On Sunday, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers told ABC television that military officials -- even in retirement -- should keep their criticism to themselves.



"It's inappropriate, because it's not the military that judges our civilian bosses," said Myers, who left his post as senior US military adviser six months ago.

"There are professional standards that you have when you are in uniform that carry on when you retire," he told ABC's "This Week" program.



At least six former generals have called for Rumsfeld's ouster, some of whom held key combat commands and staff positions during the Iraq war.

They say the embattled defense secretary ignored military advice and deployed too few troops to pacify Iraq. Despite the outcry, President George W. Bush has declared his "full support" for Rumsfeld.

Among the defense secretary's detractors is retired major general John Batiste, who last week said that Rumsfeld showed too little regard for his uniformed advisers.

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes. When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril," Batiste told US television last week.

The beleaguered Rumsfeld, for his part, characterized the critics as representing a minority opinion.

"Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round," he told Al-Arabiya television last week.

However, US Senator Christopher Dodd said the few generals who have dared to speak out represent the just a small fraction of the far larger number of detractors.

"These are generals who are not only speaking for themselves but I suspect are speaking for a lot of senior military people who are in uniform today," the Democratic lawmaker said.

"Generals are not in the habit, even as retirees, to go around being critical of the civilian leadership. This is a very, very important event," he told the "Fox News Sunday" television program.

"Secretary Rumsfeld, with all due respect, is a past-tense man," he said.

Republican lawmakers defended the Republican president's choice.

Senator Mitch McConnell called Rumsfeld "a spectacular secretary of defense, one of the best in American history," also appearing on "Fox News Sunday."

Meanwhile, the late president Richard Nixon's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, speaking on CNN television's "Late Edition" program, hailed Rumsfeld as "a distinguished public servant who has done an outstanding job as secretary of defense."

"The issue now is whether in order to deal with a decision made three years ago, one should undertake the blood-letting that these generals are asking for," he said.

But Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein told the same program that Rumsfeld has overstayed his welcome in the defense chief post.

"I think the president would be well served and the nation well served with a new team," she told CNN.

According to a December report by the army inspector general, obtained by Salon.com online magazine, the investigators did not accuse the defence secretary of specifically prescribing "creative" techniques, but they said he regularly monitored the progress of the al-Kahtani interrogation by telephone, and they argued he had helped create the conditions that allowed abuse to take place.

"Where is the throttle on this stuff?" asked Lt Gen Schmidt, an air force officer who said in sworn testimony to the inspector general that he had concerns about the duration and repetition of harsh interrogation techniques. He said that in his view: "There were no limits."

The revelation comes at a critical time for Mr Rumsfeld. He is under unprecedented scrutiny for his management of the Iraq war, after six former generals in quick succession called for his resignation.

The questions reached such a pitch by the end of the week that George Bush took the unusual step of issuing a personal note from Camp David in Mr Rumsfeld's defence. "I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions," the president wrote. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

And, responding to the generals, Mr Rumsfeld said in an al-Arabiya TV interview yesterday: "If every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defence, it would be like a merry-go-round." However, in the wake of the inspector general's report, Human Rights Watch said: "The question at this point is not whether secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it's whether he should be indicted. General Schmidt's sworn statement suggests Rumsfeld may have been perfectly aware of the abuses inflicted on Mr al-Qahtani."

The Pentagon also issued a statement in response to publication of the report. A spokeswoman said: "We've gone over this countless times, and yet some still choose to print fiction versus fact. Twelve reviews, to include one done by an independent panel, all confirm the department of defence did not have a policy that encouraged or condoned abuse. To suggest otherwise is simply false."

So far, only junior US officers have been charged and convicted for a string of prisoner abuse scandals since the Bush administration launched its "global war on terror", but rights activists have accused the administration of opening the way for the use of torture in 2002 by relaxing the constraints of the Geneva conventions.

Gen Bantz Craddock, head of Southern Command, overruled the investigators' recommendation that Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller, who ran the Guantánamo camp in 2002, be admonished for the techniques employed. Gen Miller was transferred to Abu Ghraib prison, and took with him his aggressive approach to interrogations.

The investigators found Mr Rumsfeld was "talking weekly" with Gen Miller about the al-Qahtani interrogation. In December 2002, the defence secretary approved 16 harsh interrogation techniques for use on Mr al-Qahtani, including forced nudity, and "stress positions". However approval was revoked in 2003.

Gen Miller insisted he was unaware of details of the interrogation, but Gen Schmidt said he found that"hard to believe" in view of Mr Rumsfeld's evident interest in its progress. Gen James Hill, former head of Southern Command, recalled Gen Miller recommending continuation of the interrogation, saying "We think we're right on the verge of making a breakthrough." Gen Hill then passed on the request to Mr Rumsfeld. "The secretary said, 'Fine,'" Gen Hill remembered.

Backstory

The US defence secretary has faced many calls to resign over Guantánamo, the invasion of Iraq and abuses at Abu Ghraib prison - but the pressure he faces now comes from a weighty new quarter: six generals recently retired from the military he runs.

Retired general Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training Iraqi security forces, sparked the current round of condemnation in a New York Times article on March 19. On April 2, Anthony Zinni told a TV interviewer the US was "paying the price for the lack of credible planning" in Iraq. Seven days later, Lt Gen Gregory Newbold, a former member of the joint chiefs of staff, tore into the administration's "casualness and swagger... the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions".

On Wednesday, John Batiste, a former infantry commander, added his voice, and on Thursday his colleague John Riggs concurred. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, brought the total to six yesterday, telling the New York Times Mr Rumsfeld had demonstrated "absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam".

Mr Rumsfeld is understood to have offered to resign at least twice while in charge at the Pentagon, but both times President George Bush turned him down.

First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak."

These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing.

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)

This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations -- perhaps soon -- from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.

Facing this dilemma, Bush's first reaction was exactly what anyone who knows him would have expected: He issued strong affirmations of "full support" for Rumsfeld, even going out of his way to refer to the secretary of defense as "Don" several times in his statements. (This was in marked contrast to his tepid comments on the future of his other embattled Cabinet officer, Treasury Secretary John Snow. Washington got the point.)

In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because "someone must be held accountable." Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform.

The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld's famous "long screwdriver," with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom reexamination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change.

That first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for The Post.

"I believe, for the moment, that we ought to cool this one, too," said Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. "We need to make more headway diplomatically."

Spokesmen for the White House and the State Department had no immediate comment.

Bush, wary of any Iranian effort to undo multilateral diplomacy, has ruled out direct U.S.-Iran talks on the nuclear issue, although he has opened a door to bilateral discussions on sectarian violence in neighboring
Iraq.

Iran announced last week it had enriched uranium for use in fueling power stations for the first time in defiance of a March 29 U.N. Security Council demand that it halt its enrichment program.

The announcement fanned Western fears of a covert atomic bomb program that has spurred reports of U.S. planning for the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons to knock out underground nuclear sites.

Iran says its nuclear program aims only to produce electricity. Bush dismissed reports of planning for a possible military strike as "wild speculation" and said he remained focused on diplomacy to defuse the issue.

"USEFUL" TALKS

Asked whether there should be direct talks with Iran now, Lugar said: "I think that would be useful ... the Iranians are a part of the energy picture.

"Clearly their ties with India and with China, quite apart from others, are really critical to (international energy issues)," he said.

"We need to talk about that. Maybe we need to focus our attention less right now on the centrifuges than on how power is going to come out ... to all of these countries in some more satisfying way," he said.

The United States will push its allies this week to consider punitive measures against Iran that include a freeze on assets, targeted sanctions and visa restrictions, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.

Russia and China each hold veto power that could block U.N. Security Council-backed sanctions and each have strong economic ties with Iran. Each opposes sanctions or the use of force against Tehran.

Asked about sanctions, Lugar said: "I would hold off for the time being until we're certain that they're going to be effective."

"And they will not be effective without European friends who are in our negotiations quite apart from the Chinese, the Indians and the others," he said.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the State Department's third-ranking official, said Friday that Iran's continued nuclear work was leaving it "no exit points" and isolating itself.

Burns, who will attend the Tuesday meeting in Moscow with senior officials from France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, said he hoped sanctions could be imposed in a way that would "get the attention of the Iranian government" but not be too damaging to the Iranian people.

Amid growing opposition to the US-led war in Iraq, the number of Americans who think the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own," has risen from 33 percent to 46 percent over the past three years, the poll said.

The pollsters said their April 7-9 survey reflected similar results during the Vietnam War, when only 20 percent of Americans said their country should mind its own business in 1964, one year before the war began, compared to 40 percent who thought so in 1972, when the Vietnam War was in full swing.

And just as US president Lyndon Johnson failed to convince his countrymen between 1966 and 1968 that the Vietnam War was being won, Bush has been unable to turn the tide of opposition to the Iraq war since he began a series of speeches in September.

Johnson's war-handling ratings dropped from 57 percent to 39 percent in two years.

Rumors have circulated the past few days on the Web, but E&P has tracked down the strongest confirmation in a blog kept by Sherman Oaks, Ca. musician/singer Alicia Morgan.

Previous reports quoted hints by Young and Jonathan Demme (who directed the new documentary "Heart of Gold") that Neil was working on a hard-rocking political or "anti-Bush" CD.

Last Friday, Morgan wrote on her LastLeftB4Hooterville blog that she had been "summoned" to a local studio to sing on the new record with 99 others. "I'm not going to give the whole thing away, but the first line of one of the songs was 'Let's impeach the President for lyin'!' Turns out the whole thing is a classic beautiful protest record. The session was like being at a 12-hour peace rally. Every time new lyrics would come up on the screen, there were cheers, tears and applause. It was a spiritual experience. I can't believe my good fortune at being a part of this.

"We finished the session by singing an a capella version of 'America the Beautiful' and there was not a dry eye in the house.

"Neil said it should be out in 6 to 8 weeks."

Harp magazine reported on its Web site Thursday that Demme had confirmed in an e-mail, "Neil just finished writing and recording -- with no warning -- a new album called 'Living With War.' It all happened in three days... It is a brilliant electric assault, accompanied by a 100-voice choir, on Bush and the war in Iraq... Truly mind blowing. Will be in stores soon."

The magazine continued: "Details are pretty scarce, but the featured track, titled 'Impeach the President,' features a rap with Bush's voice set to the choir chanting 'flip/flop' and the like."

Young has always been a maverick politically as well as musically. Although he has recorded a few songs that drew cheers from liberals, such as "Ohio" and "Southern Man," he also drew criticism from the left for pro-Reagan comments many years ago.