Why do Generals tolerate getting grilled by senators?

[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...)

[tequila]

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.

Really, is this the right board for a libertarian screed?

Let's be honest. Most businessmen go to Congress not to be subjected to a horrific Star Chamber, but rather to beg and bribe for subsidies or favorable regulation. And they get it far more often than not.

[Fuchs]

This thread had in majority comments that I agree with.
There's in my opinion nothing in the video that really needs to be mentioned.

Noteworthy is the fact hat there are many discussions in many places about this episode, though.

Here's an especially infantile example:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/....html#comments

Many people seem to respect a general more than a senator, don't seem to understand the principle of civilian control & oversight over the forces and seem to react allergically on anything that smells feminist.
Few seem to see that generals are rarely ideal selfless warriors but more often than not uniformed politicians.
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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Schmedlap]

Really, is this the right board for a libertarian screed?

Let's be honest. Most businessmen go to Congress not to be subjected to a horrific Star Chamber, but rather to beg and bribe for subsidies or favorable regulation. And they get it far more often than not.

I love it. In law school, people think I'm part of the religious right. In business school, people think I'm for big government. Now at SWJ I'm a libertarian? Please.

I agree with your "most businessmen" statement. But I wasn't talking about "most" businessman. I had in mind businessmen who get subpoenaed.

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.

While some Generals may be political, that is a far cry from having a political machine pushing your career forward.

In regard to the promotion board versus election, consider that the people on the promotion board tend to know something about the profession. How much do you think the average voter knows about any of the issues that their elected representatives will tackle?

In regard to election being an "achievement" consider how heavily voters weigh factors such as party affiliation, race, gender, sex, "good looks" and name recognition.