It’s public knowledge. A growing majority of forthright public statements by America’s generals and leading military experts have cast serious doubts on Donald Rumsfeld and his conduct of the war in Iraq.

A growing number of current and former Generals want Rumsfeld to retire from his powerful office at the Pentagon as promptly as possible. Put another way, a rapidly swelling bloc of American Generals want George Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld.

Earlier this year, eight retired generals called for Rumsfeld’s immediate resignation. They were: General Anthony Zinni; Major General Paul Eaton; Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold; Major General John Batiste; Major General John Riggs; Major General Charles Swannack;
Lieutenant General Paul van Riper and General Wesley Clark.

In his comments to the New York Times, General Paul Eaton stated,

“(Rumsfeld) has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America’s mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.”

General Paul Eaton

Rumsfeld is now the oldest serving Secretary of Defense in American history, and many of his critics believe that he is out of his depth in Iraq – way out. Hobbled by a military that is disgruntled with his policy and his curt and abusive personal style, the top echelons of the US military are swiftly losing confidence in Rumsfeld’s leadership. Rumsfeld has become the biggest target for the majority of public criticism about the failed war in Iraq, but, securely ensconced on his self-constructed pedestal, he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the cold, hard facts of the worsening military situation in Iraq.

Without Rumsfeld in his high profile position at the Pentagon, Bush and Cheney would be smarting even more than they already are – with the constant barrage of criticism of the ill-conceived war in Iraq. Regardless of Rumsfeld’s taking much of the blame, Bush and Cheney are unquestionably responsible for their own failed policies. Rumsefld is a longstanding adversary of Bush, Sr. In 1988, Rumsfeld tested the presidential waters briefly in a ploy to weaken Bush’s chances to succeed Reagan. In spite of the animosity between Bush, Sr. and Rumsfeld, he has come to epitomize the monumental failures of the Bush II administration.

In his latest book, State of Denial, Bob Woodward focuses on the constellation of crises centering on Rumsfeld and his rapidly mushrooming catalogue of colossal failures. Described by his peers and his professional associates as overbearing, aggressive, bullying, combative, tyrannical, doctrinaire, difficult, arrogant and stubborn, many of our leading military experts think Rumsfeld is the architect of the most colossal military disaster in American history – Iraq. There can be little serious doubt that Rumsfeld and his policies represent ground zero at the epicenter of the political and strategic disasters erupting around and steadily engulfing the Bush-Cheney White House in what is now a groaning sea of grief. But, the concerns over Rumsfeld’s problems are worse, much worse.

While he is difficult enough at the best of times, Rumsfeld is known to cheat at squash – a stunning revelation that strikes at the heart of his unsuitability for such a powerful position. Rumsfeld has lost the respect of his peers who view him as a ballooning case of egomania swathed in petty tyrannies that are exposed to the glaring light of day on the squash courts at the Pentagon. The man is now an object of revulsion for the majority of his colleagues in the federal government, and he has become deeply unpopular at the Pentagon.

Two of Rumsfeld’s most distinguished prosecutors served in Iraq. Major General Charles Swannack and Major General John Batiste think Rumfeld is incompetent and a dismal strategist whose blunders have caused the deaths of American soldiers, our allies and thousands of the innocent civilians of Iraq. Worse. These two highly decorated American military experts say that Rumsfeld, “did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war.” There is a growing body of military opinion that Rumsfeld is covering up even more failures and scandals than those that have already become public knowledge.

Woodward accuses Rumsfeld of being at the dead center of the state of denial that has gripped the Bush-Cheney administration and paralyzed America’s government. When Woodward questioned Rumsfeld about an intelligence report on the accelerating deterioration in Iraq that predicted a radical escalation of insurgency in 2007, Rumsfeld pleaded ignorance, indecisiveness and inadequacy. “When was this? Gosh, I don’t know,” Rumsfeld pleaded to Woodward. “I read so many of those intelligence reports, and they are all over the lot.”

General John Abizaid testified to Congress that Iraq is moving toward civil war, but his statement was merely a PR exercise for our ranking military experts realize that Iraq is already gripped in the throes of an outright civil war with thousands of deaths per month and tens of thousands of casualties mounting upwards towards the stratosphere – but entirely invisible to Rumsfeld from his lofty post at the Pentagon.

Retired General William Odom has been much more forthright than General Abizaid. Stating categorically that the war in Iraq is, “the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States,” General Odom believes Bush and Rumsfeld’s strategy serves the long-range geopolitical interests of America’s enemies – not only China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, but also those of the terrorists inspired by Bin Laden, Zawahiri and the late Qutb.

In his opinion, General Odom agrees with the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released in fragmentary form last week after immense pressure was brought to bear on the Bush White House. The secret NIE report found that the war in Iraq is fueling the growth of radical Islamic terrorism that threatens to attack America and its allies for generations to come.

Another forthright General, Gregory Newbold, wrote an article for Time magazine that explained his retirement four months before the launch of the Iraq War in these stark terms,

“I retired from the military four months before the March 2003 invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11’s tragedy to hijack our security policy.”

More. General Newbold accuses the civilians who concocted the war of not knowing what they were doing. In Time, Newbold wrote,

“My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results.”

While Newbold’s salient remarks were clearly aimed at George Bush and Dick Cheney, they are just as pertinent for Donald Rumsfeld, a US Secretary of Defense who never fought in any war.