Yours Is To Stay On The Perimeter, Forever
Being neither fully enmeshed with the civilian world nor fully separate, those who bear arms will not and cannot be given the same Public ear when from within the ranks malfeasance is exposed and rears its ugly head. When guys like Yingling and Sanchez, ex post facto, start speaking out, the Public simply doesn't want to hear too much of it. To lend full ear is to entertain the possibility that the Nation can't be defended. It's that simple. In short, don't expect much support or sympathy from us and don't get too smug and prideful when the *(^&* politicians get on the band wagon over issues raised by guys like Sanchez and Yingling. Rummy fell on his sword a long time ago. How involved do you really want civilians to be in your lives? You need to ask yourselves that and keep the #### in the ranks where it has always belonged - deal with it and straighten it out.
The Law, the Constitution and the Military.
When officers (and while at Leavenworth) get to the point where a number of them not only criticize both generals and politicians openly, but both raise the spectre of refusing to obey the orders of their superior officers and the civilian leadership, and then other officers not only debate, but begin to think about it, then it is clear that something is gravely wrong, not just a major problem. And when much the same thing has been going on over in Britain, with all ranks from Private straight up to the Chief of the Defence Staff criticizing their civilian leadership publicly, it is also clear that this is not an isolated case. This a critical issue that has been left fester for soem time now within the civilian-military relationship in the English-speaking world.
The stresses, strains, and overstretch of the military forces of much of the English-speaking world while both the civilian political and senior military leaderships are reaching, or have now reached, a perhaps critical point. The one officer who responded to strong suggestions that generals should have said "No" to the politicians by calling that a "coup d'etat" is taking it a little too far. A coup d'etat is when the troops physically overthrow or eject the lawful government or elements thereof. That is not what is going on here, or even being suggested. If a general resigns in protest against what are immoral, unlawful orders, that is not bucking the supremacy of the civil authority. It may even not be unlawfully defying civil authority for the generals to say "No" to an war that they believe to be immoral and unlawful.
The problem here though, is twofold. First of all, in concrete cases, where is the dividing line between moral, lawful rejection of an immoral, unlawful order, and insubordination and even mutiny? Second, and this is particualry pertinent in the present situation, is when civilian leaderships not only reject the military advice of the generals, but are seen to effectively expell those whose advice they reject, the civilian-military relationship is put under stress; when that already stressed relationship is subjected to the strains of an over-stretched military engaged in a prolonged and difficult war, and serious political divisions back home exacerbate the situation at almost every turn, it should not come as a surprise that a breach is developing between much of the officer corps on one side and the civilian leadership together with the generals who have acquiesced to that leadership on the other.
The civilian leadership and elements of the general officer ranks have brought this upon themselves and the rest of the military. But now the officer corps to an extent that it has probably never been, is politicized, angry, and many of them are no longer afraid to show it. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over coming years.
Agree with Cavguy. There's nothing new here.
The same sorts of discussions took place during Korea and Viet Nam -- as well as afterward. At all ranks. Not new with the Brits either -- or with Canadians. During Korea, we had 42 RM Cdo attached for a while and were adjacent to the Black Watch and visited 2 RCR. Soldiers gripe. Even about their own Army to others, given a little alcoholic easing of natural tension and reticence. :wry:
Amazing number of senior folks were unhappy about the firing of MacArthur (though not all of 'em :) ). Many were unhappy that Eisenhower ran on the end the war ticket. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon -- as well as the senior leadership -- were all routinely denigrated during Viet Nam. There were those who complained about the cessation of Desert Strom in 1991 and you wouldn't believe some of the things said about the senior leadership and the Prez in the 1990s.
Foolishness and incompetence in high places has always been a favorite topic. Regrettably, too often deservedly so. :(
Nor have I ever heard any serious discussion about coups and refusal of orders. Civilian control is hard wired. So, in the US, is not resigning -- that's as much due to the depth of the bench as anything. If one resigns in protest, one knows the system will simply keep appointing replacements until it finds someone to do whats wanted. Plus, there's the ego trip of getting the job, no matter how unappealing, finished and the belief that one can do it better than some second or third choice -- and with less damage to the institution than said incompetent might inflict...
The departure by resignation of massive numbers of Officers at the earliest possible date during a war is also not new. Wives get upset, Captains and some Majors leave -- also happened during Korea and Viet Nam.
There's no news -- or anything to be concerned about there...
Heh. We can disagree on the utility of
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
Actually a really good read about military relations, something I've been suggesting a few colleagues read it.
The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012, CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.,
LINK
and the logic of that essay by Dunlap... :)
He's slick and a smart guy no question -- and here, from your link, is his bottom line:
Quote:
"Resist unification of the services not only on operational grounds, but also because unification would be inimical to the checks and balances that underpin democratic government. Slow the pace of fiscally driven consolidation so that the impact on less quantifiable aspects of military effectiveness can be scrutinized."
Smart guy with a strong agenda.
He's also still at it; LINK.
I do not disagree with what you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
Here is where we part ways - I think there is a great deal to be concerned about, but the sky will not fall.
Just because it happened before doesn't make it right. I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the 70's army or what I read about the Eisenhower Army post-Korea. It took both forces over ten years to recover culturally from those wars.
Culturally is the good news -- you wouldn't believe what happened to training during those periods...
You had to be there to really savor the problems. I was for both periods and it wasn't cool.
A large part of the problem centers around the Army's World War II mentality and the care and feeding of Generals. Then and now...
Quote:
We have serious, developed problems in our officer culture and leadership that is turning off many excellent junior officers from staying in the army. The problem is real and is self perpetuating as most of those promoted believe the system worked and those who left are whiners or losers.
Read
this and
this - written seven years ago. The comments, with the exception of the "peacekeeping" issues, are all still valid and applicable today. 9/11 resulted in many officers desiring to stay in and serve - and didn't get the army to address the serious culture problems stemming from the 90s drawdown. I think the criticism of the generals by Yingling and others is a direct result of a generation of leaders built in the "zero defect, perfect QTB" 90's Army.
Vandergriff has some good ideas. I don't agree with him on all counts but that's okay. There are others with good ideas and I totally agree that the care and feeding of all ranks in the Army is long due for a major overhaul. A crunch is going to develop as we slowly disengage large numbers from Iraq and find that our abysmal personnel system, up or out promotions and DOPMA have created big problems -- and that the large number of potential SSGs in the combat arms due to the high reenlistment rates is more than an ankle biter...
I think it goes a little deeper. A lot is predicated on a mobilization base and the perceived need to have too many officers for the structure to be prepared to rapidly expand if required. That's a valid concern and we've always tried to do it on the sly because Congress will not tolerate it openly.
More is predicated on the way we fund and staff Federal organisms. The personnel bureaucracy was large, understandably, at the end of WW II -- and it has zealously and successfully fought to remain oversized since. all those people need work and if there is none, they'll create some...
Battalion Commanders in Viet Nam post 1967 learned they had instant NCOs and LTs who would do anything you asked but they didn't know much and thus a cult of micromanagement developed. Those LTCs were your 90s Generals -- they "trained" their successors, the current crop, the same way.
Add to that, as one of my favorite LTGs once told me, he was mediocre and "all Generals are mediocre -- if you're really good, your contemporaries will kill you on the way up because you're too much competition."
Lot of impactors on the problem, many more than we could address in a day...
Quote:
The Army, and the Republic, will survive regardless. But just because it will go on doesn't mean that the status quo is acceptable or desirable.
What are we going to do to address the problem of senior leadership that insists on business as usual and a personnel bureaucracy that exists to aggrandize itself?
My comment that there is nothing to be concerned about is based on part of your last; "The Army and the Republic will survive regardless."
The remainder of that paragraph "But just because it will go on doesn't mean that the status quo is acceptable or desirable." is totally and very sadly true but IMO this is one of those problems that falls into the "It is best to leap a chasm in a single jump" as opposed to taking small bites of the elephant. I do not see anyone capable of making that leap up top...
Sadly.
Good comments, FredIII and Goesh
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fred III
...
. . .
And I guess the problem I have is that some how, some way, even after 67 years of being stunned by this nonsense, I still care. I walked away from 10 years in the service, but left without my heart. I feel sorry for all of you-- that ain't pity, gentlemen; it's respect and admiration and the hopes you can get it right where my friends and I failed.
... But until the institution-- the "corporation"-- recognizes its inherent problem, cabals to deal with it, you'll be having this conversation in your rocking chairs on your palm computers.
...
Best wishes,
Fred.
I can agree with all that, including the parts I eliminated to save space -- well, maybe a reservation on Hackworth who was in the same Brigade and for whom I once ran a mission while OpCon to his Battalion; I am not an admirer -- I strongly agree with your last paragraph quoted above.
Goesh says:
Quote:
This discourse nudges the ranks to clean up and shape up but no good ever comes from civilians meddling too much in military affairs
Very true. Most of the commenters on this thread are military and fortunately, being a Navy junior and with 45 years of millinery and silly-villian service and now comfortably retarded; all except for about two years between the Corps and the Army of my 76+ years living on guvmint checks, as my kids say, I can't even spell silly-villian... :D
Seriously, you're right. More importantly, so is Fred -- the institution is going to have to un-bureaucrat-ize themselves; Congress won't (will in fact actively if inadvertently try to increase the bureaucracy *) and most civilians wouldn't know where to start. :wry:
* Congress for the most part doesn't care about the Armed Forces but most of them do NOT want a truly effective and really competent force; they're afraid of such a monster. Penalty of living in a Democracy -- but we get a lot of payback and I'm not sure we want too significant a change...