Here's the DoD's response to the Military Times editorial. The editorial has also sparked a heated discussion on the Military Times online forum.

Obviously, what's angering the troops is that a publication purporting to speak on their behalf is actually a subsidiary of Gannett Newspapers (which makes it a sister pub to USA Today, among others) that is in no way affiliated with the professional military and, according to the numerous responses I've gotten, doesn't seem to in any way represent the majority views of U.S. troops. Furthermore, given both of these things, the timing of the editorial just days before the election is viewed by many as clearly inappropriate.

Active duty military go out of their way to avoid getting involved in politics, and they certainly don't publicly criticize up the chain of command - especially the Secretary of Defense just days before an election in the middle of a war.

But because of the important distinctions about the Military Times business organziation mentioned above have been lost in the way this story has been reported in the MSM, the editorial by a paper bearing the name "military" appears to be a vote of no confidence in Rumsfeld by U.S. troops. It's not.

More emails:

The Army Times article is not much of a political heavy weight in terms of soldiers perceptions. Soldiers read the Army Times to get information near and dear to them - promotion lists and scores, board results and schedules, pay and uniform changes. It is not considered on the level of other media outlets, especially when they know that every item in it has to be politically correct right down to the adds. This article will probably claim that they are just tapping into the attitudes of the fighting men and women of the Army, but in reality it is a publication based out of Springfield, Virginia (just south of the DC beltway) and about as close to Washington politics as you can get. Soldiers complain, but we've been doing that since the sword and sandal era. I completely agree with the Marine Officer you've quoted. Timing prior to an election also has to be suspect. Which is the next issue I have with this story.

Robert Hodierne is not a vet. Never was. He has a 35 year resume that reads like mainstream media. Of interest he was a photographer and reporter in Vietnam, instructor at UC Berkeley and U of Massachusetts, contributor to the New York Times and Washington Post among several other newspaper and other media positions he has held. He has been the senior managing editor at Military Times since 2001 which is a business, not a government publication.

He even quotes himself on his website that "The chief spokesman for the U.S. Army in Vietnam said my story about troops refusing to fight gave aid and comfort to the enemy and "was treason."" (www.hodierne.com) I bet most soldiers reading the Army Times do not know this, but no matter. Army Times editorial will only have legs as the story resonates with other media outlets that do not care about soldier perceptions.

This is not a editorial from the Army Times per se, it is the opinion of one person using Army Times as a shield from scrutiny as a biased source.

---------------------------------

I'm an Army Lieutenant Colonel with 18 years of active service. I served in the Gulf in 1991 as a lieutenant and have been to both Iraq and Afghanistan since 9-11. I also served on the Army Staff in the Pentagon for three years. Let me add my voice to those who have already spoken out saying that Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a superb job and needs to remain our Secretary of Defense. The Army Times certainly does not speak for me in calling for his resignation. In addition to answering 9-11 and prosecuting two major wars, he has made truly impressive changes to an otherwise unwieldy and entrenched bureaucracy in DC, improvements that none of his status quo predecessors (Aspin, Cohen) could ever have accomplished. He has made defense transformation a reality in many ways and has revamped our acquisition processes. He has supported responsive initiatives such as the creation of an office specifically dedicated to fighting the IED threat. He is tough, and tends to be uncompromising with his generals and admirals, but that is what civilian control of the military is all about. He is liked and appreciated by the troops and needs to stay on to finish his job.

By the way, if you look closely through a couple editions of Army Times I think you will see some clear trends: negative reporting, doom and gloom, anti-administration bias -- and frankly, anti-military bias. I also see far too much social advocacy against military traditions, customs and courtesies in their pages. Not exactly what you'd hope for from a so-called "military" publication, but really the only thing military about Army Times is its title. I am fed up with its content and do not buy it any more.

---------------------------------

I've been in the Army for four years now and I have read a few issues of the Army Times. Until I read your blog entry I didn't realize they actually ran editorials. Usually I'll see the cover (which almost always seems to deal with some pay issue or promotions) and I'll flip to that story. Sometimes I'll read a story about a battle in Iraq or Afghanistan, but that's about it. From what I can tell, everyone in my office does the same thing. We don't talk about stories in the Army Times, unless they run a story about the Army Future Combat System or maybe some new weapon they're testing. I've never discussed an Army Times editorial with anyone ever.

---------------------------------

Iv'e been in the military for about 11 years at this point, both as an enlisted man and now an officer. I read Navy Times as a source of general information and generally disagree with the editorial pages' contents.

Although I disagree with some of the Secretary's policies as far as health care is concerned (the current computerized medical record coming online is a disaster), I appreciate the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld "tells it like it is." An adverse editorial in the Navy Times won't change my opinion of him anymore than a New York Times story about President Bush will make me think less of him.