Talk:Eric Shinseki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Has No early Life Section[edit]

This article has no early life section. Most biographical articles do.

65.101.228.154 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

NPOV[edit]

Frontline had a great piece on the controversy surrounding the troop estimates of Rumsfeld, Shinseki and the tensions created along with interviews from current and former members of the administration, truly fascinating.

Following from interview with General Michael DeLong (Frontline):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/delong.html#iraqplan

There was the whole fight between [Gen. Eric] Shinseki, [Secretary of the Army] Gen. Tommy White and Rumsfeld about how many troops to have on the ground. Where were you on that fight? What do you make of that? ...

... Gen. Shinseki was chief of staff of the Army. One of his jobs is to preserve the Army for the future. If in fact you could do a major war like this with less people, was not necessarily good for the Army. Not that that was his motivation, but you've got all these things going through his mind.

He's also looking back and he's getting recommendations from prior commanders that have fought in Iraq, and the number came out. If you're a general, you usually never want to take a risk. You go in [with] overwhelming force; it's just easier. That's sort of the Powell doctrine. ...

We couldn't do overwhelming force and also have surprise. So the number 500,000, first of all, we couldn't get them there. ... Given the size of the force we had at the time, you'd never have any backup. That thing lasted longer than six months, ... you got no more people. Right now, we've used our guard and reserve twice. They've been over there as much as active duty has.

So when you know that Shinseki and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are fighting in front of Congress, how was that for you guys? You just think it was all political chaff?

Well, to be honest, there was only a very small number of people that knew the plan. The plan started with a small number and could have gone big. So we were comfortable that we had the right size force and if we had to go to 500,000, we could have gone to 500,000. We had them standing by, ready to go. But we didn't think we'd need them. And we had the right size force to get in there early.

To be honest, this was another tactical, operational -- not just a success. The way this war was planned was only second to the war the war was planned in Afghanistan. I think 20 years from now, these will go down in history and Franks will be the Napoleon of the 21st century because of Afghanistan and the way he fought -- not phrase IV -- but the way he fought both these wars. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/themes/rumsfeld.html

Here's an annotated link to the whole piece... video available.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/ Kerry and other Democrats say:

After testifying to United States Congress that the 2003 Iraq War would require perhaps twice as many or more troops than predicted by the George W. Bush Administration and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Shinseki was essentially forcibly retired by the Administration.

Others say that he was forced out, but that the retirement announcement came BEFORE the troop requiremnts testimony. Let's get this resolved before putting this sentence back in.

Also, see retirement of General Shinseki. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I agree that "Shinseki was essentially forcibly retired by the Administration" is a POV interpretation, and that should be taken out. But the fact that many observers including the current Democratic Presidential candidate and the subject of the article believe his retirement to be forced and politically motivated, should go in -- along, of course with the fact that many observers including the current Administration dispute this interpretation. I mean, there's simply no consistency in saying "Let's have an entire article, retirement of General Shinseki, about the controversy over this retirement, but let's remove any reference to the controversy from the article on the man himself." -- Antaeus Feldspar

Antaeus, I agree with you, and I've found quotes to back up the first 2 points you make. But before we insert the last point (about Bush administration 'disputing' the forced retirement thing), we better get some quotes.

Specifically, we have to distinguish between:

  1. They concede he was forced to reture, but say it was over war-fighting philosophy (not for the troop-strength statement); or,
  2. They dispute the claim that he was forced to retire (for any reason).

It looks like they wanted to fire him for a long time. Then, if I have the timeline right, they announced his retirement. It was only AFTER the retirement, that he made the troop-strength remark.

So the dispute would be between:

  • Democrats said he was forced out BECAUSE he made the troop-strength remark.
  • Republicans say they decided to force him out BEFORE he made the troop-strength remark.

Am I reading this stuff correctly? It seems a bit confusing: chicken and egg, cart before horse, tail wagging the dog. What really happened here? --Uncle Ed 17:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me, Ed. You're saying we have to solve the controversy, that we have to determine the real reason General Shinseki retired, before we can put anything about it into this article.
I'm saying that we don't have to solve anything. Particularly on this article; for us to indefinitely hold back on even admitting that there is a controversy because we haven't come to a consensus (as if we'd ever be likely to) on what the 'real story' behind the retirement is, makes no sense; it would be as if the news networks failed to mention that the Challenger blew up until the Rogers Commission Report verified that it was the O-rings that caused the disaster.
I don't think we have to do that -- or should do that -- even on the "Retirement of General Shinseki" article. Even assuming we could, it would be original research. What we need to concentrate on on this article is simply acknowledging the fact of the controversy; on the Retirement of General Shinseki article, we need to put in facts, but we only need to put in interpretations if they're somehow notable in and of themselves (for instance, the candidates' interpretations.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just read in a newspaper article here that makes no bones about it: "Shinseki, was rebuked by Rumsfeld and his career essentially ended." But the article as it stands says he served out his term and retired on schedule. My question is: can a chief of staff be appointed for another term? I mean, couldn't they have kept him in the job longer? Often not renewing someone's contract is tantamount to firing them. Would the sentence be more balanced if instead of "in fact, however, he served his full term and retired on schedule" it said "he did complete his full 4-year term, but he was not reappointed for another"? --Smithfarm 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any law that would prevent a Defense Secretary from re-appointing a Chief of Staff, but it would be utterly unprecedented. Since the fixed 4-year term was introduced, no Chief of Staff of the United States Army has ever served more than one term. The last one to serve more than 4 years was George Marshall, and you'll remember that there was a war on; almost as soon as it was over, he retired (and I think that was before there was a fixed term for the job). The idea that his career was harmed in any way by the many disputes he had with Rumsfeld is utterly without foundation.

For that matter, I'd like someone to explain exactly how this "leak" was supposed to have undermined his authority. Even supposing that Rumsfeld really had decided to appoint Keane, and that the "leak" came from Rumsfeld (and we have no reason to suppose either of those things), how was this supposed to have had that effect? Everyone knew that Shinseki's term would end no later than June 2003, and that someone would replace him then. How would having that person's name be known have changed anything? zsero 18:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comfortable enough with the facts to make any changes myself, but I would agree that this article doesn't seem to be communicating the controversy effectively... the consensus seems to be that Gen. Shinseki did not make administration figures happy with his comments, and the language in the article equivocates and seems to almost weasel out of saying as much. ("However, it was seen by some as undercutting Shinseki's authority within the Army in some unspecified manner." is an especially confusing sentence.) Regardless of whether he was forced into retirement early, I would suggest that you tighten up the writing to emphasize that the central point of the controversy is that a) Gen. Shinseki contradicted his political masters; and b) the DoD officials "rebuked" Gen. Shinseki for his comments. See this NYT article for details (which includes some interesting comments from Gen. Myers): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/washington/17military.html

Hope that helps... I don't mean to be critical, it just seems like there's some beating around the bush.

Loremipsum 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he didn't make them happy with his testimony to Congress, but the "leak" about his replacement had absolutely nothing to do with that. That's undisputable. And "seen by some as undercutting his authority in some unspecified manner" means that, so far, I haven't seen anybody explain how the "leak" was supposed to have this effect. And that's assuming that the press report was in fact a deliberate leak from Rumsfeld or someone close to him, and not a) someone carelessly letting slip something he shouldn't have, or b) someone without a clue, who was just making shit up. The central point of the controversy is that Shinseki was not retired, or otherwise punished, for his testimony, but nor did everyone take his opinion as gospel. zsero 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a military environment I think it should be pretty obvious how having his replacement leaked well prior to what is normal would undercut his authority. First, it signals an eagerness to replace him on the part of the civilian administration, which sends a strong message indicating a lack of faith or support in his leadership. On a more day to day basis, it creates an alternate person to bring ideas to. Personnel realize that this new replacement has the ear of the Secretary of Defense and, while he may not be able to act on proposals immediately, will be able to do so in the near future. The military is all about the chain of command; anouncing the future chain of command to early creates confusion. Of course, as mentioned, there's absolutely no way to verify whether this is is legitimate, and as the person named in the leak [i]didn't[/i] become Chief of Staff it may very well not be. Astarf 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering[edit]

The article says that Shinseki is the 34th Chief of Staff of the US Army, yet the article [Chief of Staff of the United States Army] puts him at 35th. Which is it? --Calton 01:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.79.254 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His own End of Tour Memorandum (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/shinseki.pdf) is signed as 34th.

--Walts0042 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Hawaii[edit]

Fortunately for young Shinseki to be born in Hawaii, as "Sansei" in 1942.

The Sansei are the third generation of Japanese Americans living in America. Some of the older Sansei, on the continent, were born in the relocation camps and may have only the vaguest of childhood memories concerning their days behind the barbed wire fences. However, most Sansei know very little about their parent's wartime experiences in the relocation camps and for some, in military or civil service.

The Sansei helped the Nisei bring the issue of reparations for the economic losses suffered due to the forced relocation and evacuation. Although the government had not admitted wrong doing and had never issued an apology, a movement began in the 1970's to seek redress. The Japanese American Citizens league and the newly formed National Coalition for Redress and Reparations began lobbying for reparation payments to the people who were interned. There was opposition to the redress movement from some veteran groups and others, but slowly the redress movement gained support in Congress. On February 19th 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4417 which referred to the evacuation as a "national mistake". Although not a formal apology, President Ford's action was the first step on the long road back from shame and despair.

On August 10th 1988 the "Civil Liberties Act of 1988" passed by Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan made way for appropriations of $1.25 billion for $20,000 in reparations to Japanese American internees and an official Presidential apology on behalf of the United States government to those evacuees and their families.

On October 1st 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton signed an official Presidential apology on behalf of the United States government to those Japanese Americans and their families affected by the internment. In the apology it is stated, "In retrospect, we understand that the nation's actions were rooted deeply in racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a lack of political leadership."

Takima 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Japanese written form of his name[edit]

I find the use of Japanese characters in the general's name, and Asian-Americans persons in general, to be inconsistent with the general usage of non-Roman versions of proper names on Wikipedia.

Typically for proper names of European descent, the non-Roman version of their name is only given if the person has a strong association with the nation/region associated with that language, either by citizenship or other activity; ancestry by itself doesn't seem to trigger the inclusion of non-Romanized names. For example, the Hebrew version of Albert Einstein is not given, but it is for Yitzhak Rabin. I find this convention to be agreeable because it does not emphasize ancestry in articles where it is not warranted. Certainly the fact that Einstein was a Jew is a fact worth mentioning elsewhere in the article.

In the case of this article, the use of the non-Romanized name in the first five words is particularly noticable because of the general's life, service, and actions strongly associate him with the United States, and one might say that he has earned the right to be represented as an American general first and foremost. As an ironic aside, the European name "Eric" is represented in romanized Japanese katakana characters.

I appreciate the work of linguaphiles that take the time to translate names, but in this case I believe that the tone of the article is better served without it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hashkey (talk • contribs) .

I concur. He's American, Japanese-American if you want to be technical, not Japanese. If you really wanted to be political about it, Japan itself would probably prefer to write his name in katakana rather than kanji, since he's foreign-born.

Actually there is no Japanese surname called "Shinseki". Shinseki means relative or inlaws in Japanese. I think his name is a made up name or a mixed name created by his great grandparents who came to Hawaii long ago. There are many names that start with "Shin" and "Seki" or end with "Seki" but I have never heard of a surname called Shinseki. Actaully the Japanese think it's funny that people outside of Japan think it's a true Japanese surname when it is not.

I have no idea where the person above thought of that, but there IS a Japanese surname called "Shinseki". Also, other asian americans such as Gary Locke, 3rd generation chinese, have his name displayed in Chinese as well, and so the display of Eric Shinseki's name with Japanese name may not be inappropriate. It really depends on how Mr. Shinseki views himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.24.194 (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of insubordination[edit]

Zsero (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the sentence "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." and has provided the following citation and no other: Babbin, Jed "Purge of the Princelings?" National Review Online, August 14, 2003. Among Zsero's defenses of this addition in edit summaries:

  • "There's no WP policy requiring double sourcing; in any case, the text makes it clear that it's single-sourced, as are many facts cited on WP. Or are you calling Jed Babbin a liar?"
  • "all irrelevant. the article isn't cited for those PREDICTIONS which didn't come true, but for a STATEMENT OF FACT."
  • "restoring. it remains a factual claim from a reputable journalist, and is explicitly qualified as single-sourced. 193.130.196.1 has a history of bad-faith vandalism"
  • "sigh. once again, it's a FACT cited from a reputable source, and appropriately qualified. That the fact is contained in an OPINION piece is irrelevant. Editor has demonstrated bad faith."

Now, if the cited piece, which even Zsero acknowledges is Jed Babbin's opinion piece, had contained a factual claim that someone Babbin was writing about stated Shinseki to have come close to insubordination -- for instance, if Donald Rumsfeld made such a statement, and Babbin reported it -- then it might be a legitimate addition, though we would prefer getting a citation for it from a news article rather than someone's opinion article. If, however, the "one source" that Zsero is Jed Babbin himself, then Zsero is completely incorrect to describe it as a "factual claim" and a "STATEMENT OF FACT" -- it is Jed Babbin's opinion, and it is completely incorrect to regard it as 'Jed Babbin's factual claim about what Jed Babbin's opinion is' or the like; if such a procedure was legitimate, there would be absolutely no opinion that could not be promoted to a so-called "STATEMENT OF FACT" by similar means. However, having examined the alleged source, the above is entirely moot, because Babbin's opinion piece does not contain any statement at all, from Babbin or from anyone else, that Shinseki came close to insubordination. The word "insubordination" does not even appear in the piece. The idea that Shinseki "came close to insubordination" appears to be wholly Zsero's own original research based on Babbin's opinion piece. Needless to say, it is inappropriate for the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with me. I have not been "repeatedly inserting" the piece, I've been repeatedly reverting the vandal's attempts to remove it. There's a big difference, and I'd thank you to remember it.
Nor does Babbin offer it as opinion; he presents it as an actual fact, from an anonymous source (emphasis mine):
According to an Army source [...] Let me run things my way, said Shinseki, and I'll make you look really good on the Hill. But forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it. Rumsfeld, to the surprise of his interlocutors, declined the offer they thought he couldn't refuse.
The reason the source would want anonymity is obvious, and it's common journalistic practise to provide anonymity under such circumstances. Unless someone has a reason to suppose that Babbin has made this up, it deserves as much credence as any similar source. Nevertheless, the article does qualify the statement as coming from a single source, and the reference is provided, so the reader can form her own judgment.
The fact that Babbin's article as a whole is an opinion piece isn't at all relevant. Opinion pieces by reputable journalists, published in reputable journals, often contain factual revelations, which form the basis for the writer's speculations, predictions, and opinions. The latter are not citable on WP; the former are. The "outing" of Valarie Plame occured in an opinion piece by Robert Novak; nobody would suggest that it's therefore not citable as fact on WP.
Bottom line: the allegation belongs in the article, and I will continue to resist attempts to remove it, particularly attempts by Mr IP Addresses, who has already demonstrated his bad faith by randomly vandalising various unrelated pages.
I am going to wait until at least 9pm EST tonight (about 4 hours from now) before reverting, to give you (or anyone else) a chance to convince me that I should not. After that, if I have not been convinced, I will revert it.
Zsero 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, kindly cease immediately referring to the person who is -- quite rightly, according to everything I see -- disputing content with you as a "vandal". "Vandalism" has a quite specific meaning on Wikipedia and specifically excludes good-faith edits even if such edits are erroneous, which in this case they are not.
As for your "actual fact", you are still offering us original research and calling it "actual fact". Nowhere in the piece does it says that Eric Shinseki came close to insubordination. Period. The fact that you judge certain attitudes purportedly expressed by General Shinseki to "come close to insubordination" means absolutely nothing. Or are you saying that any time any editor reads in the New York Times about particular actions taken by George W. Bush and feels that those actions come close to treason against the people of the United States of America, that editor is justified in inserting "According to the New York Times, George W. Bush has come close to treason against the people of the United States"?
As regards the passage you quote, even if you were not offering your own interpretation of that passage rather than the passage itself, it's doubtful we would choose to use it anyways. Why? Because it's already interpretation, rather than any sort of fact. It isn't what Shinseki actually said, it's what some anonymous source interpreted Shinseki to mean. We don't need "a reason to suppose that Babbin has made this up" to doubt the significance of this account, we only need a reason to doubt that some anonymous person's belief about what Shinseki's statements amounted to was an accurate representation of what Shinseki actually said. You make the point that factual revelations have been made in opinion pieces, but this is irrelevant to the current case, because the passage you are basing your insertions on contain not one single fact. We don't know that Shinseki said "Let me run things my way and I'll make you look really good on the Hill." We don't know that Shinseki said "forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it." All we know is that some anonymous source interpreted it that way.
Bottom line: the allegation does not belong in the article, because it is your original research based on what was itself very dubious "reporting". If you reinsert it, it will be removed again, as Wikipedia policy calls for original research to be removed.
As for your accusations of bad faith against so-called "Mr IP Addresses", I hardly need to point out that IP addresses do not always represent the same individual. If the same IP address is used repeatedly within a short span of time it's a fair bet that it's the same individual, but you single out 193.130.196.1 (talk · contribs) and allege that he/she "has a history of bad-faith vandalism". There are only four edits that have even taken place from that IP address in the last week, and none of those can be classified as vandalism. You would do well to apologize and concentrate from here on restricting your edits to what is actually supported by your sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well, except that 193.130.196.1 (talk · contribs) is the same person as 172.209.253.72 (talk · contribs), 172.201.220.183 (talk · contribs), 84.13.136.207 (talk · contribs), and 84.13.4.119 (talk · contribs), who engaged in clear bad-faith vandalism. Which you'd realise if you looked at the history of this particular edit war unrest.
As for the substance of the alleged fact, Babbin's source told him as a fact that Shinseki had told the SecDef that his orders would not be implemented. To say that that comes close to insubordination is hardly "original research". It's a perfectly obvious one-phrase summary of what the article says. If anything, it pulls its punch, and should say "was insubordinate". (His testimony to Congress was itself clear insubordination, hardly different than the behaviour for which Macarthur was fired, but the paragraph in question is talking about the history of tension between Shinseki and Rumsfeld long before this testimony. Babbin's article is cited to show that it went all the way back to the day Rumsfeld first became Shinseki's boss.)
Zsero 07:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only have your word that all those IP addresses are the same person and I only have your word that those IP addresses "engaged in clear bad-faith vandalism" in a time frame that would indicate it was actually the same person you are referring to now. Since I also had your word on it that an anonymous source reported that Shinseki was close to insubordination and that turned out to be only your own original research, you're going to have to come up with some more convincing evidence.
And yes, it is all your own original research. It is your interpretation of the implications of what Babbin reported as being the substance of what an anonymous source reported to be the substance of Shinseki's actual statements. Even if you had access to the actual, verified, unedited transcripts of everything Shinseki said at that meeting, you are not a reliable source who can judge who "came close to insubordination" and who didn't. The fact that you are trying to make that judgement based not on actual, verified, unedited transcripts of Shinseki's words but on nothing that even pretends to be Shinseki's actual words just makes the fact of the original research all the more blatant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't "only have my word"; you can easily look at the history of this particular edit to see that all of those IP addresses are the same person, and you can check each of their contribution history to see that they each engaged in clear bad-faith vandalism.
And summarising a lengthy quote in one phrase is not "original research", it's what an encyclopaedian does. Is there another interpretation that can be put on Shinseki's words, as Babbin's source reported them?
I'm giving you until midnight tonight EST (i.e. nearly another 10 hours) to convince me not to revert your removal of the sentence in question. (Note that I am not "repeatedly inserting it", Mr IP Adresses, and now you, are repeatedly removing it.)
Zsero 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are not "summarising a lengthy quote" because you are not summarising a quote. There are no quote marks around the words that supposedly represent what Shinseki said, because they are not his actual words but an anonymous party's interpretation of his words. Second of all, even if it was a quote or we had reason to believe that they were at least an accurate rendition of Shinseki's words -- which we do not -- you are not "summarising a lengthy quote" because you are not summarizing, you are judging. Is the gist of what Shinseki is allegedly saying "I am coming close to insubordination"? No? Then your insertion of "Shinseki came close to insubordination" is not "summarising", it is insertion of your own personal judgment, which is prohibited both before midnight tonight EST and after midnight tonight EST. End of story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep harping on this, but you still don't claim there is any other possible meaning to what Shinseki is reported to have told Rumsfeld. Telling ones superior that his plan will not be implemented is insubordination; that's what the word means. "Came close to" is pulling the punch. And whether it's in quote marks or not, it's what Babbin's source told him Shinseki said. I'm not convinced, so unless I see a better argument within half an hour, I'm going to restore the line, as it was before the vandal with the multiple IP addresses started messing with it. Zsero 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. If you were yourself a reliable source then perhaps your opinion about what constitutes insubordination and what does not would be encyclopedic, but you are not. You are simply a private citizen who is working from an account at least two generations removed from what actually happened and with an understanding of what "insubordination" means that is not necessarily perfect. You seem to think, for instance, that replying to what a superior says, under any possible circumstances, with anything other than "yes", is insubordination. You seem blissfully unaware that whether Shinseki's response to Rumsfeld could be described as "insubordination" might depend on whether Rumsfeld was presenting his 'plan' as an order, something that the Babbin piece does not establish. Or is it your understanding that the role of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army is purely as a rubber stamp for the Secretary of Defense, that he is not supposed to respond with anything but "yes" even if he thinks a plan presented to him by the Secretary of Defense is ill-considered? It seems to me that perhaps the chief military adviser to the President of the United States on Army matters just might be in a position to have some opinion about plans for the Army -- and yes, even to say "No way, Jose" until such time as it is presented not just as "a plan" but as an order. You are asking the wrong question when you demand to know if anyone has a different interpretation of what Shinseki (purportedly) said; such a question distracts from the essential fact that you are not a reliable source we would look to for interpreting what Shinseki said in the first place, and certainly not from an account so many generations removed from the original. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many levels of indentation, so I'm breaking back to zero. If a subordinate officer thinks his superior's idea is a bad one, it's his duty to say "this is a bad idea, and you should reconsider it". It is emphatically not his duty or his right to say "not going to happen". That is insubordination. (Publicly undermining one's superior's policy is also insubordination, which is what his testimony amounted to, but as I said that's not the topic of this paragraph.) You've failed to convince me, so I'm reinserting it. But I've emailed Mr Babbin, to see if he can shed any further light on what exactly it was that his source told him. Perhaps his reply will convince me to reconsider. Zsero 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: How about this: why don't we let the reader decide for herself what constitutes insubordination? I've changed it to "According to one source, at their first meeting Shinseki told Rumsfeld that his orders would not be implemented." I hope that's a compromise you can live with.
Zsero 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the quoted article should be included in an encyclopedia. I have not removed it but will detail my complaints later. In the meantime, I have included a quote from Rumsfeld himself praising Shinseki after the alleged insubordination. I expect Zsero to remove it because it simply doesn't agree with his viewpoint. I've only posted one article where Rumsfeld praises Shinseki, though there are numerous ones.

No one has charged Gen. Shinseki with insubordination. Not the US Army, not Rumsfeld, not any Judge Advocate General. Implicit within military authority is the power of the superior to discern insubordination within certain limits. While the dispute over Gen. Shinseki's alleged insubordination seems to be carried out in second-hand heresay, it is not, by definition, insubordination as the superior involved (Rumsfeld) did not charge him with insubordination. What may be insubordination to one person isn't insubordination to another. This discretionary power and flexibility of command is inherent to any understanding of military authority. It's only insubordination, if and only if, his superiors deem it to be so, and if he is duly charged and convicted, or pleads guilty or otherwise makes no contest. I believe any insinuation or accusation of insubordination violates terms regarding living people and their bios, when it is not borne out by any other involved principal parties. There is no controversy here outside of armchair laywers, generals and pundits. There is no legal, military or professional controversy regarding insubordination; only watercooler talk about whether or not they got along. That does not qualify as historical or relevant. Anything more is coming dangerously close to defamation. -PRS

The whole article is a nice whitewash of Shinseki's less than stellar Army leadership and an artfully crafted smear of Rumsfeld, it really reflects nicely on Wikipedia's reputation. Awotter 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break - all history will remember that Rumsfeld was incompetent and that Shinseki warned against deploying too small a force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctica moon (talk • contribs) 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement[edit]

Sorry, I don't really know how to use this site -- just read the article, and was startled by this passage: "Contrary to Democratic candidate John Kerry's claim, in the first debate of the 2004 presidential election, Shinseki was not "retired" for his testimony before Congress. His official term as Chief of the Army ended four months later and he retired as scheduled." This is followed by an endnote (16), but the cited article does not, in any way, support the claim. This passage is phrased in a way that intends to resolve or take a stance on a political dispute; it says, essentially, that John Kerry and other Democrats were mistaken, or that they were lying; but it fails to even begin to meet the burden of proof. 71.229.156.105 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)New Guy[reply]

The reference was added by User:ERcheck on 2006-05-27, presumably to prove that Shinseki did indeed retire on schedule. The relevant quotes are: Shinseki retired ... June 11, and As I was on the first day of my tenure four years ago. I don't see what greater proof you could ask for that Kerry was wrong to claim that "they retired him" for his testimony. Zsero 18:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
while Shinseki did retire according to his term, Rumsfeld effectively sliced his career off by announcing his replacement 3 months early. Normally, your successor is not announced until a few weeks ahead of your planned retirement date, subject of course to the scheduling needs of the senate, but by announcing his successor immediately, Shinseki was sidelined on major decisions as people, organizations, power centers, started working with his expected successor. Shinseki immediately became a lame duck.

--Patbahn (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text of retirement speech[edit]

I've been looking for the text of Shinseki's retirement speech, which was very memorable. It would be nice to include it as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisbak (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/12/us/retiring-army-chief-of-staff-warns-against-arrogance.html
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-06-18/html/CREC-2003-06-18-pt1-PgS8119.htm

"Our Army's soldiers and leaders have earned our country's 

    highest admiration and our citizens' broad support. But even 
    as we congratulate our soldiers when we welcome them home 
    from battle, we must beware of the tendency some may have to 
    draw the wrong conclusions, the wrong lessons from recent 
    operations, remembering all the while that no lesson is 
    learned until it changes behavior. We must always maintain 
    our focus on readiness. We must ensure that the Army has the 
    capabilities to match the strategic environment in which we 
    operate, a force sized correctly to meet the strategy set 
    forth in the documents that guide us--our national security 
    and national military strategies. Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division army. Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirement. And we must remember that decisive victory often has less to do with the plan than it does with years invested in the training of soldiers and the growing of leaders. Our nation has seen war too many times to believe that victory on the battlefield is due primarily to 
    the brilliance of a plan--as opposed to leadership, tactical 
    and technical proficiency, sheer grit and determination of 
    the men and women who do the fighting and the bleeding."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party[edit]

Is Shinseki a Democrat or Republican? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

everyone belongs to a party now? Nar Matteru (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he was in the military, it's entirely possible the guy is really just non-partisan. Most military officials tend to be more realist in their foreign policy (like Scowcroft and Powell), which has become more of a Democratic position. On the other hand, they do tend to be more conservative on other issues. Given that he's dealing with military veterans, he'll just be implementing the policy that Obama wants to put forward so it's really won't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.105 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

need new picture[edit]

As soon as possible, a new picture with him wearing glasses and a civilian suit is needed. I presume that when he becomes Secretary, there will be a photo. Chergles (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non political/carreer life info[edit]

I mean I know his military/political career is the basis for his notability, but can we have some information on the man himself too? Is he married, kids, involved in any activities outside the military etc? Nar Matteru (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude - his family and life is the US ARMY.Antarctica Moon
Hardy har. I'm serious on this Nar Matteru (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

awards section[edit]

Is this section accurate? I'm pretty sure he can't be a recipient of all four distinguished service medals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.160.184 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked VA's official bio and it just says "Distinguished Service Medal", which I take to be the army one. Will change now. Tim Song (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of updating the changes in his info box at top as well according to the information on the VA site. Specifically, I removed the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard DSMs as well as the number 2's behind the Defense and Army DSMs.Bristus (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found some useful links to update this section: UCSB, Halls of Valor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

67.9.160.184 is correct, the Service specific distinguished service medals can only be awarded to members of their specific service. If one Service wants to award a distinguished service medal to someone from a different Service, they submit paperwork for the joint version of that award, such as the Defense Distinguished Service Medal or the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal. The references cited by RightCowLeftCoast are not official records of Mr. Shinseki's honors and can be subject to incorrect information. --McChizzle (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that the UC-Santa Barbra Presidency Project is not a reliable source? It is used widely across Wikipedia as a reliable source, as evidenced here:[1]. I would call it a reliable source. Richard Meyers was awarded all of the services' DSMs, at least according to his USAF bio, as was Peter Pace according to his CJC bio after retirement. Regulations change or perhaps general officers are not subject to the same rules as everyone else. EricSerge (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is a Association of the United States Army reference that can be added as well, among others. I understand the concern, however, the official Army record appears to be outdated, and do not appear to take into account the three awardings that can be independently verified in multiple tertiary reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely chose the wrong word. The word I should have used was "official" source. The two examples cited are officers that were Chairmans of the Joint Chiefs; i.e. people who had responsibilities to help and support the other services. GEN Shinseki was just a service chief (Chief of Staff of the Army) and had no responsibilities to support or serve the other services "with distinction," as these awards would attest too. Although GEN Shinseki's official DoD bio. is no longer online, checkout this photo from a 2008 Army Birthday celebration. --2008 was after GEN Shinseki's time in the Army and before he became Secretary.-- Take note that GEN Shinseki is not wearing the other service's DSMs that we are discussing. If he was awarded them around the time of his retirement from the Army, why is he not wearing them with his other Distinguished Service Medals (his DDSM and his DSM)? Maybe because he was not a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never had responsibilities to support the other services, and was never officially awarded then (according to his DoD bio. which I cannot find online anymore). Think about it, how would a Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) qualify for a Coast Guard Distinguished Service Medal? How would a CSA “contribute materially to the success of a major Coast Guard command or project?” --McChizzle (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that the subject has to wear all his medals as a retired Soldier. Otherwise, using that photo, one can argue that the subject doesn't have an AAM.
Furthermore, There is this reliable source:
Tran, Can (7 December 2008). "Obama Picks Army Gen. Shinseki To Head VA". Digital Journal. Retrieved 14 September. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Therefore it meets WP:VER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, however if someone limits the number of medals they wear they usually limited it to the top three to six highest awards they have earned; if GEN Shinseki is doing that, he should be wearing the other DSMs in question.
Since I work in the government, I'm use to a more rigorous form or validation that this. I have to use official (".mil," ".gov" or vendor) sites for topics like this, not a bunch of public websites that can say what they want and often reiterate someone else’s false information (not knowing it's false) to save time. I've seen it happen a lot and we have rules in place to keep us from getting sucked into proliferating false information that gets spread throughout the Internet. But this is Wikipedia and we don't need official information to make a post, just a reference to another site that said it outside of Wikimedia Commons. So I'll leave it alone. --McChizzle (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely possible for Shinseki to have the DSMs from the other services. In fact, it's likely. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others in similar high-level positions frequently receive all the DSMs at their retirement -- Defense, Army, Air, Navy, and either Coast Guard or Homeland Defense. (The Coast Guard's was changed to the Homeland Defense DSM a few years ago). That would also explain why there are no photos of Shinseki wearing the Navy or Air Force DSM -- if he received them at retirement, he wouldn't have had official photos taken in uniform after his retirement date. A quick Google search will show that Colin Powell received the DSMs of the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. Peter Pace received the Air Force, Army and Coast Guard DSMs. Richard Myers received the Army, Navy and Coast Guard DSMs. William Crowe received the Army, Air Force and Coast Guard DSMs. I hope this information is useful.
Billmckern (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Billmckern, actually, no, it's not possible. The branch specific DSMs are authorized only for members of that particular branch; the Defense DSM is for all branches. Check Colin Powell's bios on any number of sites and you'll find only the Defense DSM and Army DSM and all pictures corroberate it. I've not found any with other DSMs you mentioned.

Check these pages for criteria: [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] Bristus (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristus (talk) -- Actually it is possible. Marine Corps Peter Pace received the Defense DSM, the Navy DSM, and the DSMs from the Army, Air Force and Coast Guard. Peter Pace at Military Times Hall of Valor. Marine General James Cartwright also received the Defense DSM, Navy DSM, and the DSMs of the Army, Air Force and Coast Guard. James Cartwright at Military Times Hall of Valor. Richard Myers received the Defense DSM and the Air Force DSM, as well as the DSMs of the Army, Navy and Coast Guard. Richard Myers biography. When the Coast Guard DSM was modified to the Homeland Security DSM, one of the first recipients was Craig R. McKinley, the Air Force General who served as Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
And there are also historical examples. Army General Daniel Van Voorhis received the Navy Cross as a temporary Colonel during World War I. And here's a list of other Army recipients of the Navy Cross.
I don't know how many more examples I could provide if need be, but I think these are sufficient. I'm sure I'm right on this point.
Billmckern (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Luther Powell at Military Times Hall of Valor. All Powell's DSM citations are available here. Eric Shinseki at Military Times Hall of Valor. All Shinseki's DSM citations are available here.
Billmckern (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason you might not see photos of someone like Powell or Shinseki with the awards of the other services is that they are typically awarded at retirement -- when a current photo in uniform is no longer necessary.
Billmckern (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General Ronald R. Fogleman. Air Force Chief of Staff who received Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, and the DSMs of the Army and Navy.
John R. Jumper, another Air Force General who hit the DSM grand slam.
Omar Bradley received the Navy DSM. David E. Jeremiah, Air Force general, received all the DSMs. Dwight Eisenhower received the Navy DSM. Douglas MacArthur received the Navy DSM. John W. Vessey received the Defense DSM and the DSMs of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Billmckern (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admiral Albert Gleaves received the Army DSM. Robert Lee Ghormley, Navy Commander and recipient of the Army DSM. Russell Sydnor Crenshaw, Navy Commander and Army DSM recipient. Raymond F. Rees, Army National Guard general who received the Air Force DSM. Emmett H. Walker was an Army National Guard general who received the Air Force DSM. Herbert R. Temple was an Army National Guard general who received the Air Force DSM.
Billmckern (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too many indentations to continue. Sorry, haven't been on in a good while. While I agree the militarytimes.com site is the best source I've seen, it is strange that his official bio as the Secretary of the VA did not include the cross-service awards on that website when I made the change. They are normally highly particular about that sort of thing. For now, however, I defer to your source and thank you for the information. Looks like we need to correct the other Wikipedia pages I cited earlier regarding the specific awards. Cheers Bristus (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, additionally, somebody needs to fix the awards section near the bottom that shows he only has one Army DSM. Should show and read (one oak leaf cluster).Bristus (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section POV Tag & Quotefarm Tag[edit]

I have recently placed to tags on sections of this article for clean up, and POV review. The vast balance of the article regards the professional relationship between the article's subject and a superior political official, and the article subject's views of operations of an ongoing conflict which some editors may find controversial. The length of the section is the largest part of the entire article and has far more information for a former army officer that served over 30 years in uniform, and is presently the secretary of veterans affairs. As with the Larry Craig article, this section may possibly best be given its own article or placed in a relevant article that already exist regarding any contrivoursies in regards to Operation Iraqi Freedom pre-planning and 2003 operations.

The subsection of the section tagged with POV is far larger then needed due to unneeded quotes that could be summarized and its information given within a sentence. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VA scandal[edit]

Why does "VA Scandal" redirect to this Eric Shinseki page without there being any information about the VA scandal on his page? Better yet: Why is there no Wikipedia page for "VA Scandal"? (or is there? did I miss it?) There are literally hundreds of news articles from various reliable sources.[5] This is serious, as the editorial board of the Washington Post states on May 26: "We don’t have a Shinseki problem, in other words. We have a President Obama problem. We have a Congress problem. We have a civil service system “in crisis,” as the Partnership for Public Service said in a recent report." --Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create a page for the scandal. Since the issue is contentious, please try to keep NPOV in mind. I've broken the scandal mention out into a new section for the Shinseki article and linked to the VA component involved. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"VA scandals" are nothing new. The link for VA scandal should probably point to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which consequently does not mention the scandal either, or other scandal's for that matter. EricSerge (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TeriEmbrey, thanks for the advice. I always try to be careful here on Wikipedia. It's a hotbed, I've found, if you're not on the right side of thought. EricSerge, so, the Fort Lee lane closure scandal deserves a page, where people were late for work, but there are secret waiting lists for American veterans to get health care, the VA's own IG verifies wait list manipulations, and CNN reports that 40 or more vets die while waiting for care, but that doesn't deserve a page. Thanks for the advice. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirrus Editor: you miss my point. VA scandal should point to United States Department of Veterans Affairs or a page about VA scandals. It is probably a failing of content creation that nothing has been added to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs article. WP:RECENTISM guides out thoughts, but a well researched piece should probably cover more than just the current scandal. EricSerge (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree concerning this redirect being incorrect. Doing a search within the Wikipedia.org search box using "VA Scandal" should not be statically redirected to the person named "Eric Shinseki" unless you are concluding he's guilty. Nor would I presume a person's public apology to be justification for a quick hanging or lynching. (ie. "VA Scandal" -> Eric Shinseki (redirect from VA scandal)) The redirect should be focused toward the VA Health Care scandal article(s). --roger (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"highest-ranked Asian American in the history of the US"[edit]

norm mineta and elaine chao were cabinet members. does VA chief of staff really outrank that?? 209.172.25.117 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to his service in the US military, in which indeed he is the highest-ranked Asian-American to date. -- fdewaele, 30 May 2014, 18:09 CET
it doesn't say that, tho, unlike the second (new) sentence abt japanese americans specifically.
speaking of which, why does that say 2004? given the disparity in dates, it leads the reader to conclude that this was no longer the case in 2009. let alone 2014.
can't we use RECENT dates on these? either there have been some asian-americans/japanese-americans outranking him in the last 5/10 years, or there haven't. this should be easy to verify with an up-to-the-minute cite. 209.172.25.117 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eric Shinseki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eric Shinseki/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Needs section on Transformation of the Army —ERcheck @ 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki proposed to President Obama that our wounded warriors returning from Afghanistan and Iraq be made 'financilly responsible' for the cost of their own medical care and treatment. This proposal and consideration by Shinseki and Obama was made public by the outrage expressed by the current Commander of the America Legion. Due to the backlash of outrage and criticism, this idea was not being further pursued - at this time. September 20, 2009. (This can be verified with the public record and the American Legion.)


FROM THE 'AMERICAN LEGION ONLINE" --- 9/20/2009

"After the veterans community and members of Congress expressed great concern over a White House plan to bill private insurance companies for veterans’ health care, the commander in chief did an about-face."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.242.251 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First[edit]

This sentence sounds strange to me: He was both the first Asian-American four-star general (1997) and then the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Both ... and then? Is this supposed to mean that he was also the first Asian-American Secretary of VA? --37.24.183.46 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See if the edit I made reads better.
Billmckern (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Shinseki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Shinseki&oldid=1210061561"