As for the relationship between President’s and the military, that is a subject that seems to rely mostly on the nature of the politician and the military leaders. Lincoln fired Generals until he found one he felt could fight and win. Truman fired a General because he thought that General wanted to fight and win at costs greater than Truman thought the world should bear. Bush fired Generals until he found one he felt would fight on his terms. Obama hasn’t really fired any Generals – they seem to have engineered their own demise – but Gate’s book would indicate that he does not fully trust them: that they wanted to fight beyond the point of deminishing returns. Who was right and who was wrong is a matter of speculation, but no one seems to be seriously arguing that the military should have free reign when it comes to executing war. If you believe that war is an instrument of policy, then the policy makers should decide the nature of the war.
And so we come to the problem of politicians not understanding “the art of the possible”. I would agree. But I don’t think the military understands it any better. What was militarily “possible” in Iraq and Afghanistan was accomplished. We then ran up against was a problem in the nature of the relationship between the military and their civilian masters. The civilians wanted us to fix the problem they created and the military is not in a position to say no. We say “no”, we get fired or must resign. The nature of civil-military relations gives the military commander no other options. Sure, they can always find a friendly Congressman to “force” them to testify that what the President wants is a bad idea, but that is still a political solution. Add to that the fact that you will always be able to find a General eager to get into the fight – even if they don’t understand what is “possible” any better than the politician – and the result is the military taking on missions they are unsuited for and cannot possibly accomplish. I have no solution to this problem.
Bookmarks