Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: laura_bush who wrote (458558)	9/14/2003 10:59:02 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Rumsfeld's relations with the military have been strained since he returned to office. This is particularly true within the Army, which felt threatened by his modernization plans before the Sept. 11 attacks and where concern runs deep about the damage the Iraq occupation could do the service in the long run. "Robert McNamara for four years of Vietnam going down the toilet was absolutely convinced with a religious zeal that what he was doing was the right thing," said Thomas E. White, a retired Army general who was fired as Army secretary this year by Rumsfeld. "It wasn't until 30 years later that it dawned on him that he was dead wrong. And I think you have the same thing with Don Rumsfeld." Rumsfeld appears to be losing ground most dramatically on Capitol Hill, where even some conservative Republicans are expressing concern about his handling of Iraq. "Winning the peace is a lot different than winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who counts himself as a strong Rumsfeld supporter but notes that not all his colleagues feel the same. "His bluntness comes across as arrogance, and he's made some enemies on Capitol Hill, probably because of style differences," said Graham, an Air Force veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the panel's chairman, struck a decidedly cool note when asked how Rumsfeld is doing. "Understandably we have some differences," he said Friday in a written response. "However, I consistently work with Secretary Rumsfeld to support the president and the men and women of the armed forces, and have a high regard for his integrity and forcefulness." Rumsfeld declined to be interviewed for this article, and his spokesman declined to provide any comment. Unhappiness with Rumsfeld flared on Capitol Hill months before the invasion of Iraq, when Warner stood up at a meeting of Republican senators with White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and complained that Rumsfeld was neither cooperating nor consulting with the Senate. Warner told Card that he had never seen anything like it in 25 years in the Senate. Now, with casualties in Iraq mounting and lawmakers growing agitated about the costs of occupation and reconstruction, the strains have become more pronounced, even as the administration continues to hold strong Republican support on Capitol Hill for its overall policy goals in Iraq. Even Rumsfeld's GOP backers chafe at the way he interacts with Congress. "I think his legislative affairs shop is awful," said one Republican senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It serves him so poorly. Don Rumsfeld can't be personally blamed for all of that. But the combination of his personality, which some people find condescending and prickly and a little offensive -- Rumsfeld himself doesn't have any time for criticism -- and the fact that the groundwork hasn't been laid by a good legislative affairs staff, has created some problems." Graham, the South Carolina Republican, said that among his colleagues, "there's some belief that he's reluctant to admit that things are off-track when they seem to be off-track. He's very defensive." While the administration says it wants a U.N. resolution aimed at winning more foreign troops and money, Reed said, "The rhetoric is not matched by the body language and all the things that have to go into getting people to cooperate with you." Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a former head of the U.S. Central Command who also served the Bush administration as Middle East envoy, sharply criticized the Pentagon's handling of postwar Iraq in a speech before the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association 10 days ago. He received an enthusiastic response from hundreds of military officers present. In the Army, there are deep worries that the Iraq occupation could do long-term damage to the service. Of the 10 active-duty Army divisions, nine will have all or parts deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan this year or next. "The Army is strained and stressed," Gen. John Keane, the service's number two officer, said Thursday. The major worry, according to some in the Army, is that repeated deployments to Iraq will persuade the backbone of the service -- seasoned sergeants and younger officers -- to leave in mid-career instead of serving a full 20 years. There already is talk that some of those now serving in Iraq will come home, only to be sent back in 2005. "The last time we had people doing combat tours every other year was Vietnam," one defense expert said. "The impact on soldiers and families was great. A lot of good junior officers and mid-grade NCOs [noncommissioned officers] walked. This decimated the rising leadership and broke the force." The state of the Army reserves is a special worry, and the reserves are adept at conveying that concern to Congress. "Unless there's adaptation in the reserves, there's going to be a bloodletting," with thousands of reservists declining to reenlist, said Graham, who serves as an officer in the Air Force Reserve. He said he is introducing legislation -- along with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) -- to radically improve the health benefits for reservists, and to reduce the costs to civilian employers of reservists deployed overseas. washingtonpost.com