Rumsfeld is at war - with the U.S. Army

Now, even his hand-picked successor as Army Chief of Staff is in open revolt. This is way beyond partisan politics, comrades. I’m struggling for less strident tone, but can’t get there. Rumsfeld and Bush are showing terrible disrespect for, and are damaging our military.

Here’s the latest. General Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, has refused to submit a budget.

The Army’s top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

“This is unusual, but hell, we’re in unusual times,” said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.

Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service’s funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.

According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army’s budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker’s request a 41% increase over current levels.

“It’s incredibly huge,” said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. “These are just incredible numbers.”

Schoomaker has been vocal in recent months about a need to expand war funding legislation to pay for repair of hundreds of tanks and armored fighting vehicles after heavy use in Iraq. In recent weeks, however, Schoomaker has become more publicly emphatic about budget shortfalls, saying funding is not enough to pay for Army commitments to the Iraq war and the global strategy outlined by the Pentagon.

“There’s no sense in us submitting a budget that we can’t execute, a broken budget,” Schoomaker said in a recent Washington address.

I expect Rumsfeld, Powder Line, and other administration apologists to pile on Schoomaker, portraying him as some sort of Moonbat, a Leftie Kossack infiltrator into the Department of Defense, or perhaps merely another stodgy, antiquated, uber-grunt, the kind of military bureaucrat who has been standing in the way of Rumsfeld’s “transformation” strategy.

But wait. … Who is General Peter Schoomaker? How did he come to be Army Chief of Staff in 2003? He was a career Special Forces guy, a guy junior to many other 4-stars and 3-stars, who Rummy called out of retirement to head up the Army:

Washington Times - June 11, 2003

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has picked a retired Special Forces general as his choice for the next Army chief of staff, defense officials said yesterday. Mr. Rumsfeld is recommending that President Bush nominate retired Army Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker to replace the outgoing Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki. The choice of Gen. Schoomaker is seen as part of Mr. Rumsfeld’s effort to reshape the service from a structure of large, heavily armored divisions into a more agile force modeled on Special Forces commandos, who played key roles in recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The pick is viewed as a slap at the current roster of Army four-star and three-star generals vying for the service’s top post, because defense secretaries do not usually reach outside the ranks of current active-duty officers to pick a chief of staff.

Mr. Rumsfeld has often battled senior Army officials, including Gen. Shinseki, during the past two years about the pace of his “transformation” plans for the Army. Army Secretary Thomas White, who also clashed with Mr. Rumsfeld, resigned in April under pressure. The White House has nominated Air Force Secretary James Roche, who is considered a Rumsfeld loyalist, for the Army post.

Mr. Rumsfeld has had close ties to Gen. Schoomaker, unlike Gen. Shinseki. In the fall of 2001, the defense secretary called on Gen. Schoomaker for advice during the start of military operations against the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan.

“Essentially, this is a pick that Rumsfeld has made in order to change the Army,” the former official said. “Rumsfeld has been talking to Schoomaker on and off since October 2001.”

Gen. Schoomaker ended his career in 2000, after three years as commander in chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Only a handful of retired generals have been recalled from retirement for high-level active duty.

Schoomaker is (or was) Rumsfeld’s own man. And even he has gone into revolt. This really has to stop.

Schoomaker’s budget revolt comes on top of this, which I suppose could be called “old news.”

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Dean's World on 25 Sep 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Army Complains Of Severe Funding Shortages

    Details here.

  2. Dean's World on 26 Sep 2006 at 10:49 am

    Conversation With Commissar

    In the comments to this post, Politburo Diktat’s Commissar asks of me a question that really goes to the heart of the Iraq debate.

    I assume you…

  3. BuzzTracker.com on 15 Oct 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Featured on BuzzTracker

Comments

  1. bill wrote:

    WOW, I wonder if this is true, it is the LATimes afterall. I will wait for confirmation from a far more reliable source. If the need arises, emergency appropriations will easily get through.

    Way too much going on with the immigration bill money which is in the defense bill to get me upset about this ruse. The Senate doesn’t want to approve the fence which would lock out guest voters. Hastert has refused Senate calls to remove the fence money, he has said no.

  2. Mike wrote:

    Uh, the LA Times isn’t a reliable source? Huh?

  3. epoh wrote:

    “This really must stop! Now, damnit!”

    You crack me up, stomping your five inch heels, huffing and puffing and getting all red in the face.

    You really just have to draw the line, and I mean a awful thick line, at budgetary disputes? While Iraq is going on?

    You pathetic little whiny baby.

    Rummy should’ve been fired years ago.

  4. MattM wrote:

    We’ll be greeted as liberators
    The war will last a matter of weeks
    Mission accomplished
    We know where the WMD are
    Mobile weapons labs
    We expect troop reduction by year’s end
    Last throes
    Abu Grhaib
    Illegal secret prisons
    2700 U.S. soldiers dead

    Wait…you mean just NOW you’re realizing that BushCo. might be wrong about the war?

  5. Lex wrote:

    Well, Bill, here it is, Monday afternoon, and no denial or retraction from Schoonmaker of a comment that will almost surely spell the end of his tenure. Still think the LA Times is just makin’ stuff up?

    This isn’t about the merits of what the administration wants to do. This is about whether the military will have the resources. Right now, if Iran or North Korea or any of a dozen other hot spots were to flare up, it’s an open question whether we’d have the military to address it. In fact, it’s an open question whether we can keep 145,000 troops in Iraq through March, the current plan.

    Commissar: When you say this really has to stop, do you mean revolt against Rumsfeld or the administration making the military try to do stuff it lacks the resources to do?

    (ed - I mean Rumsfeld’s abuse of our military, of which this is only the latest straw.)

  6. Puddle Jumper wrote:

    The inescapable truth is the US is in no financial position to sustain troop levels at their current levels which at best are able to slow the decent of Iraq into complete collapse, let alone come up with the money and troops needed to actually reverse Iraq’s decline and eventually stabilize it. The Bush administration seems to think that the correct message can trump reality indefinetly.

  7. DavidC wrote:

    This is one of the things about the administration that has annoyed me since 9/11, even while supporting their active use of the military overseas. They want to fight on the cheap, apparently so that they can waste money on various domestic programs. After 9/11, and certainly after invading Iraq, the U.S. should have been making plans to expand the military. Rumsfeld’s ideas of doing more with less are fine as far as they go, but ultimately a finite force only stretches so far. If you are going to increase commitments it seems obvious that you need to increase manpower. But they have steadfastly refused to consider it.

  8. commissar wrote:

    Sorry about the comments getting whacked. I think I recovered all of them.

  9. tommy wrote:

    Fights over budgets and such are fairly boring really, you have no way of knowing what’s really going on. The habit Generals have of going to work for DOD contractors after retirement is ample ground for skepticism over their being unbiased on money issues.

    That being said, Rumsfeld has become too much of a distraction, even if you want to claim he’s doing an outstanding job. It’s time for a change.

  10. madmatt wrote:

    Gosh more ineptness and malfeasance from the bush administration…who ever could of predicted that….oh thats right all of us lefties who don’t understand security. I’ll hold my breath waiting for an apology from you neo-con scum!

  11. commissar wrote:

    madmatt,

    Do you concur that Bush’s extremism has been counter-productive and energized his terrorist opponents?

  12. MattM wrote:

    I’ll answer for MadMatt.

    I think the only way the terrorists had a chance of inflicting serious, long-term damage on the U.S. was to get people to actually believe Bush/America was the devil, out to destroy the ME and help Israel.

    Bush has played right into that plan.

    His extremism has turned a large part of the world (including the majority of Islamic countries) against us, which has enabled terrorists to recruit more and more people intent on harming us. And he’s created an entire generation of Iraqis who will forever hate America for what we’ve done to their country.

  13. commissar wrote:

    Matts,

    I don’t suppose you could see any domestic analogies here, huh? You know, extremists energizing what might otherwise be reasonable people on the other side?

  14. Grim wrote:

    Apparently, you’re not welcome to agree with them if you didn’t agree with them two years ago. If I read that right, that would appear to be an endorsement of a repeat of the 2004 election results.

    I’m going to put up a link to this at BlackFive. Let’s see if it shakes out any details on the subject.

  15. TallDave wrote:

    Meh. Everybody always wants more money.

    This isn’t exactly shades of MacArthur.

  16. TallDave wrote:

    I think the only way the terrorists had a chance of inflicting serious, long-term damage on the U.S. was to get people to actually believe Bush/America was the devil

    Or, you know. keep blowing stuff up and making us retreat while they establish a new caliphate — which was, in fact, their plan: they assumed, based on Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, etc., that the more they hit us the more we’d retreat. The invasion of Afghanistan was a surprise; the successful creation of a constitutional democracy in Iraq was a shock, and a strategic masterstroke that effectively ended any hope of creating a caliphate, as it demonstrated conclusively that Muslims want democracy not theocracy.

    The best they can do now is keep blowing up Shia in Iraq, which is getting them nowhere. It’s a quagmire!

  17. TallDave wrote:

    They want to fight on the cheap

    No, they want to be efficient. They’re not cancelling the ABM or the JSF; hell, did they ever manage to pull the plug on that dinosaur the Crusader?

    There’s one thing that massive numbers of troops in a standing army is good for: meeting massive numbers of troops in an opposing standing army. That ceased to be a realistic scenario in 1991. If you think it would make a difference in Iraq, ask the French how that strategy worked for them in Algeria, and keep in mind we’d need 2.5 million troops on the ground to have similar relative numbers in Iraq.

  18. TallDave wrote:

    The inescapable truth is the US is in no financial position to sustain troop levels at their current levels

    You might want to look at what other wars cost in relative GDP terms before you make a silly statement like that.

  19. MattM wrote:

    You might want to look at what other wars cost in relative GDP terms before you make a silly statement like that.

    You also might want to read some history about the sacrifices people made to fund those wars and how the government raised taxes. Two things Bush refuses to do.

    Putting our country further and further into debt to fund this war is not sustainable.

  20. MattM wrote:

    Or, you know. keep blowing stuff up and making us retreat while they establish a new caliphate — which was, in fact, their plan

    Blowing up stuff, even the WTC, does not do long-term damage to the U.S.

  21. dorkafork wrote:

    There’s one thing that massive numbers of troops in a standing army is good for: meeting massive numbers of troops in an opposing standing army.

    Or for securing Baghdad. That’s what General Sanchez told Bremer he could’ve done with an extra 35,000 troops. You don’t fight wars to try and impress people with your efficiency, you fight them to win.

  22. commissar wrote:

    TallDave,

    I assume you’re familiar with the concept of ‘falsifiability,’ as a test of distinguishing between a belief and an observable fact.

    Here’s a statement: “Bush and Rumsfeld have done a great job managing the war in Iraq (or, if flawed, better than any conceivable alternative).”

    Is there anything you could read or observe that would falsify that statement for you? If you read “X” might that cause you to re-think the truth of that statement? For you, is there any “X” that might cause such a re-evaluation?

    I confess, I’m no one to emulate. My “X” was so goddam huge, so irrefutable that madmatt and others find my belated realization laughable.

    But at least I had one, and I sincerely wonder if you do. And if it’s even more huge and more irrefutable than mine, so be it, you’ll receive no abuse from me.

  23. John the Marine wrote:

    Nothing is carved in stone Ladies and Gentlmen (Ladies refering to the Matts).

    What are large amounts of troops good for?

    How about being used for crushing the insurgency? Like occupying the country and sealing its borders with Iran. For God’s sake when I was active I was just a Lance Cooly and I have more imagination than the person who asked that dumb question.

    Effiency is fine for fighting a conventional armed conflict against an opposing mech force. But the worm turned a long time ago and we, the US Armed forces, need to be allowed to switch gears.

    Neo con scum hugh? Better than a defeatist leftist cry-baby. You girls aren’t fit to hold my jock. Let alone call me or anyone else scum. One could only imagine if Al “Asshat” Gore had been Pres. on 9/12. That weakling would have ceded PA and NJ to the Taliban and then convened a UN Security Council meeting to find the best way to give the Arabs a hug and make them feel better. Of course in 2004 John “Jackass” Kerry could have decided to fight terrorism before he decided to surrender. Bush ain’t no prize but I would vote for him 1,000 times over before any yellow belly Dem.

    My fellow conservatives… I’m a little disappointed. Instead of whining like school girls, we should be demanding action.

    We, should demand the Adminastration do the following:

    1. Can Rummy’s Sorry butt. His plan isn’t working. We need a new strategy.

    2. The administration needs to really go to war. Some one above mentioned this simple truth. We need 100,000’s of more guys for Iraq and else where. It is becoming obvious to me that it is going to get worse before it gets better and for the most part we are alone. France isn’t coming to save us.

    3. Commit ourselves to clear cut goals and then work towards them with all of our might.

    A. The total defeat of the insurgency in Iraq. No, going home until we’ve won.

    B. Neutralization or the Iranian threat. First by sealing its border with Iraq and then confronting them with a tough line while we rapidly build up our forces. Let them know we are coming at theater near them.

    C. Tell China to clean up their own mess. Yeh, thats right. Let the Red Chinese know that either they disapline N. Korea pronto, or we are going to coordinate a defense plan with a resurgent Japan and a Taiwan that has full access to U.S.A. Walmart of heavy weapons.

    4. Finally it is time to inform the public that we need to sacrifice and act like a people at war. Hell, I won’t willingly pay taxes for BS social programs, but I’ll pay double or triple to kill or enemies. Because if these savages win, everything I have will be worthless.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that all of the warm and fuzzy good will spread around by Bubba in Europe and Asia not only didn’t amount to a hand full of dust but it also bore bitter fruit. No, we are alone and we better get tough or get used to wearing burkas like the women we’ve become.

  24. marvin wrote:

    Tis amazing how quickly everybody goes negative.
    Pentagon budget battles..lots of posturing between those in Uniform, SecDef and Captial Hill..yawn..

    We need to change the ‘fobbits’ into ‘warriors’ –about one third of the US Forces in Iraqi actually leave the bases.

  25. smartalek wrote:

    All this backstabbing is accomplishing is encouraging our enemies. If you’re not with our C-in-C in every respect, you are against him. You are all objectively pro-terrorist. Report immediately to the nearest Promise Keepers or Concerned Citizens Council for re-Neducation. That is all.

  26. Bill Biddle wrote:

    > They want to fight on the cheap,

    Yes.

    > apparently so that they can waste money on various domestic programs.

    No.

    Rumsfeld insisted on attacking Iraq (the country with no WMDs, no connection to 9/11, and which posed us no threat, remember) with minimum forces for one reason only: so that a draft would not be necessary.

    He committed enough troops to start a fight, but not enough to win it. For domestic policy reasons. And now, the NIE (our own intelligence assessment) says the whole venture has created more terrorists than if we hadn’t started it.

    Rumsfeld has to go. Now.

  27. M.K. wrote:

    As a norwegian former military professional who served in Lebanon, its interesting to see the way you americans think and act.

    John the Marine: You do not seem to understand very much about the way things run in the Middle East. When you use force, the enviroment responds with corresponding force, and with the increase of force, the response adapts. Over 60% of the population are between 16 and 25 in certain areas, and thanks to the heavyhanded US/Israel approach, more and more of these are now classifiable as veterans. The one thing that really works in the ME is bribing, baksheesh, and that is what you need boots on the ground for: to rebuild and improve infrastructure, to make the everyday life of people better. By giving the disgruntled veterans a opportunity, you defuse the tension. By killing them, you increase the tension. Its quite simple.

    And this is what you should really impeach Rumsfeld for: That he had no post-war plan whatsoever for Iraq, and that he failed to effect the one that was made for the Afghan theatre. The legalization of torture and the introduction of gulags into the western judicial system is just a detail on top of this enormous fundament of incompetence and denial that the US spin machine has built up to justify its actions. If I ever get called up again, I will refuse to serve under any American commander.

  28. fiskhus jim wrote:

    Everything is going according to plan. The problem with the plan is that George Bush is NOT a true American.

    Bush is, in fact, attempting to destroy the US and its constitution. The reasons for this are twofold - 1) Revenge - the Bush family (both Presidents and all the related criminal brothers and cousins) are seeking revenge against America for their Grandfather’s conviction for treason during WWII; and 2) Greed - Bush is always ready to commit treason, to betray the National Security Interest and the United States if it means a quick buck for him and his buddies.

  29. John the Marine wrote:

    John the Marine: You do not seem to understand very much about the way things run in the Middle East.

    M.K. I got news for you, I spent enough time in country (Desert Storm; Saudi Arabia & Kuwait; Aug 1990 - April 1991; Combat Veteran.) to know how the Middle East works. First you win the war, then you pass out tooth brushes and candy bars. Europeans always amaze me. You seem to think that by appeasing evil you’ll win the war. Didn’t you people learn anything from history? Appeasement never works, it only emboldens the savages.

    The one thing that really works in the ME is bribing, baksheesh, and that is what you need boots on the ground for:

    I don’t know what Norway’s Armed forces are for, but the USMC is for fighting and winning wars. Perhaps your armed forces are better suited for sitting in Lebanon as Hezbullah rockets civilians. Sorry, I don’t think U.S. Military needs pointers from Norway.

    By killing them, you increase the tension. Its quite simple.

    Are you sure about your credentials as a Military Man. I appologize in advance for being rude, but my God has your country had any balls since the Viking days? You win by defeating the enemy and guess what this involves killing them. After the enemy is crushed and the remaining no longer desire war, then, and only then, do you smooth over their hurt feeelings and build the country back up (See Germany and Japan, post WWII).

    As for Rummy… Yes, it is time for him to go. Impeachment? definitely not. Fire his sorry behind? You bet.

    The legalization of torture and the introduction of gulags into the western judicial system is just a detail on top of this enormous fundament of incompetence and denial that the US spin machine has built up to justify its actions.

    Prove this barrel of BS. The U.S. has legalized torture? Sorry to disappoint you. However, we have gained quite a bit of good intel through interogation.

    I will refuse to serve under any American commander.

    I don’t think a U.S. Unit would take you. We are expected to fight and follow orders, and that means closing with and killing the enemy via superior fire power (close air support, artillery, Mech forces and the like. You know, all that stuff that Marines and Soldiers use in the event of battle. During that thing called a war.). This obviously wouldn’t work for you.