(2 of 3)
But what distinguishes the latest rebellion is that the retired generals are taking on their old boss not over policy or budgets but the operation of an ongoing war. And it is a message that will probably be heard more deeply by voters than the usual criticism from Capitol Hill or editorial boards, particularly because the generals are making essentially the same argument: Rumsfeld was wrong to disband the Iraqi military, has ignored the advice of people with far more battlefield experience and has shown too little concern about the abuses of Iraqi prisoners. The generals also argue that Rumsfeld insisted on too small a force for the invasion, abandoning the doctrine championed by former Secretary of State and four-star general Colin Powell in 1991 after the Gulf War to attack rarely and then only with overwhelming force. Rumsfeld wanted to prove the Powell Doctrine obsolete. Instead, he has probably guaranteed that it will be followed for years.
There is some evidence that the retirees are speaking for other generals still on active duty. "I think," said former U.S. Central Command boss Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine four star, "a lot of people are biting their tongues." But not everyone: some still in uniform have criticized the retirees for speaking up now instead of before the war, when the brass accepted Rumsfeld's demands for a smaller, lighter force. But one consistent part of the indictment is that Rumsfeld made clear he wouldn't listen to views that didn't match his own anyway. Lieut. General Newbold made that point in his essay in TIME last week, when he wrote that Rumsfeld marginalized former Army General Eric Shinseki after the Chief of Staff suggested in a hearing before Congress that much larger forces would be needed following the invasion. "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda," said Major General John Riggs, who spoke out on National Public Radio last Thursday.
While the military's reproach is the most remarkable, it follows some public criticism of Rumsfeld from the civilian side of the Administration that seems to signal he is no longer feared. Last month, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged "tactical errors, thousands of them" in the conduct of the war. That remark, which Rice later characterized as a figure of speech, led Rumsfeld to respond, "I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly honest." And though he bears some responsibility for overstating the case for war before the invasion, Powell took aim at his old rival Rumsfeld too, saying last week, "We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and ... it got out of control."