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.