Via Terry Hastings, we learn that the WaPo’s David Ignatius has gotten into the polling business. From “Replace Rumsfeld”:
When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.
As Terry asks in his email, “Is Ignatius’ polling of officers taken across a broad, representative cross section of officers? Or, does he poll fellow travelers, and then apply a hasty generalization?
“Ignatius goes on to say:”
Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won’t be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration’s arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether “tactical errors” were made in the war’s conduct.
And thus we see, in bold strokes, what I’ve been arguing all along with respect to the media, public opinion, and the Iraq campaign: the media creates a particular perception by dint of its not disinterested coverage, then has the temerity to cite the fact that people have adopted that perception as proof of it’s accuracy. Which is sad, because such soft indoctrination is hardly anything to brag about, even obliquely.
Note also how Ignatius says Rumsfeld should retire because “much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration’s arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap”—NOT that Rumsfeld should retire because what he has done to reform an outmoded and slow-moving military built for fighting massive ground wars (as well as to helm the two operations that have resulted in the liberation of both Iraq and Afghanistan) was either wrongheaded or ineffective.
To Ignatius, Rumsfeld’s is a scalp to be hung on the wall of the anti-war camp’s rickety leanto. It would, he believes (as do many like him), represent a tacit admission by the administration that the entire Iraq campaign was a mistake and a failure—something they can’t get the administration to admit otherwise.
So when Ignatius cites public opinion as the standard by which we should call for people’s resignations—especially when he knows very well that public opinion is driven by people like himself—he is attempting to assert his own power, and to impose his own will on the administration.
Which is why I continue to hit on an ideologically-driven media’s manifest and objective attempts to affect the war effort.
And were we to adopt Ignatius’ standard for symbolic stepping down, all of Congress should retire, given their approval numbers. And given the decline in readership and revenue being generated by the major newspapers, perhaps Ignatius is willing to offer himself up as a symbol of all that is wrong with today’s ideologically driven press.
Because let’s face it: much of the American public has simply stopped believing the MSM’s veracity, and Ignatius is a symbol of that credibility gap…
It is nice that we don’t decide policy based on polls and the opinions/conjectures of journalists.
Do they ever stop and think about how the media is misrepresenting reality? I find it quite abhorable.
Hmmm.
1. I know that retired generals have the ultimate moral authority. Except when that moral authority is exerted by the grieving mother named Cindy Sheehan of a dead American soldier.
Frankly it’s getting rather difficult to keep up with this exertion of absolute moral authority. Is there a program available or at least a check list?
2. Does this mean I have to actually listen to what that asshat extraordinaire Wesley Clark has to say? Can I get a coupon to avoid this?
…
*shrug* really. Am I supposed to give a rat’s ass what a bunch of retired generals think?
sw: for what?
They’re aware of how unpopular they made Clinton during the impeachment.
An impeachment which failed…..which means this is a poor analogy. Ignoring, of course, the fact that this statement by actus is non sequitur, since policy by public opinion does not necessarily equate to impeachment.
As to the “DO NOT FEED THE actus” sign…..yeah, I am ignoring it. Maybe he’ll get constipated and go away.
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark!
Its also poor due to how (un)popular Clinton was.
I served under three generals. One is in prison (remember the Wedtech scandal?) That’s not a good average. Why should I listen to these people?
Unpopular? With the American public, or the Republicans? Be careful how you answer.
Hint: Is Ignatius worried about what the Republicans think?
TW: Of mice and men, actus ain’t one of the latter.
BTW…I’ve served under several generals myself. In fact, of all the flag and senior field grade officers that I’ve worked for, there were maybe 4 that I sincerely respected. Of the others, at least two were forced to retire early thanks to “career complications”. The rest…I’m glad they are out of the system now.
Being a senior officer in the military does not impart wisdom. If that were true in this world, we would have fewer idiot members of Congress….no matter which side of the aisle I might speak from.
You can count me among that number. I’ve taken to playing a game wherein I read a newspaper story without looking at the byline and then try to guess where the story originated. I’m getting pretty good at recognizing NYT and AP stories. Oh, and polls … I think palm readers are more accurate, and that guy who goes around communicating with dead people is definitely so.
I heard on the radio that there are around 10,000 retired general. If they are going to start polling them, then poll them all.
Did Ignatius mention which Army his veteran got all that Iraq combat experience in?
Here’s a little quote from another General.
I remember one of the annoying inspections where the Commandant of the Marine Corps flew in to “inspect the troops” in Japan. You know, the guy is due at 11, so the base commander says have everybody there by 10, and the major in charge of our unit says 9, and the first sergeant says 8… So you get to stand in formation on a concrete runway in Japan in, I don’t know, August maybe – think Georgia for a comparison. Anyway, this dipstick almost dropped my rifle when he looked at it – with the sort of look that makes you wonder if this guy has ever seen one before. To be kind, maybe he was wiped out from the long flight, but I always figured he was a “political” general, not one of the guys you’d follow to hell because he’d been there and back.
I guess generals, Marine generals anyway, are like the rest of the Corps. Twenty five percent of the best people you will ever meet anywhere in your life, ever. Fifty percent good, solid people you[d trust with your life. That leaves the other twenty five percent… I don’t know him, but I’d put Zinni in that group. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Hmmm.
When Chesty Puller died, there were no more men made on the Earth.
Amen.
Someone already invoked the most dreaded of all GENERALS WHO SHOULD NEVER HAVE THEIR NAMES SPOKEN ALOUD EVER AGAIN…. Eslley-way Ark-clay. Yeargh! Invoking him should put much fear into those who trust the mouthy and retired of flag rank.
Ed  Don’t tell that to Chuck Yeager’s grandkid in the Marines. Did you see what he did in Najaf?
As a veteran of a Texas high school, the University of Texas and Georgetown University, not to mention being married to an ex-teacher, who has survived many classroom firefights, I call on the Bush Administration’s Secretary of Education to resign.
I know it’s a woman now, used to be a black guy from Houston. A little help?
And also that Snow guy. Why the hell is he still hanging around?
And I got a question for Condolezza too. What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Dropped from a federal building, of course.
Don’t know? Arrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
Is that an African swallow…[?]
Exactly, Jeff. It doesn’t matter what the RIF’d brass thinks. They had their chance to change minds but preferred to retire rather than put their perks and stars on the line. Fuck ‘em.
The rule:
You get to argue, bitch and protest, but only for so long. Then you give a snappy salute, say “YES SIR!” and go do yor damnedest to carry out your orders. You do NOT go crying to the press (see MacArthur, Douglas) and start sniping.
SB: moral
shut up and soldier.
So, if I understand him correctly, the only reason he, and others, oppose the war is because Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush are running it?
If it were anybody else (with the proper Party credentials)then Ignatius and the rest of the media would be behind it?
So their whole objection rests on partisan politics? They’re willing for the U.S. to lose a war just because they don’t like the Party affiliation of the President.
That’s quite an admission, and not one that redounds to their favor.
Of course these people don’t like Rummy. He’s unorthodox. He wants to institute changes. This always gets people upset.
What these (honorable?) generals need to understand is that leaders listen to advice and then make decisions based on what is needed. Rummy is not obligated to obey their advice just because they’re generals, active or retired. Furthermore, none of them is the Secretary of Defense. They cannot possibly have the scope, depth of information, and objectives Rummy has.
Their public protestation is their right; nevertheless, it is quite ridiculous.
Rumsfeld isn’t fighting the war on the home front. That’s not his job. Would that it were, given that Dubya sucks at it.
Says the retired dude.
Thank you for telling us the DOD should not be fighting within the borders. Now someone tell Jose Padilla.
I don’t believe we’re fighting Jose Padilla. In fact, he’s currently in the criminal justice system.
The war is being fought over there, dipshit. Why are you such a pedantic little fucker, anyway? Was Momma cold to you? Did you have to fight for attention as a puppy?
Obtuse is back, I see.
The DOD should not be fighting within the borders? So if Al Quaeda gets here they’re home free? Should we start at the three mile limit? If they hijack another plane, we’re to send the FBI after them?
I know. So we don’t have to fight it over here. Thats our right, after all, to fight the war in other places so its not fought here. But then, if its not fought here, there ought not to be any enemy combatants here either.
the media creates a particular perception by dint of its not disinterested coverage, then has the temerity to cite the fact that people have adopted that perception as proof of it’s accuracy.
Indeed, and without the new media and primarily the internet, I suspect the public mood would be far worse. I am certain that by this point most of the left would be honest and admit what so far only one columnist had the temerity to say: that they do not support the troops.
That and the majority of troops coming back home reporting that the MSM reporting of the GWOT is 90% crap.
JeffS,
A big problem is what they do not report. But I was in Afghanistan, so I might as well been on the Dark Side of The Moon. Except when Pat Tillman got killed, of course. Or that Chinook crashed killing 16. Then we got press!
Tell me about it, Major John. I had direct feeds on construction projects all through Iraq and Afghanistanâ€â€schools, hospitals, court houses, water supplies, police stations, border forts, roads, power stations, you name it.
When did this ever hit the news? When someone was killed.
As an example, a major news figure once had the chance to tag along with senior Army commander on a swing through Iraq, a chance to see, first hand,
what was going on there (said general likes to get his hands dirty).
Security? Not a problem, he would have been guarded as well as any VIP there. Transportation, food, quarters, everything arranged.
Of course, he decided not to go after all. I’m not sure why, but clearly the rebuilding of Iraq just ain’t news.