previous post next post  

The Generals and their yapping.

By The Armorer on April 28, 2006 | | Comments (14)

I've been struggling with this one, because I really am conflicted.

On the one hand, I blog, I'm a retired military officer, I express my opinions, many of them critical of this Administration and Rumsfeld in particular. How am I all that different from these guys? Well, there *is* the size of the check at the end of the month, true.

On the other hand, these guys are Generals. And while I find the Press' embrace of these retirees and their message to be hypocritical, given the non-love shown for the dissident Generals who didn't like the Bosnia and Kosovo adventures, the simple fact is, and I well know it - their opinion matters more than mine does. No one really cares what a retired field grade officer thinks unless they manage to breakout into full Pundit status, like Ollie North, Ralph Peters, Austin Bay, Dave Hunt, etc. And I haven't demonstrated that skill yet, nor, I think, am I likely to, given my rejection level by K-Lo!

That said, I think it comes down to this quote sent my by my buddy Jim,

I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit, and to mothball his opinions. General of the Army Omar Bradley, in the New York Times, May 17, 1959.

All of these guys have issues with the SECDEF.

So what? They aren't the first. There was the Admiral's Revolt. Heck, McClellan, Wes Clark. Both of whom properly took their message to the political arena, where it was all out in the open and a free-for-all. During the 60's, there was no love lost between McNamara and his minions. In the bathroom of our apartment in Stuttgart, Germany, my father (then a LTC on the EUCOM J-3 staff) had a photo of Secretary McNamara, with the caption of *Big Daddy Is Watching You" on it. That stared at you as you did your business. Disaffection is not unusual, especially with transformative leaders.

Some of the generals have problems with the SECDEF being "disrespectful" of them (or others) personally, and dismissive of their opinions.

Really. Again, so what? An excessive deference to the opinion of subordinates is not a universal trait of the GO corps. Especially dissident opinions. I've watched numerous GO's crucify people for disagreeing... especially ones who disagree after the fact and drag their feet implementing decisions. I watched my father take a public shellacking that was completely inappropriate *and* unwarranted. Much less delivered to the officer in question in front of his son.

These officers all served honorably, and many of them, in one way or another, fell afoul of the Secretary. There's a reason that some commanded or held significant jobs during OIF - yet did not rise to the next higher grade. Whether a lack of room at the top, or people were not fully-happy with their performance in grade, there are reasons these guys are retired... and grumpy.

And they may well have earned that grumpiness. And they have a right to express their opinions on the conduct of the war.

But, and I admit I'm old-fashioned in this regard - because of their unique status as senior military leaders, they shouldn't be calling for the resignation or firing of Cabinet officials - especially ones they served under, who are still serving when they are not. If Congress wishes to call them before the committees and ask the question directly - then they should answer. That is appropriate, even if it is simply politics by other means. The Generals are charged with giving their honest assessment when asked.

Like it or not, Generals make lovers of Liberty uneasy, and the Founders set up a structure to limit their power and influence, as well they should have. To my way of thinking, the restrictions placed on us warriors (which are greater the higher we rise, which is why there are virtually *no* restrictions, comparatively, on enlisted members) expand and exert greater pressure the higher we rise. And they should. And these Generals should have known that no President worth his salt is going to fire a civilian leader of the Pentagon because the Generals demanded it.

The message that sends is simply unacceptable. In fact, it made it *harder* to achieve what they want - if anything, they guaranteed Rumsfeld's survival.

The Generals are free to write books and op-ed pieces and give speeches that argue against Administration policy - including policy they had a hand in implementing. Color me old-fashioned, but I think they overstepped the bounds of a good custom when they started calling for Rumsfeld's head. In this Republic, calling for the head of their civilian boss is simply *not* the province of the General Officers.

Switching sides - those who call the General's cowards or craven for not speaking out before they retired, or for not resigning in protest, are also loons who wish to dangerously erode the quite proper fetters placed on the military leadership.

If you are wearing the uniform, you make your arguments in the context of the staff meeting and written documents, and personal conversation. And yes, I know, the Generals and their staffs aren't above leaking, spare me. That is part and parcel of the process - and there is a world of difference between that an open rebellion in uniform. I would fully expect a Secretary of Defense to smack down an openly rebellious General by firing him and retiring him at his permanent grade (usually two grades behind the one on your shoulder). That they held their tongues publicly until they retired is entirely proper.

I know I'm late to this (one reason I'm not a very good pundit) but I wanted to think it through before I went on record. Not that anyone has been asking, really.

Update: Judging from the comments and some emails, I didn't make myself clear in this paragraph:

Switching sides - those who call the General's cowards or craven for not speaking out before they retired, or for not resigning in protest, are also loons who wish to dangerously erode the quite proper fetters placed on the military leadership.

What I was getting at is Open, Public Disagreement - of the sort they are currently engaged in.

I know from several sources (the easiest public source being the book Cobra II) that there was plenty gnashing of teeth during the planning and execution phase. And that it was conducted as I suggested was proper - in the planning sessions, staff briefings, email, telephone, and personal conversations. At the Rock Drills and rehearsals. And in some of those meetings, some people got their feelings hurt. But when the decision was made, they shut up, saluted, and soldiered on. And either through their disagreement before, or real or perceived lukewarm/lagging execution of those orders, several of those officers may have indeed paid a professional price. I don't profess to know where that line lies.

That said - I *still* think it is wrong for them to have publicly called for the dismissal of the Civilian head of the Department of Defense. That, quite frankly, is *not* their proper province, precisely *because* they are Generals. Had I been blogging in that era, I would have said the same of any recently retired General who advocated same during the Clinton Administration. And I did slap down officers who inappropriately (especially in front of subordinates) offered disrespect to President Clinton, regardless of whether or not I agreed with them. That is a civil right we *knowingly* leave behind us when we accept the commission.

There. Is that any clearer?

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

14 Comments

By FbL on April 28, 2006 8:00 AM
Thought-provoking post. Thanks. :) I have a question, though. With my limited knowledge, I do fall into the camp who says they should've resigned in protest. I really don't understand your argument against that. I mean, if a general is to lead soldiers into combat which he either believes shouldn't be done or is being done in ways that will lead to unnecessary death and suffering, how can he in good conscience participate in it? On other long-term issues (such as planning/procurement for "the next war" force structure, etc.) I can understand hanging around to continue to fight the internal battles. But some of these generals are saying the Iraq war was wrong to engage in and was incorrectly planned for, and that they had that opinion from the beginning. The fact that they participated in things they say they believed at the time would lead to unnecessary death and suffering severely weakens the moral power of their arguments, in my mind. So, could you clarify why you (as I understand it) would disagree with that perspective?
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 8:38 AM
Again, it comes down to who is in charge, and that, ultimately, is the civilians. If they felt the war was illegal, then yes, they should have refused to serve and let the chips fall as they may. Not resigned, but refused the order. Simply because you believe the planning is bad is *not* sufficient cause to resign. You can ask to be relieved, certainly, but an open resignation? No. In the end, we are charged with following the legal, however flawed we think them to be, orders of our superiors. And refusing to do so, simply because you feel they are bad orders, is not acceptable conduct. There is a difference between bad and illegal, therein lies the crux. And even though you believe the planning to be flawed, or the operation ill-advised, doesn't mean it rises to level where you simply salute and try to execute the decision to the best of your ability. And often, what is obvious in hindsight is *not* obvious before the event. There is a clarity to hindsight that is almost always missing beforehand. I don't fault these guys for not going public, and for feeling compelled to do their jobs. For the formation commanders, who are actually leading the troops into combat, it is arguably a worse betrayal to force a leadership change on the eve of combat. So no, that they didn't speak out publicly does not bother me, and that they served, while still trying to influence things, strikes me as honorable service. And probably contributed to why they didn't advance after the war.
 
By Pogue on April 28, 2006 12:53 PM
"I mean, if a general is to lead soldiers into combat which he either believes shouldn't be done or is being done in ways that will lead to unnecessary death and suffering, how can he in good conscience participate in it?" A good leader may not agree with the mission, or think that the plan is ideal, but will be unable to resign in protest because he or she feels that they know their troops the best and have the best chance of succeeding with the lowest casualties. While there may be some playing of politics involved (no, generals playing politics?) I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as intentions at the time. Even as a lowly sergeant I would have a hard time leaving my team to do a mission without me just because I disagreed with the mission or the plan.
 
By Cannoneer No. 4 on April 28, 2006 1:10 PM
The Generals and CDI Everybody above O-6 is a politician. The grumpy generals are tools. They're positioning themselves for good things from a Democrat administration. If they bet right they win big. If they bet wrong they are no bigger losers than they are now.
 
By FbL on April 28, 2006 1:18 PM
Thanks, John and Pogue. I suspected it might be something like that, but didn't know... Thanks! :)
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 1:18 PM
I decided not to rehash what has been out there before on that subject... which, IIRC, you pointed to before, #4. Zinni has certainly started dancing to that tune, certainly.
 
By KCSteve on April 28, 2006 1:40 PM
John, I believe you nailed the source of the bad smell on this one. It's not waiting to retire - that's proper behaviour, as noted. It's not being critical of the plan, the war, or the adminstration's policies. It's not even being critical of Rummie. It's publicly calling for his ouster. That's just not right under our system where the civilians are ultimately in charge. Waiting until Rumsfield is out of office and then stating that you think he should have been gone long before -- yeah, that sounds fine.
 
By TheNewGuy on April 28, 2006 3:26 PM
I agree with your point that an attempted press/military coup against the SecDef. However, this former field-grade "loon" disagrees with your other point. I think these guys should have spoken up when they had something to lose; it would have greatly enhanced their credibility. In my book, a good measure of a man is how he treats those (subordinates or otherwise) who can do him no harm... and I think it's fair game to question the actions of generals leveling their complaints only from the safety of retirement. I was in the medical corp, and more than once had the occasion to refuse, end-run, or jump the chain of command when inappropriate orders were given to me regarding patient care. If somebody was trying to do something dangerous or inappropriate for my patient (and there were not deadly-serious extenuating circumstances), I questioned that order every time. I was an officer, but I was also a physician, and I felt my ethical and professional obligation to the patient outweighed my duty to the whims of the command structure. If that makes me a bad officer, so be it. Maybe that's part of the reason for the resentment us docs sometimes felt from other officers. I didn't always make friends in my chain by questioning orders, but my patients sure as hell appreciated it. A helpless/sick/injured person may not have anyone else to advocate for them, and sometimes it hurts to be a patient advocate... but it's the right thing to do.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2006 4:25 PM
TNG, those are fair points - but I think they fall into a different bin. Whose to say they *didn't* do exactly what you describe - and loudly? And then, the decision made, saluted and executed? Surely you aren't suggesting that they should have gone *public* as they have now in the middle of the planning process/execution process? If so, then we do disagree on that issue. It was their job to argue their point up to the time the decision was made, and when over-ruled, do their job. I, too, did that, though I honestly can't think of any life-and-death situations where it was an issue. And the two times it was an issue of legal vice illegal orders, I called the bluff and survived, though the first time took outside help to do so. You case with patients is, I believe, a touch different, and touches on issues of Special versus General staff responsibility delineations. And for the record, the only thing about you medical guys I resented was a cavalier attitude towards uniform regulations. The Private who saw you guys doing that just saw Majors and Colonels doing that - not making a distinction between you slackers and we STRAC professionals. Yeah, that's it.
 
By TheNewGuy on April 28, 2006 10:57 PM
Thanks for the reply, John. Yes, I was often chagrined by the behavior and las uniform standards of my fellow medical officers. For my own part, I was one of the AJ-Squared-Away types, with shirt garters, pressed uniforms, and 90+ percentile PT scores. I also scrupulously observed the customs and courtesies... with one exception. Rank isn't really an issue for docs and chaplains. We do our job regardless of how brass-heavy the patient, so I didn't force my enlisted troops to call me by rank. They could call me "doc" or pretty much whatever... as long as they did exactly what I told them to do at exactly the time I told them to do it (critical patients often don't leave much room for discussion). This really seemed to bug some other officers, and I was harshly excoriated in Officer Training for voicing that sentiment. Everything where I worked was a team effort, and the mission wouldn't have gotten done without the enlisted guys' contributions. I might have been the boss, but I never felt it was necessary to make a show of it. As long as your subordinates respect you, trust your judgement, and take care of business, a lot of the other trappings become unnecessary... just MHO Perhaps the generals in question did raise their strenuous objections and lay it on the line when it counted... we just don't know. We only see what they're doing now, and precious little corroboration for what they might have done when they had something to lose. As you know, integrity has to come first, and the higher you rise in rank, the greater the opportunities to compromise yourself for power, money, or political patronage. I'm not questioning their integrity, simply the convenient timing of coming out publicly when they're safely retired, and I think it's fair to raise that question. If it's important enough to attempt a military coup in the press after the fact, surely it was important enough to stand up and be counted during the run-up? When they might have made a difference in the outcome? Just a thought.
 
By Barb on April 29, 2006 10:37 AM
KCSteve - good distinction, and you've stated my own position (on Publicly calling for Rummy's ouster) on the situation. TNG - Welcome to the Castle! You've touched on a topic that I don't think we (as outsiders) can know or resolve. *If* these men did their best to raise concerns during the planning, using the channels and options they had, then saw that it was going to happen anyways and put their opinions aside to do their work - I can respect that. I can't prove they didn't, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. So here's my concern: Suppose that all that is true, why come out specifically now? Only one reason I can think of ... the upcoming mid-term elections. If they are making a ruckus as part of the political process, then I have no respect for their actions. Nope - I can't prove it, but the suspicion is bad enough. So I can't trust that their motives are pure, and what they say is tainted for me.
 
By Retired LTC on April 29, 2006 12:49 PM
First off, good analysis. I'm glad you gave yourself some time to think about it. I'm of sort of two minds on this one too, altho not precisely where you're at. I find it hard to believe that these generals were so naive as to think President Bush would fire Rumsfeld because a handful of retired generals said he should. So I ask myself, why are they doing it? One thought I quickly disgard is that they thought a cascade of other officers would speak out with them, and they'd end up leading some sort of mutiny, for all that some in the media have tried to characterize it as such. But I'm not buying. I think these are patriotic Americans who respect the Constitutional rule of civilian leadership. That said, it may be they felt someone needed to speak for the many on active duty who feel the same way, whether it went anywhere or not. Or, somewhat conversely, each may have successively heard the one before speak out, and get attacked both privately among right-wing collegues and publicly in the right-wing media, and so felt his predecessor needed back-up. There is great loyalty to brothers in arms among these men. If I can digress a bit, I would interject here that the complaints about Rumsfeld's attitude toward ground-pounders is not new. As early as January 03, General Schwarzkopf (hardly anti-GOP in any way) had this to say, "The Rumsfeld thing . . . that's what comes up," when [Schwarzkopf] calls old Army friends in the Pentagon, he says. " 'When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army,' Schwarzkopf says. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else.' "That dismissive posture bothers Schwarzkopf because he thinks Rumsfeld and the people around him lack the background to make sound military judgments by themselves. He prefers the way Cheney operated during the Gulf War. 'He didn't put himself in the position of being the decision-maker as far as tactics were concerned, as far as troop deployments, as far as missions were concerned.' "Rumsfeld, by contrast, worries him. 'It's scary, okay?' he says. 'Let's face it: There are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational planning for their entire lives, okay? And for this wisdom, acquired during many operations, wars, schools, for that just to be ignored, and in its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of concern.'" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27 So I think they have a case, and it's more than just hurt feelings or personal distaste. I'm a little prejudiced in this regard, because I have a real-life brother who is a retired Major cum defense contractor, working for Department of the Army in NoVA. He has been telling me for several years now that most of his co-workers have little respect for Rumsfeld. But why call for Rumsfeld's head, and why now? Like I said, I'm of two minds. It occurs to me that these generals have lived their entire military careers by the rule that commanders are responsible for everything their subordinates do or fail to do. So I gotta believe they realize that President Bush is ultimately the culprit for the assortment of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, with the exception of General Clark who moved into the political arena some time ago (in the honored tradition of 12 prior generals who went on to become president, I might add), they also have a very hard time bringing themselves to condemn the Commander-in-Chief, whether because it's a difficult psychological bar to cross, or because they are in fact all Republicans who want to see George Bush have some 2006 coattails. So they are zeroing in on the next best target. My alternative theory has more to do with the when rather than the who. Few would argue that we are not in the planning stage of a military option vis-a-vis Iran. Some postulate that if the military trigger will be pulled, it will come some time before this November's elections, much as the Iraq War Resolution hit Congress right before the 2002 mid-terms. It may well be that these generals want very much for the public debate to include some consideration as to whether the current administration is competent enough to execute such a military mission, and can be trusted to handle the aftermath. Of course, my two theories are completely mutually exclusive.
 
By Retired LTC on April 29, 2006 12:52 PM
Ummm... make that NOT completely mutually exclusive. D'oh!
 
By Cricket on April 29, 2006 2:50 PM
I didn't say anything at all similar to this on Cass' blog, only that they can disagree, but they can't dis the office of the SECDEF. Thank you for a GREAT insight.