Army's top leaders, Rumsfeld lock horns -- again By Dave Moniz USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- On the eve of a potential U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Army's top two leaders and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have intensified a long-running feud that underscores a bitter rift between the military's largest branch and the Pentagon's civilian boss.
Amid rumors that Rumsfeld considered firing him last week, Army Secretary Tom White's office took the unusual step Thursday of issuing a statement declaring White's ''public, private and personal respect'' for Rumsfeld.
White's office issued the statement after media reports that Rumsfeld was angry that White had failed to rebuke the Army's chief of staff -- Gen. Eric Shinseki -- for insisting it could take ''several hundred thousand'' U.S. troops to occupy postwar Iraq. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz both attacked Shinseki's estimate as inflated.
But White refused to rein in Shinseki. Instead, he defended Shinseki's credentials before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said either Shinseki's estimate or a smaller one might be correct.
In a column Thursday, political commentator Robert Novak said Rumsfeld felt White was disloyal and came close to firing him for not repudiating Shinseki's estimates. Pentagon officials declined to respond to requests for comment.
The continued animosity between Rumsfeld and the Army's top leaders threatens to dampen morale and further expose rifts between the Defense secretary and some senior military advisers.
Critics have charged that the Bush administration is downplaying war costs and the number of troops required to occupy Iraq. The Army is providing the bulk of U.S. forces and will be called upon for much of the peacekeeping.
Officially, the Pentagon has estimated that 45,000 to 65,000 U.S. troops will be required to occupy Iraq.
White's statement, which said ''we should rally around leaders entrusted by the Constitution'' when the nation is on the verge of war, ''is a sign of how icy things have become,'' says Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer and national security analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Rumsfeld has been at odds with White and Shinseki over the direction of Army policy for at least a year.
Michael O'Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, says the feud ''is a bigger deal and more systemic than most outsiders realize.''
The size of the Iraqi occupation force is crucial. With 480,000 active duty soldiers, the Army is already stretched thin by the buildup for war that could require a total commitment of 380,000 U.S. troops from all the services. If a large force is needed to stabilize Iraq, it will drive up the cost of the invasion and possibly limit the Army's availability for other duties.
