Resignation by Rumsfeld Demanded

You can't compare a civilian organization to a military one.

Heavens knows anyone who has finished their tour with the military and tried to translate all they learned ("accomplish the mission", "troops always", honor and integrity) into terms a business could understand (?? I still don't have this one down after 15 years out) would agree with me.

Responsibility and accountability flow up the chain of command. It may be a sergeants fault that Hill X didn't get captured but ultimately it's the lieutenant and captain who have to stand in front of the colonel to explain why. And excuses don't go very far, or rather they go as far as the personnel officer who runs the paperwork to relieve said leader.

All of us are trained that the time to tell the commander that there may be problems, that there may not be sufficient resources (troops, ammo, etc.) to accomplish the mission is before go time. That once the ball starts rolling you improvise, adapt, overcome and get the job done. If you don't then lives are jeopardized as well as the success of the mission.

So yes, the responsibility for this situation, as much as it can be placed on anyone, does go all the way up the chain to Mister Rumsfeld. It was he, after all, who triumphed the idea of a leaner force structure which perhaps left us with an insufficient number of personnel on the ground in Iraq to accomplish the mission.

Jim Heivilin
(former Army Combat Engineer Major)

We are Big Brother to the world.

Time to break out the Orwell again.

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )

Legally, yes, management is liable for a hostile work environment. That's part of the responsibility of being a leader.

But this is about more than Abu Ghraib and other similar abuses. In a traditional war, there is a clearly defined enemy, and the surrender of that enemy is considered victory. What, exactly, would constitute victory in Iraq? Our enemies, according to the civilian leadership, are Chaos and Terror, and they aren't exactly going to surrender.

Everything I've read by soldiers in the field indicates a strong desire to do the job, but lack of clarity about what that job, in the larger sense, actually is. That's a failure of the civilian leadership.

Rumsfeld actually threatened anyone who planned for a difficult post-war period, because doing so would have undercut their case for war. That's a firing offense, even if nothing else is.

Dana, while I think it's accurate to say that the majority of Americans support the troops who have been placed in Iraq, I'm not aware of a single current poll that states the majority of Americans support the war in Iraq. Do you have a source for your numbers? I would love to review it.

According to two polls I cited earlier this week (http://www.blogher.com/node/12166), U.S. policy in Iraq is the single most important concern to U.S. voters as they head into Tuesday's election - regardless of their political party, region or demographic. Here's the first quote I pulled:

"The poll underlined the extent to which the war has framed the midterm elections. Americans cited Iraq as the most important issue affecting their vote, and majorities of Republicans and Democrats said they wanted a change in the government’s approach to the war."

As I read over your piece again, I actually don't understand your question about patriotism -- is it unpatriotic to question how well American troops are being led?

More here:

Iraq War Frames ’06 Vote in Last Poll Before Election ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/us/politics/01cn... )
New Poll: Women Voters Will Say ‘Yes’ to Candidates Who Say ‘No to Iraq’ ( http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=7... )
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

In an institution where the "employees" are broken down mentally an physically and programed to only obey orders. Yes, you undoubtedly hold those at the top accountable. This war is a cluster F of the highest degree. Heads should roll from the top down. Not the bottom up.

As for the papers calling for him to resign. I think you have to take it at face value-those in the military want him gone. I'm not sure there is anything more profound. If our president doesn't take action soon, I weep for the hundreds more family members who will mourn due to our leadership's arrogance and ignorance.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

The newspapers claim to want Rumsfeld gone, but how many of these military men and women actually feel the same?

My brother is in the military. He's been gone for more than a year. We miss him. His family memembers miss him. But we also respect the military, we respect the very difficult job they do. Every person in every position. Placing blame on one person concerns me.

But I suppose it doesn't matter. Rumsfeld showed us he can't handle it with his announcement of resignation today.

He's giving his opponents what they want and that also concerns me.

Thank you Jim for that explanation. You've made it clear to me why Rumsfeld played a part in this and I'm grateful. I still think that if we place the blame on one person at the top, then the other generals who waited to question the matter should also be held accountable.

I apologize. I made a mistake. My wording was supposed to state "The majority of Americans do not support the war" because of the many people we know who are in this war.

But my patriotism reference was regarding the war. As Americans it seems we don't support our troops enough and the job they do to protect our country. We can say that this war is about other things, but when it comes down to it, we are fighting for America.

My brother has been serving 17 months in Kuwait, which isn't as long as some tours, but he does his job with pride and it pains him to hear protestors claim to be worried about the troops when they don't understand why the troops are there or the types of jobs they do.

But needless to say Rumsfeld is resigning! I can't say I'm shocked but I'm a bit surprised.

The article is here: Rumsfeld Steps Down ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717 )

As Americans it seems we don't support our troops enough and the job they do to protect our country. We can say that this war is about other things, but when it comes down to it, we are fighting for America.

Given that what I hear and read about troops not receiving sufficient armour and veterans not receiving sufficient care, it "seems" that our government fails to support the troops properly. This isn't a failing of the American people.

"Support the troops" has morphed into a jingoist statement that appears to mean "support the war" or "support the government." It has little to do with supporting the troops themselves. War protesters are unfairly painted as having issues with soldiers - Why do you hate the military? - when what we object to is the policies our soldiers are required to implement.

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )