Generals vs. Rummy
By Callimachus | Related entries in In The News, MilitaryKevin Drum has a timely reminder for antis who are all enthused about the retired generals coming out and saying Rumsfeld should quit. Outside the question of whether he really should quit is the larger issue of civilian control of the U.S. military.
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.
There’s no question that military leaders should forcefully offer their best advice in private and should testify honestly in public on operational matters. When General Eric Shinseki gave his opinion that the invasion of Iraq required “several hundred thousand” troops, he was acting properly. That was a professional military opinion, and the way he was treated for expressing it was shameful. But that’s quite a different thing from speaking out simply because you think a war is a bad idea on policy grounds.
Drum argues for “keeping our bearings straight” through all this. Which is not to say retired generals should say nothing (as someone no doubt is going to accuse me of doing in about the third comment). It is rather to say that, like the “chickenhawk meme” argument, the antis should think hard about the long-term consequences of a tactic that offers short-term benefits to their side.
This is not MacArthur II. But it takes a small step down that path. A coordinated effort by military men — who would be disqualified by national law from holding the position of Secretary of Defense — to exert their will over the Pentagon is something that ought to be approached soberly. The bravery and skill of those generals is not in question, nor is the fact that they might be right about Rumsfeld.
But the fact that so many Americans are losing sight of the importance of civilian control of the military is something that troubles me.
One of the Iraq generals whom I most respect, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, also has a problem with this, including concern about a consequence I hadn’t foreseen:
“I would not ever want to see the military politicized. And I would not want to see generals chosen on the basis of whether they’d keep their mouths shut in retirement, rather than on the basis of whether they can provide sound military advice.�
Dean Esmay reminds me that Lincoln’s generals — especially Little Mac — often chafed under his control and openly agitated for his removal.
Meanwhile, Reader-I-am argues that dumping Rummy wouldn’t be the panacea some people evidently are hoping for.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 18th, 2006 and is filed under In The News, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
1. These retired Generals are not having a tug of war with Rummy …. They are gravely concerned that the particular civilian is taking us in the wrong direction and are trying desperatelyto even the playing field
2. I don’t believe that any one of these brave men want to usurp civilian control … they most certainly, and correctly, are trying to cause some conversation and assessment by the PUBLIC, and civilian lawmakers of what is sytematically becoming a attrition ofour “Military capacity”. They are being forthright and clear with their criticism because they concerned.
3. Civilian control has always been the strenghth of our country where the military is concerned, as designed. The Military code of Ethics for a career officer does not get folded like the retirement flag and put away for use on holidays. Part of the Code directs any soldier to do all he can within the bounds of protocol to prevent bad results from bad orders. Those individuals who are supportingRummy are following protocol and Honor Code regardless of their personal feelings(which could be on either side)
4. Rummy has been an executive for all of his career and may have served that capacity well in corporate and government service, but he is dismissing hundreds f years of military experience as if it were non- agenda malarkey. that does not smell like civilian control … that smells like ego …period.
%. He is a lame duck SECDEF … and Cal, if it looks like a duck … and it wals like a duck … it ain’t no armadillo!
To put it bluntly, the politicol end of this argument is coming from the administration … cold, hard facts are coming from these retired heroes.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
He may be a lame-duck secdef, and the generals may have right on their side (since it’s my judgement that it would be better had Rumsfeld life quite a while ago, of course I’m sympathetic to their criticisms).
However, what about the idea that his leaving might not, in and of itself, instigate as much change as people think?
April 18th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
And their are different “flavors” of and approaches to civil control, each with their merits.
I think it would be fascinating to sit down with not these just these particular generals but also with others to find out what type (or hybrid of types) would be to their taste.
Don’t you?
April 18th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Also, regarding #1, both of the propositions could be true, simultaneously. Without knowing in more depth the histories of the particular generals, I can’t say–but I would think that the odds are that both ARE true, for one or more.
In and of itself, wanting to play tug of war with Rumsfeld wouldn’t disprove the criticisms, anyway.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
I think what nearly everyone is missing here is the reason why these recently ex-generals are speaking out now. It’s not over Iraq, but over the next war – IRAN!!
They see the what’s coming down the line, they know how they were complicit in the Iraq debachle, and they can project what will happen in the next war with the same team running the show. They see the same manufactured/stovepiped evidence, the same rush to war, they see that Bush won’t be going back to the UN or congress to get approval to launch a Nuclear attack on a country that has not attacked us.
The last time, the generals knew Saddam was no threat. We had daily fly overs that constantly provoked Saddam and he couldn’t mount a defense if he tried. We smacked him down hard in Gulf War I and kept a boot to his neck. The generals knew there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, yet because Saddam posed no real threat to our forces, and because we had the cover of UN decrees, there was little resistance to the civilian leadership pushing this loony farce.
The next war will be different. The generals can see that. Now, with our forces tied up in an excercise we can’t win, bleeding a little every day, the military is being asked to fight an honest-to-god actual nuclear war that WE are about to launch, not because there is an iminent threat, but because BushCo wants to!!
And al-Qaeda remains unchecked.
Billmon has three good posts up. Read them.
http://billmon.org/archives/002389.html
http://billmon.org/archives/002390.html
http://billmon.org/archives/002392.html
April 19th, 2006 at 3:31 am
The Scabber is exactly right.
The Generals have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, first and foremost. One can safely argue that not letting the simian lead us into a nuclear exchange for nothing qualifies.
The Armed Forces have been put upon, unnnecessarily and almost brutally, for 3 years now, and the cracks are showing. I think the people that are cheering the Generals on have the same concern the Generals have-that something must be done now to rein the Chimperor in. I am concerned about how the military might ultimately decide this should be done, but I will not fault them for their concerns. The word “leadership” means responsibility, and right now we don’t have responsible leaders.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:40 am
Ascap, good call. Wes Clark spoke about this recently, and I like what he had to say:
“They’ve all spoken out, because they’re concerned about the direction of the national security choices the country’s making. They believe that one way or another, somehow that the military’s influence, the common sense that comes having boots on the ground working with the troops, somehow that common sense hasn’t percolated its way up the chain of command. And they’re speaking out about it because the results of the operations in Iraq haven’t lived up to the cakewalk billing that the administration predicted.”
This complements Ascap’s point–what’s going to happen in Iran, if the leaderships’ judgement and predictions are as poor as it was with Iraq? Even the average person recognizes Iran is more of a threat than Iraq was, and this highlights both the danger in running into Iran half-cocked, and the folly of being so distracted by Iraq in the first place.
I support the Generals’ actions.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Iran/Iraq is a convenient excuse. This is about Rumsfeld changing the strategic focus of the Army from a maneuver force of armor and artillery to a lighter, rapid response force. It’s an argument for the glory days of killing Soviet armored divisions. You don’t see Navy and Air Force admirals/generals coming out about Iraq or Iran, do you? It would be the Air Force and Navy who would be doing Iran, not the Army. So, where are the leaders whose troops would actually be involved in Iran, if Iran is the real issue, here?
Iran is a smokescreen. The Army generals have had it in for Rumsfeld for years, now, and they’re just venting their spleens. This is all about Strikers vs. M1-A1s, not about Iraq or Iran.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:55 am
I don’t know about the ax-grinding issue that Brian brings up, but it is true that the Quadrenniel Defense Review 2005 does indeed reflect a change in strategic focus. I think posted a link to that here somewhere the other day on one of Justin’s (?) Rumsfeld posts. Need coffee too much to look it up this minute ….
April 19th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Regarding Brian’s point on the Air Force / Navy, neither of those organizations have troops on the ground in Iraq, at least not many. They aren’t suffering the daily casualties, the difficulties in recruiting or the backdoor drafts to keep people in Iraq longer. As a result they wouldn’t have the same viewpoint as the army.
As for transforming the military from cold war style armor and artillery to fast response. I don’t blame the generals for being upset. The cold war style armor and artillery crushed Iraqi resistance only 3 years ago, with very limited casualties. The heavy armour and massed artillery would propably also come in handy in a potential war against Iran.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Reader_jam
However, what about the idea that his leaving might not, in and of itself, instigate as much change as people think?
RJ, I haven’t heard one of these generals speak the word “panacea”. I have heard them articulate that what we keep doing over and over is not working. We are “standing still” in terms of strategy and philosophy ….. sometimes when we are stuck, we just need to do something different … as a catylist for solution seeking.
Also, to Brian, “This is about Rumsfeld changing the strategic focus of the Army from a maneuver force of armor and artillery to a lighter, rapid response force. ” No, sir, “This is about Rumsfeld changing the strategic focus of the Army from a maneuver force of armor and artillery to a lighter, rapid response force, and not being successful.
It is one thing to change focus …. it is another thing altogether to bang your head against a wall because it will feel good when you stop.