In the latest edition of TIME magazine, Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold (USMC-Retired) offers what is called a “full-throated critique” of the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror, but, like so many of the critics, he offers no alternatives and misses some key facts about Al Qaeda. No wonder he was promoted through the ranks so rapidly during the Clinton Adminstration.

ABC_On_Gen_Newbold.wmv

Newbold says:

“We have been fooled again.”

and

“I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq–an unnecessary war.”

and

“What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.”

and

“To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress–from both parties–defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight.”

Throughout the article Newbold bodly complains of failures, and arrogance and zealotry, but fails to identify any specific instances in which an alternative course should have been taken or discuss any of the ideas he had while still in uniform or address any of the facts about the newly revealed relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which he refers to as the “real threat.”

Newbold asks us to believe that if his ideas, which are never discussed in the article, were followed, we would be living in the best of all possible worlds.

As background, Newbold was commissioned as an officer in 1970, when Vietnam was practically wrapping up and was promoted to J-3 of Joint Chiefs and promoted to 3-Star under Clinton Administration in 2002.

I found no references to his serving in Vietnam.

In 1993, as a Colonel, he commanded the 15th MEU in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope before the operation became a U.N. mission.

Newbold only commanded troops in a hostile environment for only 3.5 months.

To put his experience in perspective, the average Sergeant in a Marine line-company has three times the actual experience of leading Marines in combat.

After retiring from the Corps, Newbold joined the Potomac Institute, a D.C. think tank, before forming GlobeSecNine, where he is the Managing Director.

GlobeSecNine does business with the Scowcroft Group and has a $1.5 Bilion dollar deal with Bear Stearns Merchang Banking to invest in firms contracting with the DoD and Homeland Security.

GlobeSecNine is one of many firms hoping to become the next Carlyle Group.

And this case, a company profiteering off a war the founder opposed.

Say what you will about Newbold, but he isn’t one to let his convictions get in the way of making a buck.

It is this contradiction that casts a shadow over his entire article, which is full of contradictions.

In his opinion piece, Newbold says, “I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11’s tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I’ve been silent long enough.”

What he leaves out is that he was on his way out before that.

In June of 2002, the Secretary of Defense transmitted a report to the Congress informing them of Newbold’s retirement.

Iraq was invaded by the Coalition on March 20, 2003.

In an Oct. 16, 2002 Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks, we find this:

“When Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold was preparing earlier this year to leave his position as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff…

“Gen. Newbold, who had told colleagues he found the job deeply frustrating partly because of Rumsfeld’s constant bypassing of the Joint Staff.”

Interestingly enough, Oct. 16, 2002 was the day Public Law 107-243, the resolution authorizing the use of force, was signed into law.

So, his reason for retiring was “in part” opposition to enforcing the U.N. Resolutions against Iraq and part being bypassed by Rumsfeld who would work directly with the CentCom and other combatant commanders instead of the mostly political Joint Chiefs.

For readers unfamiliar with the military, the Joint Chiefs command no one.

In his article, Newbold fails to address the elephant in the room: Saddam’s desire to obtain Nuclear Weapons and his ties to terrorist organizations.

As noted by the Duefler report, Saddam’s goal was to undermine the sanctions regime through Oil-For-Food bribes in hopes it would collapse and he could resume his plan to build WMDs.

If Saddam was not to be invaded and deposed, what would the U.S. do if he obtained WMDs?

Newbold fails to address that obvious scenario or explain what he thought should have been done.

He also writes, “I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat–al-Qaeda.”

Newbold’s bold assertions fall apart on the rocks of truth now that we know Iraq did have a relationship with Al Qaeda.

In recently translated documents:

“According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.

“The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission’s final conclusion in 2004, that there were no “operational” ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.”

As we now know, Iraq and Al Qaeda had some type of operational relationship, making Newbold’s assertions that invading Iraq distracted us from “the real threat–al-Qaeda” almost laughable–especially since his article was published after the new revelations.

So, the new darling of the media to criticize the “zealots” for “the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war” asks us to accept that he knew what was right, when actually, he had, and still has, everything wrong.

We, the Veterans of America’s Majority, do not like criticizing a retired Marine officer. In fact, the majority of the AmMaj veterans are former enlisted Marines. But, when someone is factually incorrect and has an odd pattern with the facts he does assert, we will not hesitate to challenge him.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 12th, 2006 at 1:59 am and is filed under MSM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.