Why do Generals tolerate getting grilled by senators?
I was just watching some youtube videos of Gen. McChrystal and the senate hearings from CSPAN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCcWa05Tms
I thought it was just lack of professionalism on the part of Hillary Clinton grilling Gen. Petraeus back in 2007 on Iraq, but Senator Graham is treating Gen. McChrystal the same way. How can military generals act so professional when senators tell them outright to their face "I think this is a failure, and what you've done here is a failure..." Telling the generals they are doing a "good job" when the hearing first starts, then outright bashing them does not help them feel better...
Naomi
Some additional thoughts ...
on Senator Barbara Boxer and BG Walsh start here.
I just watched the clip of the hearing...
Naomi, I think you misinterpreted what happened there. First, a little background: Senator Graham is not only on the Armed Services Committee, in his other life, he is a USAF Reserve Colomel in the JAG corps. And he has served on Active Duty in Iraq. He is both knowledgeable and sympathetic to GEN McChrystal and Admiral Stavridis (whose confirmation hearing for Supreme Allied Commander Europe - NATO commander - this also is). Second, the president nominates for promotion (McChrystal) and command (both) those flag officers and the Senate confirms (or denies confirmation). At these hearings the officers are required to give their best military advice to the Senators - answer honestly and say what they don't know. Notice that McChrystal gave several "I don't know"s and Graham just went on accepting that or the GEN' promise to get the data. In a couple of cases, Graham knew the answer and told McChrystal and Stavridis. This served the purpose of letting them know areas they need to get smart on. I did not see Graham as either talking down to them or as being antagonistic. What I did see was an attempt by Sen Graham to communicate his concerns, see the strrengths and weknesses of the officers, enlighten them on issues they need to be well aware of, and let them know that he wanted to work with them as he said at least twice. Note that he was also time limited in the hearing and he had a lot to commuicate so he couln't waste time on deep philosophical discussions in that forum. (Frankly, I am sure that he has had those kinds of conversations with both McChrystal and Stavridis in private.) I would tell you that both men are extremely well respected by their superiors, peers, and subordinates (I was talking to one of McChrystal's former subordinates in his Ranger Battalion this afternoon and my friend, a former enlisted Ranger, remains impressed.) My sense is thal neither Graham, McChrystal, or Stavridis came off badly in the discussion I watched.
Cheers
JohnT
By the end of World War II, Washing ton was flooded with military personnel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oblong
I've seen older film, from the 1950s, of senior military officers speaking to Congress, and I swear they are wearing suits not uniforms.
Does anyone know why they switched?
The numbers went down slowly in the late 40s as strength cuts continued until Korea caused a surge and suddenly, DC seemed awash in uniforms. The Eisenhower administration loosened uniform regulations generally and put out an edict that said no more than 25% of the military personnel in DC proper should be in Uniform -- this meant that many went everywhere in civilian clothes. That only lasted a few years and Kennedy encouraged uniforms.
As the number of military personnel in general went down, so did the number in Washington and, post Viet Nam, while the services all pushed more wearing the uniform, the rule in DC has long been to keep down the number of uniforms in most cases.
It's really always been a mixed bag. On Hearings, the guidance generally has been, as it is now; "Civilian attire will be worn by personnel who attend congressional hearings; however, the Service uniform must be worn by personnel who are called as witnesses during hearings."See this LINK, scroll down to Uniform.
Heh. Yep. Particularly since technically, there are no such
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T. Fishel
dungaree and fatigue uniforms will NOT be worn by OSD personnel.
things around today and have not been for many years... :D
Quote:
Does that include ACUs?
Not if you're an overweight senior person who can wear the ACU to remind everyone that he or she is a soldier! (covering the oversize tum-tum is simply a totally unintended bonus...) ;)
Thats the difference. Well, one of them anyway-- there are many...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The idea that having won a senate seat by general election is a stronger achievement and legitimation than being appointed by a promotion board (and confirmed by a senate committee) is also rare.
Luckily, such pro-general/contra-MP reactions would be almost unthinkable for 95% of my country's population. So it's probably up to the U.S. citizens to worry about the foundations of democracy because of those reactions.
Actually, in this country it is far more difficult to be selected by a promotion board and 'confirmed' by the Senate (not just a committee). In addition to being nominated, approved by the Senate, there are mandatory educational, assignment, time in grad and time in service requirements. To be elected to the Senate, all one has to do is have enough money to run a TV blitz and fool a few voters; most of whom don't really care who represents them. So you're wrong on the first item.
On the second, matter of opinion. Based on perusing a lot of English language media I see little difference in outcome with respect to overall quality of legislatures worldwide. Most leave a good deal to be desired. LINK.
Fuchs, based on the constitutional histories ...
of Germany and the USA since the late 1700s, I will continue to place my bets on the USA. Where you place your bets is a matter of complete indifference to me.
Most interesting part of the story was...
Quote:
A rep for Boxer said she and Walsh later spoke and discussed their respect for each other.
"Senator Boxer called Brigadier General Walsh earlier today. They had a friendly conversation, expressed their respect for each other and talked about how they look forward to working together to protect our communities from natural disasters."
Link
Didn't take very long for that phone call to occur. Whatever you may think of Senator Boxer, she's not politically stupid. There's an old political rule out there that "Friends come and and go, but enemies accumulate". No need to make "non-friends" when you don't have to - and more importantly, at the same time make your fellow senators "uneasy" about your having an elevated sense of "privilege". That second part's the real story.
It's just one of those times where all the parties involved just wish they all had a "Do Over Card" they could put down.
Why, Fuchs, I didn't know you cared...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.
You may do that. Given the fact that we've been a democracy for over 200 years and you have less than 70 years at it, you'll forgive me if I pay little attention to a concern that is overstated -- and fails to realize that Americans always slam politicians. They may be respected by some in Europe but here they generally are not. They're just fellow citizens who have big egos and enough money to get elected. They are no more endowed with wisdom than are any politicians anywhere. :(
Quote:
Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.
I doubt either has an excess of respect from most Americans. THAT is as it should be. They're people, no more, no less -- some are good and some are not. Over here, for most people, respect is accorded only if earned by a person, not by his or her job (military excluded; 'respect' must be and is proffered by law -- but even in the Armed Forces, true respect is still really given to seniors ONLY if earned).
Quote:
Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.
We don't, we make our own; that's enough without copying any other nation's. Been doing that for those 200 years I mentioned and probably will for another 200 or so. Enjoy. We mostly are enjoying it. :D
Quote:
P.S.: Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.
That's scary. Weird even. Really. Was that not sort of the case there back in the 30s? The Generals were derided, sidelined and the Politicians took over. How did that work out?
Politicians are generally crooked to one extent or another, worldwide, nearly as I can tell. Goes with the job. They bear considerable watching, distrust even. Some Generals are crooks also and bear watching -- in the end both are people and they should be judged as individual people, not as job holders.
Respect is an earned commodity; it does not automatically accrue to any job.
Fuchs, Ken forgot 2 qualifications for Senator
1. US citizen (natural born or naturalized - makes no difference)
2. Not less than 30 years old.
anybody who meets those 2 qualifications can run for Senate - not a very high bar.:wry:
Cheers
JohnT
It is the accountability and meritocracy.
I personally found the exchange between Senator Graham and the three flag officers enlightening and professional and honorable all around. I also found it interesting as to the alleged failings of Germany and Italy regarding their NATO commitments to the ISAF regarding police and judiciary reconstruction. This was something I was not aware of before watching the hearings.
Rather it is a Congressperson or General Officer testifying in the hearing one should respect the position and the individuals merits first and foremost.
Civilian control and oversight while very important to me personally, does not ensure an ethical, component, fiscally responsible, or well trained fighting force. Civilian control does not necessarily mean the aims will always be toward a democratic republic either. Many of the elected leaders use the annual defense authorization bill to line their own pockets, or shore up pet projects for their states every year for example. Should I blindly respect such behavior, should anyone? Some elected officials are little more than bullies, or worse, criminals.
One of the wonderful things about the people of the US, and the institutions that make up the USG is this. Even if one gains office, or appointment or government service position they must continually prove themselves capable of holding such a position for the most part. Now some offices and positions may be about who you know, but that is only good for getting one's foot in the proverbial door. Once a person is in the system they will be judged on their deeds, or lack thereof. One thing that struck me in this thread was the idea of a people who view their political leaders as being superiors deserving of respect based upon their election alone, without regard to merit. That my friend is extremely dangerous thinking. Simply because some one puts on a uniform and wears the rank of General does not assure respect, nor does being elected assure respect. It is more about the merits of the person holding the office and less about the fact that they hold an office.
As I write this there is a congressperson in rehab for second time for abuse of drugs and alcohol. A few more are up on charges ranging from fraud to bribery. Yet these 'distinguished gentlemen and ladies' are allowed to remain in office in spite of being an alcoholic and a pill head. Now, if a General Officer was doing the exact same thing he would most likely be relieved for cause immediately and his career would be over. In fact is anyone holding the rank of Sergeant is found abusing drugs in the US Army, they can kiss their career goodbye. As some one mentioned before, military leaders are held to higher standards of conduct than elected leaders. That may be the reason the military leader gets a bit more respect in some situations.
Interesting. Dozens, huh. My, my...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance...
I think that in view of our mutual history since 1917 I'll forgo any comment on that line of thought. :rolleyes:
On this
Quote:
...An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.
It is probably superfluous to point out that your objections to a culture and priority system reflect merely your opinions. It is not superfluous to say that the ill informed arrogance thus shown does your net credibility on any topic more harm than good.
Heh, now that's what I call selective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.
memory. I've been here all that time and was not aware we had any disasters -- other than the random hurricane or tornado. :D
Quote:
Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.
I think you're confusing deliberately ignoring -- which we did and do with great regularity; something about considering the validity of the source -- with "inability to grasp."
Quote:
You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.
Actually, as you say the financial crisis is a world (actually just a European hearth. Greedy bankers will be greedy bankers where ever located *) phenomenon; Iraq was a mess mostly because the US Army erred, not due to US policy error. You may think the end result is not worth it. I disagree. Too early to tell in totality but indications thus far are that it accomplished what it was supposed to and did the world more good than harm.
Though it admittedly did mess up the EU Constitution and a few cozy commercial arrangements some in Europe had in the area. Both probably good things for many. Sorry about that.. :D
* Except in Canada -- with more lax regulation than in Germany or the US, the Canadian Banks did not let their greed get ahead of their common sense.