Why do Generals tolerate getting grilled by senators?

[yamiyugikun]

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

[tequila]

That's part of civilian control of the military, and Congressional oversight of the executive branch. Not sure why you have a problem with it.

If general officers can't stand up to a little hard questioning from politicians, they shouldn't be officers.

[jmm99]

on Senator Barbara Boxer and BG Walsh start here.

[William F. Owen]

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...

I suspect (know) that behaving cool and polite while an annoying politician grills you, gets you huge amounts of professional respect from your peers. They look like dicks and you look like a professional.

[Van]

Naomi,
Consider the implications of Generals not tolerating the grillings delivered by civilians. Historically, Generals thinking they can run the show better than civilian leaders is rough on a democracy.

And Wilf is spot on. When a subordinate keeps his or her head while a senior individual loses theirs only make the person being harangued look like a noble victim. The person delivering the harassment ends up showing their rear end. Consider the testimonies of LTC North and Fawn Hall. They stayed professional and looked like lonely bastions of integrity while the congressmen looked like slavering scavengers.

[Blackjack]

The General Officer that testifies on various subjects is there to be questioned. Even when the questioning becomes hostile the duty of that officer remains the same. To answer the questions in a professional and honest manner. As to how you address a Senator; while sir or ma'am are acceptable so is Senator and it is really up to the senior in the situation as to the form of address he or she prefers. However the distinguished Senator from California should review Army policy as well as USG policy on protocol with her people.

Take a look at the coverage of the Senator's remarks. She came out looking like an arrogant snob with a sense of entitlement. The General came out looking like a quiet professional. Had he lashed out at her he would have probably been charged with contempt of congress, relieved for cause and who knows what else.

[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?

[Ken White]

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.

[John T. Fishel]

dungaree and fatigue uniforms will NOT be worn by OSD personnel. Does that include ACUs? If it does, does the ban apply to DA staff and Joint Staff?

IMO it, of couse, should apply to all mentioned but I am not at all sure it does.

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

dungaree and fatigue uniforms will NOT be worn by OSD personnel.

things around today and have not been for many years...

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...)

[John T. Fishel]

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

[Schmedlap]

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..."

I've always wondered the same thing about businessmen who take risks, create jobs, provide us with time-saving or in some cases life saving goods, and then go up to Capitol Hill to be interrogated by a bunch of parasites who have done nothing but take from society and harm our republic with legislation designed to win re-election rather than to further the common good of the country.

[Steve Blair]

Actually, all told, I'd love to see some senators or representatives hauled into a no-holds-barred Q&A session with a group of unscreened "real folks" (televised live, of course, with no editing or tape delay) and see how long they'd last. Moderators would be on hand to make sure the august personages would actually *answer* the questions. Never gonna happen, but it would be interesting.

And that's not a political message...more an idea. Now if we made it a pay-per-view we might be able to make some coin off it....

[Blackjack]

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.

[yamiyugikun]

Thank you, everyone for enlightening me. I really didn't understand the context of the clip I posted, nor the background of Senator Graham. Learning about civilian control of the military is still very new for me. I can appreciate more how our democracy works, and the intersection of politics/military at those hearings.

[Schmedlap]

... just that your statement had a marked political lean in that direction.

My bad. I just assumed that lack of respect for politicians was fairly common amongst all ideologies and parties. I probably should have clarified why I commented. My thought at the time was that military officers are nothing special in this context. Congress bring people from all walks of life up to their committees and do it for shameless political points as often, if not more often, that they do for legitimate reasons. Even those who do not have a professional obligation to remain respectful and courteous - such as businessmen - do remain so. It is rare to see someone rightfully dish it back to the Congress at these hearings.

Also, which businessmen have been subpoenaed lately that you thought were being subjected to an unfair hearing?

When the subpoena is part of a political stunt to play populist politics, that is unfair, imo. The most unfair instance that comes to mind was the subpoenas for Exxon-Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, and Royal Dutch when gas prices were high (there's probably a better example, but that's the one that comes to mind). The most absurd, imo, was the big tobacco fiasco (smokers don't know that cigarettes cause cancer, the execs don't believe that cigarettes cause cancer, and Congress wants to get more tax money). Reasonable people can disagree, but I also think it was more theater than concern when Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard came under scrutiny. The Yahoo subpoena might have started out reasonable, but it turned into a joke when a Congressman called Yang a moral pygmy (pot, meet kettle).

Thank you, everyone for enlightening me. I really didn't understand the context of the clip I posted, nor the background of Senator Graham.

If you get a chance, go to your state supreme court and watch two lawyers argue a case. You will see very tough questions, fired rapidly, that may come off as having a hostile tone. After you watch the first lawyer, you will think, "wow, the court had it in for him. He just lost." Then the other lawyer gets up and faces the same treatment. The tone and intensity of the questioning should not always be mistaken for hostility, disrespect, or some other ill intent. A panel of judges has a limited amount of time hear answers to their questions before they can make an informed decision. There is little patience for someone who is unprepared and cannot answer questions that the person should be prepared for. If a Congressman cares about the country and takes the job seriously, then the same is true at these hearings for the Congressman as for the judges at oral arguments.