This administration has gone out of their way to say that were listening to/relying on their military commanders since way before Petraus to the top job over there (whether the actually do is another story). To me it has been something of a cop out, sooner or later you have to realize where the buck really stops regardless of how much it has been past. The military has made plenty of mistakes with this but there is still only one commander in chief.
Administrations, this or any other
with only a rare exception in recent years like Eisenhower have little choice but to listen to their Commanders. Most have no military experience at all and if they have a little it may not be relevant to the task at hand. For instance, Bush and Rumsfeld have a teeny bit but they were Aviators with little knowledge of or appreciation for ground warfare. The man rersponsilbe to advise them militarily was the CJCS -- also an Aviator. They were three aviation centric folks and it has shown.Originally Posted by Stu-6
As long as we insist on the PC rotation of the CJCS and Goldwater-Nichols is not modified the problem will continue.
So this administration had no choice but to listen to the Commanders on the ground because the CJCS had no experience to speak to.
Thus, while your statement that there is only one Commander in Chief is sort of correct -- the Commander in Chief of CentCom, downgraded to Commander by Rumsfeld, was the de facto and de jure CinC concerned with the campaign -- may be a politically satisfying approach for you, it will also obscure the flaws that DoD perpetrated or allowed and if we are not to have any repetitions of such errors, those things need to be discussed.
The question I think is not who was overall responsible, that is obvious. The question is was the advice given by the Commanders on the ground correct so that proper policies could be formulated. My perception is that it was not and while I understand why this was so, I think it needs fixing -- and electing a new Commander in Chief or nailing the hide of this one to the wall will not fix the problem.
The domestic political aspects are for another forum, I think.
While there is nothing wrong with a president listening to his generals it does not relieve him of his responsibilities. Yes the president is lacking in military experience but to be fair who has experience in commanding a counter-insurance in Iraq, or anything comparable? If the president is not getting the kind of advice he needs from the generals in command it his responsibility to educate himself enough on the subject or at least find better generals.
Lincoln’s military experience was limited to say the least but he managed to take charge and find generals that could do what he thought needed to be done. Think of how different things might have turned out if he had just listened to thoughts first generals (you know the generals he had not the generals he wanted)?
Goldwater-Nichols may have its problems but ever president has had to deal with the legal constrains and flaws of their time.
I'm with you. There is "listening" and there is "listening." I think that in the case of Iraq, the administration "listened" to its military commanders, but only in a certain way. It was perfectly clear that the administration was not willing to listen to military advice that in any way challenged the idea that the administration's strategic objectives were unrealistic, or that the costs of attaining them would be significant. Rumsfeld populated the senior leadership with flag officers who would not challenge strategic assumptions.
I do believe Iraq will be seem as a monumental blunder. The administration's die hard apologists will blame the military but I'm convinced that the consensus position will be that we acted with flawed strategic assumptions that no military leader could have turned into success.
Great ideas. You should try for the job. Of course,
When you get it you may find out it's not as easy as it looks.
Either to be the Commander in Chief or, given that job, to put the Generals you want where you want them -- Congress has statutorily slammed the door on that option under most circumstances. You might also look at how long it took Lincoln to get the right General in the right place without the laws to preclude him moving them on a whim.
Yes, of course Politicians have to do that. Linclon's solution was to ignore those things that got in his way; far harder to do that nowadays. That sort of begs the fact that Goldwater Nichols has flaws which was my point.
I agree that counter insurance is indeed a a very difficult problem.
Presidents come and go, so do Congresses. The Armed Forces were here before any of the current politicians or you or I were born; even those in Congress that have been there far too long. They'll be here long after we're all gone. You can pursue a political fix to the Prez and Congress and talk about it on a poltical blog somewhere, plenty of them out there.
The issue to me is fixing the flaws in the processes, not who did what to who.
Just to be fair I never said it was easy. Little about that job is easy but if it is too hard for him I am sure we can find another canidate for the job.
Have you not seen the billboards in DC: "The Presidency--So Easy a Caveman Can Do It"?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks