SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (13389)10/22/2003 6:30:29 AM
From: kumar  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793613
 
does not understand the religious implications and motivations for this war...

UW, our President and Commander-in-Chief is on the record saying this war on terror is not a war on any religion.

Your comment implies something different.

Care to clarify ?



To: unclewest who wrote (13389)10/22/2003 6:37:24 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793613
 
Spectacular cross-country drive.

Yes, it is. And you have a perfect time of year for it. The last part of your trip goes near the "Lewis & Clark" trail. I was surprised to see on on line. Have a "good-un."



To: unclewest who wrote (13389)10/22/2003 6:59:33 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793613
 
Here is the latest on Boykin. I suspect they will clear him. This is his last post in the Military anyway. If you watch Robert Duval's movie, "The Apostle," you get some of the flavor of the Evangelicals. What I don't understand is what possessed Bill Arkin of the LA Times to seek this out and go after him. The fact that he hid behind the NBC story that he fronted says he knew it was scurrilous. Money quote: "Many people don't understand the Christian evangelical culture," Mr. Maginnis said. "I think his comments were taken out of context."
_______________________________________

Rumsfeld backs inside probe of general's speech
By Bill Gertz

The Washington Times

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that he welcomes an internal investigation of a three-star general who spoke of the war on terrorism in religious terms.

Mr. Rumsfeld had said last week that he could not verify the remarks made at a church meeting by Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and special operations.

"I have since seen one of the network tapes, and it had a lot of very difficult-to-understand words with subtitles which I was not able to verify," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Gen. Boykin yesterday requested a review at the inspector general level, "and I have indicated that if that's his request, I think it's appropriate," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

The secretary said it was not clear who will take up the matter, the Pentagon's inspector general or the Army's own watchdog.

Gen. Boykin, an evangelical Christian, was quoted as saying that the war against terrorism is a battle between good and evil, with terrorists representing "Satan."

The three-star general's remarks have come under fire as inappropriate, and administration officials have distanced themselves from the comments, saying the war against terrorism is not a war against Islam.

Mr. Rumsfeld said yesterday that he had made the point on several occasions that the war against terrorism "is not a war against a religion."

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Gen. Boykin had mentioned during a recent talk "how sad he was that his comments have caused the furor that they have."

"There's no doubt in my mind in talking to him that if he could pick his words more carefully, he would," Gen. Pace said during an appearance with Mr. Rumsfeld.

"There's also no doubt in my mind that he does not see this battle as a battle between religions. He sees it as a battle between good and evil. He sees it as the evil being the acts of individuals, not the acts of any religion or affiliation with religion."

Gen. Pace said Gen. Boykin is "anxious to have the investigator do the investigator's job."

Last week, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not believe the general's remarks broke any rules.

Gen. Boykin has said in several recent speeches at evangelical Christian churches that God has put President Bush in the White House to battle terrorists.

In one speech, Gen. Boykin referred to an Islamic guerrilla in Somalia who said U.S. forces would never catch him because Allah would protect him.

"Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," Gen. Boykin said.

Some Muslim and civil-liberties groups said the general's statements were inappropriate.

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said the remarks "fly in the face of the pleas of the president and violate the basic principles of tolerance and inclusion that are implicit in the culture of this nation."

Mr. Bush has referred to al Qaeda terrorists in speeches and public comments as "evildoers," while repeatedly maintaining at Muslim venues that the war on terrorism is not a religious one.

On Friday, Gen. Boykin released a statement apologizing to all who had taken offense, saying he had not intended to insult Islam.

"My references to Judeo-Christian roots in America or our nation as a Christian nation are historically undeniable," Gen. Boykin said in the statement.

Asked his opinion of the general's remarks, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "I'm going to wait for the inspector general to complete their review and come back to us."

Mr. Rumsfeld said "much of the press" has criticized Gen. Boykin for his personal views, without knowing clearly what he said and in what context.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and the committee's ranking Democrat, asked Mr. Rumsfeld in a letter to begin a review by the inspector general's office of whether there was any "inappropriate behavior" by Gen. Boykin.

The letter said "there are limits on the right of expression for service members."

"Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world and, perhaps, increased risk for members of the U.S. armed forces serving in Muslim nations," Mr. Warner and Mr. Levin wrote.

Mr. Warner said yesterday that Gen. Boykin should be reassigned from his post during the investigation.

"When you start trying to explain what you did say, you need time out to do a little study," Mr. Warner said.

The furor surrounding Gen. Boykin's remarks highlights problems faced by the Bush administration in conducting an ideological war against Islamic terrorists, analysts say.

The president and his top advisers have said that Islamic terrorists have "hijacked" Islam, but there remains a widespread perception in the Muslim world that the U.S.-led war on terrorism is a war against Islam.

Retired Lt. Col. Robert L. Maginnis, who works with the Army on multinational operations, said Gen. Boykin's remarks were misinterpreted.

"Many people don't understand the Christian evangelical culture," Mr. Maginnis said. "I think his comments were taken out of context."



To: unclewest who wrote (13389)10/27/2003 4:01:07 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793613
 
This will never happen, but I am glad it was suggested.
______________________________________________________

Reforming DoD
By Richard Halloran
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 27, 2003

In a leaked memo that caused a stir in Washington and throughout the far-flung American military forces last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked: "Is the DoD [Department of Defense] changing fast enough to meet the new 21st century security environment?"
From this perch in the Pacific, the answer is a resounding no. Here are a couple of suggestions for bold moves the Pentagon might make to speed things along, including a revision of the commands in the Asia-Pacific region:
• Streamline the Defense Department by abolishing the three anachronistic departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, eliminating about half of the senior positions in the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy and making the Secretary of Defense the master of his own house.
• Provide for integrated military plans and operations by abolishing the anomalous Joint Chiefs of Staff, a quarrelsome organization led by a chairman who acts like a corporate executive making widgets, and replace it with a military staff led by a warrior in command of the operational forces.
The Rumsfeld memo asked four top colleagues to be prepared at their next meeting to discuss issues such as: "Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip, and focus to deal with the global war on terror?" and "Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental?"
The contents of the Oct. 16 memo appeared on Oct. 22 in the newspaper USA Today. It was not secret, suggesting that Mr. Rumsfeld may have wanted it to be made public. He scoffed, telling reporters: "If I had wanted it published, I would have issued it as a press release."
The Department of Defense was established in 1947, and was intended to foster joint planning and operations by bringing the military departments together under one roof. Instead, the nation got rival fiefdoms locked in an unending struggle for money and missions. The secretary of defense sits atop this turbulent mass as a referee.
Take personnel, for instance. The Pentagon has nine high-level officials and officers setting policy and managing the forces — four politically appointed civilians and five three-star generals or admirals, each with a swollen staff. Surely, one civilian to maintain the time-honored civilian control of the military and a senior personnel officer for each service could do the job.
Inastreamlined scheme, an undersecretary of defense would take over from the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force the responsibility for the readiness of the combat forces. Reporting to him would be the chief of staff of the Army, the chief of naval operations, commandant of the Marine Corps and the chief of staff of the Air Force, who would continue to prepare their forces for war.
In the new order, a chief of military staff would replace the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and wouldcommandthe armed forces, rather than be an adviser to the secretary of defense and the president. As it is now, the chairman legally has no operational control over the forces in the field, although in practice he has whatever authority the secretary delegates.
That would provide a clear chain of command that would run from the president to the secretary of defense to the chief of military staff to combatant command, such as the Pacific Command. (The vice-president is not in that chain to remove the temptation, however remote, to seize control of the armed forces in a coup against the president.)
Getting rid of the military departments and setting up an operational military staff would give the combatant commanders, such as Adm. Thomas Fargo of the Pacific Command, more clear-cut authority over their forces. Today, a regional commander looks both to the chief of his service and the secretary of defense for orders.
Taking that a step further, the command lines in Asia and the Pacific should be straightened out by abolishing U.S. forces in Korea as a separate command and making it part of the Pacific Command, as is the U.S. force in Japan. That would integrate U.S. forces into a single area of operations in northeast Asia, instead of the present divided command.
Those military revisions would require political changes, because U.S. forces are in Korea under a United Nations command. Since the United States and South Korea have already agreed to move the U.N. and U.S. headquarters out of Seoul and to consolidate U.S. formations south of Seoul, changes in the U.S. command structure at the same time might be in order.

Richard Halloran is a former New York Times correspondent who lives in Honolulu.

dynamic.washtimes.com