The General's Report

[Tom Odom]

I think it is important to remember that just five years ago, it was very in vogue to believe that there was a "crisis in civil military relations" and that public, or perhaps even emphatic private, disagreement with "civilian" leadership (left very unspecified as to just who this included) was disloyal, or "shirking."

I state this not to absolve those indicted by Paul Yingling, but rather to expand it to include those who promoted academic theories that encouraged flag officers to view their informed professional opinion as just another policy preference.

I'm certain this was not the intent of the academics. There was considerably more nuance in the original books and articles than what percolated into the conventional wisdom of policy circles, but ideas have consequences.

Doug

Doug,

You are correct and that was very much in play when SecDef Rumsfeld set about busting Pentagon broncos--at least that is how it was played out by him in the press. It bears remembering how important it was to suddenly rename the CINCs of the Unified commands to Combatant Commanders because the SecDef was in his own words "in command". This entire theme played out in the planning for OIF and the lacvk of planning for the aftermath--at which point the "in command" SecDef suddenly became less in charge and more of a self-described advisor.

The bottom line in this at least to me is that at the end of the day one has to be able to look at oneself in the mirror and answer, yes, to the question, "did I do my duty truthfully, honorably, and professionally" without the mirror shattering in disgust.

There is much food for thought in this Hersch piece on the SOF side as well, especially the linkages between SOF and the agency. The ends justifies the means school of thought soon gets coupled with the secrecy covers all sins. Ultimately it is the military partner that gets left twisting in the wind when things get out of control.

Tom

[Stevely]

Doug,

You are correct and that was very much in play when SecDef Rumsfeld set about busting Pentagon broncos--at least that is how it was played out by him in the press. It bears remembering how important it was to suddenly rename the CINCs of the Unified commands to Combatant Commanders because the SecDef was in his own words "in command". This entire theme played out in the planning for OIF and the lacvk of planning for the aftermath--at which point the "in command" SecDef suddenly became less in charge and more of a self-described advisor.

I hate to be seen defending Rumsfeld, but in this matter, I don't believe this is a correct statement of the facts as regards the CINC -> combatant commander issue. As I recall it, and we had memos up for about a year in the workplace from the SECDEF explaining the change, his point was that there was only one "Commander in Chief" in the US Armed Forces, and that's the President. Hence the name change for the unified commanders. I actually think his reasoning on this one was correct.

This does not absolve him of the atrocious errors of judgment that marked his tenure nor his meddling in the business of said combatant commanders, but this issue is not really a part of that.

[Tom Odom]

I hate to be seen defending Rumsfeld, but in this matter, I don't believe this is a correct statement of the facts as regards the CINC -> combatant commander issue. As I recall it, and we had memos up for about a year in the workplace from the SECDEF explaining the change, his point was that there was only one "Commander in Chief" in the US Armed Forces, and that's the President. Hence the name change for the unified commanders. I actually think his reasoning on this one was correct.

Thanks for that. It is the first time I have heard that this change came from below. In any case, would you agree that he seemed to see the military as minimally non-compliant if not openly defiant?

Tom

[Steve Blair]

I personally see him as being very similar to McNamara in terms of his relationship with the military. Both men viewed the military as being very resistant to change of any sort, especially when they viewed that change as necessary.

Not totally related the question, but possibly worth considering.

[Lastdingo]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Tacitus]

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.

[Stevely]

In any case, would you agree that he seemed to see the military as minimally non-compliant if not openly defiant?

Tom

I would definitely agree with that.

[goesh]

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.

[Ken White]

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?

[Granite_State]

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.

You realize there were people tortured to death at Abu Ghraib right?