The Generals’ Revolt

from The Washington Monthly

Kevin Drum, as usual, discusses the issues very rationally. Read the whole thing.

In so doing, he picks up on Lt. General Gregory Newbold’s comments in Time magazine.

“After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq — an unnecessary war….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.

….With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader’s responsibility is to give voice to those who can’t — or don’t have the opportunity to — speak.”

Two things. First, Newbold isn’t just complaining that Donald Rumsfeld ignored professional military advice. He’s saying he thought this was an ill-conceived war and the uniformed military should have spoken out about it. Second, he’s plainly claiming to speak for some active duty generals and he’s encouraging them to go public.

There’s really nothing to like about this. Whether the war was “unnecessary” or not, that’s a political decision, not a military one. And if active duty generals follow his advice and start to speak out whenever they think the president is going to war unwisely, we’re going to have a serious problem on our hands.

Absolutely.

I am uncertain about this whole matter. I am not ready to jump to Rummy’s defense; with 6 generals (3 and 4 stars, no Brigadiers) who mostly were involved with the operation in Iraq, it’s hard to dismiss as politically motivated. Nor am I anxious to see Rummy go down on this account.  It’s a hard call.

I am very concerned about civilian control of the military. That’s a red line in a democracy. I also want to go further than Kevin Drum did on that. Suppose, as many commenters have opined, the generals “laid down their stars” when they were on active duty? Wouldn’t that give their words more weight? Wow! THEN the commenters who objected WOULD have a point. Wouldn’t many respond by howling “Blackmail. This is unconscionable. Suppose all officers quit when they faced policy they didn’t like?” And every single cautionary argument, about giving weight to the opinions of retired officers, would be brought to bear, with redoubled force, if active duty officers quit rather than serve under a man they did not like.

Comments

  1. CDR Salamander wrote:

    This is not a path this nation wants to go down. Funny, the Left has always looked at the American military being used/using the Right to impact elections and government. Right now, you have the Left encouraging the wounded, tender egos of some perfumed princes to go after a sitting Civilian leader of the military.

    That is not how it is done here. If this starts, it opens a huge door. You don’t want us to march through it - rest assured if the small wedge of the Left in uniform march through it - the vast majority from the Right will not sit there forever. You can take it from there.

    It is one thing to talk when retired, it is another thing to stand there in uniform, on active duty, in an offical forum, in an election year, as a Flag Officer, yelling “Fire my boss!” The minute you have done that, everything is possible. If they want to get an opinion out there, BlogAnon or retire. Don’t conspire. Generals conspiring do not have a good history.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 12:54 am

  2. Goemagog wrote:

    As Iraq turns more and more into another Vietnam, the generals are trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility for how it happened, even though our losing is almost entirely a result of bad PR and inept work by the state department. That they’re blaming Rumsfeld is getting press because it suits the media that generated the bad PR to hit at Bush and his supporters (such as Rumsfeld).

    Goe, thinks “transformation” is bad policy.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 2:07 am

  3. John the Marine wrote:

    “As Iraq turns more and more into another Vietnam”

    The above statement is an attempt to frame Iraq into a political context that current circumstances don’t support. The differences between today’s conflict and Vietnam respecting the geopolitical landscape are huge making the above analogy nothing more than a sound bite at best.

    However, respecting the MSM it is right on. Vietnam was not lost in the jungles of Indochina but on the TV news. Lets hope we don’t repeat the mistake of allowing the Leftwing press to talk us into loosing again.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 8:22 am

  4. Noodle wrote:

    There’s a phrase that goes “shut up and soldier, soldier” that tends to imply a mindless obedience to orders that is not healthy. We want soldiers that think, especially the higher up they rise in the chain of command. We also want soldiers that follow orders and this has been the fine line all militaries walk. Rumsfeld ignored his commanders. I don’t see a problem with those commanders coming out saying they think that Rumsfeld and President Bush were wrong. But you’ll notice that while they’re complaining, they’re still following orders.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 9:05 am

  5. commissar wrote:

    Phib, John, Noodle,

    Just for our own discussion (indulge me!), let’s assume that the strategic direction of the war (i.e. Rumsfeld and Bush level decisions) was FUBAR’d.

    What’s the military to do?

    I am uncomfortable with the implications of generals, even retired ones, speaking out. How uncomfortable? Not sure. But (and this question is the reason I wrote this post) … but … if active duty officers opposed policy IN ANY WAY, even by retiring and “turning in their stars” wouldn’t that be an even more direct challenge?

    This is a tough call. I don’t think those 3-stars and 4-stars who have spoken up have axes to grind. Maybe Zinni. Phib, you really think these guys are ‘perfumed princes?’ I am honestly conflicted on this whole deal.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 9:23 am

  6. Noodle wrote:

    Commissar, how can you prevent officers from resigning or retiring? Would you do so solely on the basis that they disagree with civilian authority? I don’t think you would, but your last comment could imply that.

    It’s a tough call. If you stay and do nothing about a situation that you feel is wrong, you betray your own principles. If you continue to challenge policy through regular channels and are ignored, you end up at the same point and probably your career is dead. If you protest publicly, you get the message out but risk the perception of discord and the possible demoralization that brings. Finally, you can vote with your feet and retire or resign. As a citizen, you’re absolutely entitled to voice your dissent. These are the basic choices as I see it.

    I think some of these officers have just reached a point where they cannot be quiet.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 12:09 pm

  7. commissar wrote:

    Noodle,

    “Commissar, how can you prevent officers from resigning or retiring?”

    We can’t. Didn’t mean to imply that.

    The problem with being confused and uncertain is that one writes confusing blog entries. :)

    About my only ‘original contribution’ to this issue is that (at least some) commentators would freak out if confronted with multiple resignations from general officers over policy.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 12:18 pm

  8. John the Marine wrote:

    Commissar,
    This is the best way I can explain it:

    In time of war a 4 star down to a pvt. needs to indeed shut the “F” and continue to march. If a General on active duty starts vocally disagreeing with the Sect. of Defence he should be immediately sacked and replaced. A retired military man can say what he wants when he wants. You have to understand that a soldier (soldier, sailor, airman or marine) has agreed to surrender many of their civilian rights. One of those rights is “free Speech” to speak against the civilian command. When you sign the contract you agree to follow the President’s (and on down the chain of command) orders even if it means certain death.

    Keep in mind that retired Generals a lot of times have political ambitions (recently Gen. Clark). They enter the political snake pit at their own peril. A fighting man who holds his tongue is politically clean. The above complainers are now partisans. Finally in my opinion it is the rankest of arogance that these men call for Rummy resignation, even retired it is not their place.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 1:09 pm

  9. CDR Salamander wrote:

    Sorry I am late to the party, I have been busy posting this, this, and this.

    As for your questions, in honor of a great, but flawed man who has passed, Col. Kackworth, who described our Flag Officers such as Wesley until they started bashing Bush, then he liked them…perhaps too subtle.

    No, these guys are a sub-species of Flag Officers that are very smart men, who over time have become very flattered with their opinion of themselves, their power, and their wisdom that none should question. When they are not invited to a position they think they deserve, do not get a star, or feel they are being sidetracked, they will look at any way to deflect questions, from themselves or others, for the reasons they topped out at 1-2-3 or even 4-stars - with men they consider lesser beings making decisions or getting jobs they feel they would be better able to do. They love to cheer how they are right, but will not reflect on where they have gone wrong. They will second guess everyone else’s decisions which have unintended consequences, but will not consider that their decisions may have had equal or worse unintended consequences. No, their plans and ideas always turn out like they think.

    These men have had multiple Command positions. They know that Command is one of the loneliest, powerful, exciting, and terrifying positions out there - especially in a combat environment. You do not always get the most honest advice, as often you are told what others think you want to hear. You have to make decisions based on incomplete, often incorrect information - because a decision has to be made. Many decisions are a complete step into a dark room - one that can be filled with honor and glory, or disgrace. But, you have to step into that room. No one is there to make the decisions for you. No one is there, often, to veto you. In a combat situation, unless you sound insane, your men will do what they are told as if you are a god; because they assume you have all knowledge and all foresight. You have to make decisions that will take the lives of your fellow man, friend-foe-or otherwise; that you yourself are not sure is the best decision. But you must make a decision. More often than not, you are faced with a decision that either way you go - you know it will be thought of by others as wrong - because you know the outcome either way will be bad in some known or unknown way. That is Command. That is it. I don’t know if that makes sense, but that is what came out.

    Some of these men are good honorable men who I am sure think they are doing the right thing - or are on the fence and decided to join in with a friend who has sold them. Some of these men may be motivated by other reasons. I don’t know their heart or their head, and perhaps I condemn too fast, but I don’t take anything back. I will judge their actions.

    They are pushing it, hard. They are setting a very bad example. If this was done in 2003-2005 or after 08 NOV 06, I would probably not have felt as strong as I have. This is an election year. It is one thing for a Navy O5 to BlogAnon and touch on domestic politics from the fringes; hey, I know in the big scheme of things I am a flea on an elephant’s - or donkey’s if you will - behind. These guys are Flag Officers marching en masse, in formation, with a political party’s goal of taking down the civilian Second in Command. .

    If, as threatened by Dick Holbrooke, they bring some Active Duty guys with them - they invite, by their example, other Active Duty guys and gals, in uniform - on Active Duty, to line up in defense of their SECDEF.

    Is that what they want? Really? When, in the history of anything, has that been a good thing? Where, in our martial tradition, does that belong? Do we want to go down the road of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and about every country south of El Paso and scattered elsewhere around the world.

    We have a unique military/civilian tradition in this country, especially when it comes to Flag Officers.

    Remember, in ‘92, when a “GASP” there was when RETIRED former CJCS Admiral Crowe endorsed Clinton? Is this where we are now?

    Fade away gentlemen, or get a job pointing to a map on CNN…but fade away…at least get out of formation.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 3:06 pm

  10. Goemagog wrote:

    I think comparing Iraq to Vietnam is entirely appropriate. In both cases we fight against an evil enemy that we outfight at every turn, and in both cases our military achievements are being sold out from under us by our own press, state department, and assorted political hacks.

    Goe, standind by what he said.

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 5:38 pm

  11. John the Marine wrote:

    Goemagog,
    I apologize! I’ve misunderstood you. Whenever I see the Vietnam comparison I’m quick to assume a defeatist argument is being made.

    “In both cases we fight against an evil enemy that we outfight at every turn, and in both cases our military achievements are being sold out from under us by our own press, state department, and assorted political hacks.”

    Your above couldn’t be further from my erroneous and premature conclusion.

    “Goe, standind by what he said.”

    As well you should!

    Semper Fi!

    Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 6:53 pm

  12. Rob C. wrote:

    Gen. Zinni is now on the staff of the Center for Defense Information, a think tank:

    http://www.cdi.org/staff/index.cfm?LocationID=1&OfficeID=1

    Which way politically does CDI lean? Well, Paul Newman (the actor) and Ben Cohen (the icecream man) are on the board of advisors, which indicates to me a lefty tilt. But look at the site, it’ll put Zinni’s recent statements in some perspective.

    Posted 20 Apr 2006 at 6:33 pm

  13. CDR Salamander wrote:

    Rob,
    CDI!!!!!! Those guys have been on the wrong side of the defense issue since the Cold War.

    That finishes it.

    Posted 21 Apr 2006 at 2:31 pm

« Sheehan Refuted
Lawn Quagmire - Withdraw Now »