a passionate defense of his boss. "As far as Pete Pace is concerned, this country is exceptionally well-served by the man standing on my left .... People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld.

There are, say several officers who work in the Pentagon, powerful disincentives to offering spirited dissent.

One of them is the military's vow to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and with it the fundamental and proud tradition of civilian control of the military.

At what point does challenging the civilian masters of the Pentagon become insubordination?

"How do you balance it when (what they are proposing) is moral and legal, even if it's not wise?" one top officer told UPI.

"None of us think we are the font of all wisdom, military men have advised against foreign adventures before and been proven wrong by our own victory, and, ultimately, unless the order is immoral or illegal -- and the order to go into Iraq was neither -- then there is more at stake to our republic by disobedience or undercutting the war effort by quitting when we 'just' disagree with the policy. I mean we're not elected by the people nor were appointed by the president to positions where we take the political heat," the officer said, via e-mail.

There is also a sense that what Rumsfeld or his advisers want to do, they will do. There is a certain futility in putting up too much of a fight. Decision-making is done around tables surrounded by far more "suits" than "uniforms," the officer said, often diluting the voices of generals in a crowd of politically appointed civilians.

There are also real career concerns. There is a perception that officers who publicly contradict Pentagon leadership, particularly on Iraq, find themselves sidelined and undermined.

The most notorious is the case of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki.

Shinseki told Congress in 2003 during a hearing that the United States would need to commit "several hundred thousand" troops to secure Iraq after the invasion. The Pentagon's official stance was that 100,000 would do the trick.

Then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz derided Shineski -- who commanded peacekeeping operations in the Balkans -- as "wildly off the mark." Rumsfeld echoed that comment the same week.

History seems to be proving Shinseki right. Last week, former Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged in a speech in Chicago: "We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started and ... got out of control."

But Shinseki had already run afoul of Rumsfeld in 2002 when he went to Capitol Hill to oppose the cancellation of the Crusader weapon system. Shortly thereafter, anonymous Pentagon officials leaked to the Washington Post that Shinseki's successor had already been selected -- 14 months before Shinseki was due to retire.

The leak signaled Rumsfeld's discontent and marked Shinseki as a lame duck. Rumsfeld eventually selected retired Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker, to become chief of staff, bypassing active duty generals in line for the job. It also sent a chill through the Army, Pentagon sources say: once Rumsfeld has made up his mind, you contradict him at your peril.

The Baltimore Sun reported last year on the case of retired Lt. Gen. John Riggs, who opined in an interview in January 2004 that the U.S. Army was overstretched in Iraq and needed at least 10,000 more troops.

"I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as it is today," Riggs told the Sun then, becoming the active-duty general to publicly urge more troops. "We're not shaped and sized to meet all the commitments we're asked to do."

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, who briefly ran reconstruction efforts in Iraq in 2003, told the Sun the Office of the Secretary of Defense went "bat-s***" over Rigg's comments.

"The military part of [the defense secretary's office] has been politicized. If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined," Garner said.

Subsequent to the Sun interview Riggs, who had served five years as a lieutenant general and was overseeing the Army's modernization initiative, was asked to retire by Army leadership. He put in his papers in March 2004. During the course of his retirement and over the objections of dozens of Army generals, retired and active, the Army demoted Riggs to major general because of two minor infractions in the duties he allowed government contractors in his office to perform.

"That's how they do it, so there are no fingerprints," a senior officer at the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon has always been a political place. Some of the discomfort of officers may be a reaction to the contrast between the relatively free rein they had under the Clinton administration compared with the tightly controlled Bush administration, in which loyalty and a single voice are singularly prized. The question is whether Rumsfeld's iron-fist management is an appropriate exercise of civilian control of the military, or the dangerous muting of professional military judgment.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
- The Military Industrial Complex at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News