This is the first time that I read that some U.S. general has lost his career because of the Iraq War.
It's a cruel irony if true.
Not really.
Both Miller and Sanchez were "allowed" to retire sans promotions tha both expected. Should have been more but that was punishment of a sort. Karpinski was bounced back to Colonel. There are a few others that are in a gray area and may have been effectively forced out.
All will come out eventually. The system works; it's agonizingly slow and not always totally fair but it does work.
First of all, the generals and admirals are free to resign their commission when asked to execute a policy they either don’t believe in or think sensible. Aren’t they? That’s what you do if you can’t look yourself in the mirror, or the troops in the eyes.
The President is free to fire commanders who can’t get the job done, for whatever reason. Consider McClellan in the civil war. I don’t think McClellan would have ever led the Union forces to victory. I think it was Clemenceau who is credited with the saying about “War is too important to be left to the generals.” That was true then, and it is true now.
This thread reminds me of another one debating the ethics of dissent in wartime. Somebody was writing that is was unpatriotic to dissent during war. If the military at the highest level will not resign, and the public or Congress is told that to question policy during war is unpatriotic, then there is no check whatsoever on the Executive. I don’t believe for one second that this is the sort of situation that Madison, Washington, Hamilton and the rest of them had in mind for this Republic.
I read today that Gen. Pace says he was asked to retire, but refused. He said he would not voluntarily leave his post with men fighting in the field. You might take that as a shot across the bow to Tommy Franks, if you wanted. Anyway, it was an interesting comment.
Who did and said what during this war will eventually all come out. I don’t think future historians are going to be particularly impressed with how this war has gone to this point and eventually plays out. The individual soldier and marine has held up pretty well, but something is definitely missing at the top. This inability to convert tactical military victories into a broader strategic victory just jumps right out at you. That can be laid at the feet of the high command, military and civilian.
No signature required, my handshake is good enough.
So, do I get fried, if I point out that the article quoted above is just PACKED full of innuendo and half-truth? As a matter of principle, I do not trust Generals who "tell all." They get to be Generals, by and large, but "playing the game." To all of a sudden act surprised that they are the targets is disingenious, to say the least.
I'm also saddened that a power-hungry, micro-managing SOB like Shinseki is now considered to be a saint because he actually stood for one thing in his career and was right after being slagged. (I worked for him, twice, I am sorry to say.) His troop level prediction is most likely akin to a stopped clock being right twice a day, in my experience.
I met, and dealt with members of the 800th MPs throughout the time period of Abu Ghraib and before, and found them to be lacking in a lot of ways. I'm wondering if Rumsfeld and Bush asked them to torture/abuse other servicemembers at their mobilization station. Because they did. The pictures of them forcing other US servicemembers into various abusive, sexually explicit acts while at mob station in the US were on the same disc with the Abu Ghraib pics.
These folks were a "soup sandwich", who would've tortured/abused prisoners whether there was a tacit/explicit agreement to do so or not.
On a somewhat humorous note, a platoon of this same unit escorted us north from Kuwait to Balad. they had been in country a whopping 5 days, and immediately started calling us "pogues" and REMFs. After getting us lost, twice, and having these "fine individuals" completely go to pieces in a light contact ambush combined with a breakdown, we ensured that our "escort" got north safely.
Heh. Good post...
My son's rifle company from 1/82 was providing external security at Abu Gharaib at the time and they had surfaced the problem before the storm broke. Fell on deaf ears at echelons above the 82d.
You'd probably agree with his comments on the MPs there. His troops continually jacked up the MPs for mistreating the detainees the 82d brought in, the rationale being that if the troops were out and about chasing these guys down at some minor risk and did not mistreat them then a bunch of MPs in a semi secure location durn sure shouldn't mistreat them.
IMO Sanchez should never have been in command there. Any one star who comes into Bosnia to take command and puts out an edict that no patrol will leave the wire without a field grade officer accompanying...
I would definitely agree with that.Originally Posted by Tom Odom
He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.
Raining On Your Own Parade
Though the in-house ramifications of the General's Report will reverberate for some time and will fill the politician's plate for a long time, it essentially rings hollow and empty in the lives of many, many Americans - more than many here would think or more than many here might care to really know about. We the People expect you to police yourselves. However, if you think the violation of your sense of personal honor, integrity, professionalism and discipline over detainees being leashed, stacked, made to stand on boxes, having panties put on their heads and being barked at by dogs is concordantly endorsed by some solid, unified block of civilians, you are mistaken. You are raining on your own parade and looking down from on high in your bunkers and turrets, not unlike the proverbial ivory tower.
Why do you suppose Abu Ghraib continues to be on your plate and the politician's plate but not ours? Any time spent in any courthouse across the nation will show large swatches of people dissatisfied with the application of American Justice. It's easy to hear the bitching over criminals released on technicalities or coddled with full medical care over violence against citizens when the victims have no similiar accord and recompense from their government. It's easy to see violent criminals released after a few years served in prison. It's easy to see parole violations that result in more harm to citizens. It's easy to hear the clamour for the death penalty and real hard time for ciminals. And we're supposed to be upset and wring our hands over some freakin' Iraqi being barked at by a dog and having a pair of women's underwear put on his head and being roughed up? This is the BS that erodes trust in the military, not tactical mistakes, collateral damage, inefficiency and over-priced goods and services. There is nothing more despicable than a politician wearing the disguise of a uniform. We expected you to punish those you felt needed punishing over the violation of military law, nothing more, nothing less but frankly we are not listening to the pontification that has followed.
Speaking of
pontificating...
You are aware that a number of folks have been court martialed up to and including a Battalion commander, that one sorry BG got bounced back to Colonel and a lot of other senior folks involved had careers stopped cold -- perhaps inadequate punishment in your opinion but possibly not in theirs (nor mine in most of the cases). And that the whole affair still has ongoing investigations thereunto pertaining???
It ain't over yet. Military justice grinds very slowly but it grinds.
Other'n that, what's your point?
You realize there were people tortured to death at Abu Ghraib right?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks