Rumsfeld under fire

Re “President Comes to Defense of Rumsfeld,” April 15

The call for a new Defense secretary is too little too late. In 2004, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders issued a statement saying the Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle “in either style or substance” the responsibilities of global leadership.

The nation is now paying the price for the administration’s lack of planning for Iraq’s reconstruction. Troop levels needed to stabilize that country were grossly miscalculated, resulting in needless American deaths and increased terrorism. The Pentagon is still trying to cope with the miscalculations while also supporting a war in Afghanistan. Ultimately, however, it is the president who must be held accountable. Until President Bush has a real plan for victory, it matters little who runs the Pentagon.

MAJ. ROBERT TORMEY

U.S. Air Force, Retired

Escondido

*

We see another example of the all-too-common theme from the commander in chief: “Rummy, you’re doing a heck of a job!” Will Bush’s approval ratings need to dip into single digits before he wakes up to his incompetent handling of the war, social issues and his cronies? I pray that we will be able to resurrect our national reputation, economy and programs for our most vulnerable residents once Bush is out of office. January 2009 cannot come too soon.

THOMAS LAFRANCE

Los Angeles

*

According to some estimates, there are about 4,700 retired general officers and 312 Army generals on duty right now. That means the six former generals who stepped forward to criticize Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld make up about one-tenth of 1% of all generals. Given this large number of generals, why are there only six coming forward?

This is not to say that their comments are with or without merit, or if this is politics at play; rather, it is shocking that so few have felt compelled to come forward and speak out if Rumsfeld’s performance is indeed so egregious.

MIKE THOMAS

Irvine

*

Re “Generals versus Rumsfeld,” Opinion, April 15

If you are in the military and you are given an order that you deem is contrary to the Constitution, what is your course of action? Andrew J. Bacevich, using the example of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, claims that we follow the chain of command or otherwise open a Pandora’s box of complications.

But what if President Truman had told his generals to nuke a dozen Chinese cities and they had refused? Did not the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II convict German officers even though they claimed they were just following orders? Sometimes we have to make the right decision even though the powers that be may try to discredit us. Time will tell whether our generals are right or wrong, but I suspect that they are right.

DAVID M. KERANEN

Bakersfield