Papers sold to military: ‘Rumsfeld must go’

Just days after President Bush publicly gave his strong support for his Secretary of Defence, a family of publications that cater to the military are calling for Rumsfeld to go.

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

The editorial will appear just one day before the midterm election, in which GOP candidates have been losing ground, according to recent polls.

"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

On Wednesday, Bush said in an interview that he wanted both the Vice President and the Secretary of Defence to stay until the end of his administration.

As Christopher Hitchens said in an extraordinary interview (which you can view here) firing people has never been Bush's strong point. He seems to be unable to see when someone has failed in their allotted task.

As Andrew Sullivan says in the same interview, "Here's a President who said that Michael Brown was doing 'a heck of a job' with Katrina. And now he's a President saying that Donald Rumsfeld has done a fantastic job in Iraq. It's the same denial. If you believe Michael Brown did a 'heck of a job' with Katrina, then you maybe believe Donald Rumsfeld has done a great job in Iraq. It's unhinged. In my view it suggests this man has lost his mind. No-one, objectively, can look at the way this war was conducted - whether you were for it as I was, or against it - and see that it's been done well. It's a disaster."

These are people who could normally be expected to carry the administration's Lie du Jour and run with it. It is becoming obvious that, when it comes to Iraq, the lie is simply becoming unsustainable.

There has been much effort made by some of Bush's supporters to try and place the blame for the debacle on to the shoulders of the generals on the ground. However, given the fact that Rumsfeld is known to have micro-managed the armed forces to the point of obsession, this is a charge that really isn't going to stick.

Now, just as Blair is facing across the Atlantic, the armed forces themselves are coming into open dispute with the administration.

The essential arrogance that has driven the Bush administration has demanded that the word of the Commander in Chief is sacrosanct and, as Bush is "The Decider", what he says goes. Everyone else is reduced to mere pawns to be moved across the board at the executives will.

All great military commanders know that this, whilst perhaps true on paper is - in actuality - a fantasy. Leaders lead and their leadership should possess qualities that naturally mean others wish, almost instinctively, to follow them.

For a group of people so in love with war and all things militaristic, the Bush administration is woefully short of people with any actual military experience. Perhaps it was this lack of any actual experience with the military that led Bush and his cohorts to believe that they could lead grown men like lemmings off a cliff.

Indeed, in the run up to this war I was struck by the fact that people with actual military experience, like Powell, opposed the war whilst the Chickenhawks were it's loudest proponents.

Bush may have donned the fighters pilot's suit for a photo-op, but that does not make him a fighter.

Arrogance and hubris have led Bush, Rumsfeld and the gang to this precipice. Now the people that they "lead" are calling for Rumsfeld's head.

If Bush has any sense, he should give it to them.

Click title for source.

UPDATE:

Billmon has covered the same story and, as always, is worth reading. A Taster:

Long ago, I worked for the company that owns the military Times publications, although my own paper was aimed at the civilian side of the government (we called our small corner of the newsroom "the demilitarized zone.") Maybe things have changed in 20 years but I can assure you that back then the Times papers were even more mindlessly pro-military than the Pentagon itself (which is kind of like being more Catholic than the pope, but with superior firepower). If they're taking aim at the SecDef -- and timing their battery fire for maximum political effect -- it's reasonable to believe that the generals have reached a point that in many countries would be followed in short order by a military coup.

Read the rest here.

tag: Rumsfeld, Bush, Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Rumsfeld must go, open revolt,