H/T to Stop the ACLU for the email.
MSNBC put out an article today announcing an upcoming editorial in the military times calling for Rumsfeld to go.
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 3 (UPI) — Four publications of the Military Times Media Group plan to call on U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times will issue the call in an editorial scheduled to run Monday, the newspaper said.
Now, first the military times is owned by Gannet Group, and written by USA Today, a known liberal paper, not written by any miltary group or affiliation.
Like so many articles and opinion editorials written in the far left media, they rely on implication instead of actual news as does the statement above. The "implication" that they make is that four separate publications are endorsing this, when in reality, all four are wrapped in one.
Then we have the "implication" that these are professional military publications and as Stop the ACLU says so elequently:
Examples of military professional publications are “Proceedings of the Naval Institute” and “The Officer” by the Reserve Officers Association.
The writers of this publication, the editorial in particular, are the same writers as the USA Today paper.
The RCP Blog wrote an article on this and then asked any miltary readers to please comment and they did!!!!
Here are a few of the emails our soldiers sent;
I'm a Major with 18 years of service in the USAF. In the USAF, the AF Times is understood to be useful source of information, but we all know it's not a military publication and it doesn't speak for us. I just came from three years in the bowels of the Pentagon and the SECDEF is generally though of there as tough but fair. Have mistakes been made? Sure, they always are but the professional military learns from it's mistakes.
Rumsfeld should have probably committed more soldiers to the peacekeeping in Iraq. We didn't need more to win the battle but to pacify the country afterward. Problem is the services are so small after the Clinton years that there just aren't enough forces to go much above 140K on a continuing basis. And no one here wants a draft. It would have been nice to get further international support, but that didn't work out, especially after Madrid. I think everyone in the Pentagon, if not the entire DOD hoped the Iraqis would take more responsibility for themselves and not destroy their country's infrastructure and their countrymen. But unfortunately they are not.
The Army Times op-ed probably won't change a single mind in the services. We're all pretty hard-headed and don't generally take our cues from the press. We wouldn't be in the Service if we did.
The next email:
I enjoy and appreciate your web site, and visit it frequently (even when deployed in the Middle East). With respect to your question on the impact of the editorial from Military Times Media Group calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation, I'd venture that it will be negligible.
Things are obviously not going well in the central region of Iraq, but that has little to do with any miscalculations made by the Secretary of Defense (which certainly occurred). As has so often been the case since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, a sizeable Muslim population is squandering yet another opportunity for integration into the modern world.
I just returned from a 6-month mobilization in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I can't say that I'm overly optimistic about the near-term prospects for stability in the region. Lack of significant progress in that respect has more to do with the collective malevolence of the Iraqi people than anything else.
Bottom line on the editorial: no impact.
Number three:
From my perspective, the Army Times editorial page is pro-democrat positions and does not reflect the attitude of most troops. I look at the Times for articles about pay, benefits and unit info, not the drivel in the editorial page.
Number four:
Secretary Rumsfield should stay! The Army Times and that entire group do not, repeat do not speak for the military. They might speak for some politicians who happen to be currently on active duty in the military.
Number five:
I am a retired Navy Commander and I don't believe the Gannett Company is doing themselves much good by publishing an editorial in the Times. All officers and most enlisted personnel know and respect that they cannot publicly criticize their chain of command. Many military individuals associate the Times with the military, but know it is published by a non-military organization. Regardless of their opinion of the Secretary of Defense it still will be perceived that one of their own is violating the rules....the association is too tight. The Military Times Media Group may get their opinion out, but it wouldn't be respected even if it is persuasive!
Number six:
One important point you may have missed is that the Gannett takeover of the Military Times publications is a fairly recent development. Although Gannett seems to be pretty well established in the MSM, they do not appear to have significantly downgraded the usefulness and relevance of these military oriented publications. Their targeted audience tends to let them know in no uncertain terms if their editorial positions blunder into the swamps of too much political correctness.
I was an enlisted man in the US Air Force for thirty years and subsequently a civilian employee of the Army Corps of Engineers for another twenty. One of the advantages of being associated with DOD for over fifty years is that it's difficult for them to come up anything you haven't already seen before. The downside is you tend to become a little cynical.
The usual suspects will probably try to make political hay out of the Times editorial but I question whether it will have much real impact. Unlike Robert McNamara, Rumsfeld has shown occasional flashes of common sense, although he sometimes seems dazzled by his own brilliance. Perhaps it has something to do with the rimless glasses.
Number seven:
The Army Times, which as you noted is published by the same folks that pubish USA Today, is slightly to the left of Tass.
Number eight:
I've been subscribing to the Air Force Times since 9/11, and was a regular reader long before that. I don't think the editorial itself matters much (I read it online). I read the AF Times for the news, as a way to keep up with current events within the Air Force and the military in general. I suspect that is why many people subscribe. I've never been a fan of the editorial page, which frankly sometimes comes off as a part of a different newspaper (perhaps pasted in from Gannett's USA today). The letters are usually way more informed and interesting than the editorials.
Those should have given you the idea of the lack of respect our military seems to have for the objectivity of the military times/USA Today.
Politicians love fall guys instead of simply admitting some things have to be fought for and isn't always pretty.
Brian from Iowa Voice is filling in for Sister Toldjah and has some good points about this.
Macsmind is also posting on this.
Once again I ask you... do you listen to the soldiers, the people who fight for your country or do you listen to the politicians?
Remember everyone once again, with gusto!!!!!!!!!!
