Time to hold the US generals accountable for Afg. and Iraq
Actually the sub-title for a FP Blog piece, written by its editor and the title is 'A New Challenge for Our Military: Honest Introspection':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._introspection
The second opening paragraph will suffice to start:
Quote:
Yes, certainly there has been national debate about whether we should have been involved in those wars, one that has belatedly delivered the message to our political leadership that it is time to bring our troops home. But about one crucial array of issues concerning our involvement we have been stunningly silent: the competence of our military leaders, the effectiveness of the strategies they have employed, and the very structure and character of our military itself.
His last sentence is:
Quote:
Let's do our duty to ourselves and show our military that we respect it enough to know that it can stand up to the scrutiny it deserves.
There are a few signs here in the UK that our own civil-military leadership are uncomfortable with the two wars and the debate is in similar terms:
Quote:
the competence of our military leaders, the effectiveness of the strategies they have employed, and the very structure and character of our military itself.
When I say civil-military leadership in the UK I do not mean political leadership, rather the senior permanent civil servants and the senior military officers.
From this distant vantage point there is already a debate about these issues, but it appears not to resonate with the winder public nor amongst elected representatives.
He has valid comments on the need for some introspection.
We really need more than introspection. A very thorough relook and recasting of effort is long overdue. That's a belief held by a great many inside and out of the armed forces. The real issue is what form such a deep look and recasting might take. The important question, around really since World War II, is why has such a deep look not occurred. The answer to that lies in part with the services but about 80% of the problem is blatantly political and predicated not on the defense of the US, not in relation to our foreign affairs but rather on our domestic politics. That factor means design inefficiencies for political preference reasons...
That said, what David Rothkopf has also done is write a well crafted political hit piece that touts all his beliefs. That's a perfectly acceptable thing to do though I suggest that a more honest approach would achieve better results.
He's been around enough -- worked for Kissinger Associates, the Carnegie Endowment and was in the Clinton Administration so he's being rather facile in gently and subtly blaming the Armed Forces for things 'they' have done or not done while not really doing more than aiming a few minor sideswipes at the many shills and ills of the politicians and of Congress who like the way things now operate. Those are the folks who established and support the current system -- and who prefer a degree of ineptitude on the part of the armed services. Mr. Rothkopf is correctly saying the service need to take a deep honest look and begin some fixing. He is quite wrong in not holding the several Administrations and Congresses accountable for not forcing such a fix -- a fix that will never occur unless it is forced. Why should it be otherwise...
Established is a good word. He's part of the Establishment -- they're 80% of the problem and he wants the 20% to do better... :rolleyes:
No disagreement from me on that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Ken, some problems are about the president and the advice he gets.
Yes to both. However, he has or should have (but does not -- that's another thread...) People who serve as a cross check to the military advice. If he or she accepts bad military advice, whose fault is that? The bad advisor's or his / hers for accepting it? :eek:
Quote:
The military is to blame for much on the political level (same in other countries), for it simply did not do its job at the high level. It did not advise well, it did not overcome its primitive 'can do' attitude, it did not overcome its bureaucratic instincts.
I agree. That's why I wrote this: "He is quite wrong in not holding the several Administrations and Congresses accountable for not forcing such a fix -- a fix that will never occur unless it is forced. Why should it be otherwise..." (emphasis added / kw) ;)
Instead of saying "why should it be otherwise" I probably should have written "We'd be foolish to expect otherwise..." :wry: