Why do Generals tolerate getting grilled by senators?

[Ken White]

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.

You may do that. Given the fact that we've been a democracy for over 200 years and you have less than 70 years at it, you'll forgive me if I pay little attention to a concern that is overstated -- and fails to realize that Americans always slam politicians. They may be respected by some in Europe but here they generally are not. They're just fellow citizens who have big egos and enough money to get elected. They are no more endowed with wisdom than are any politicians anywhere.

Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.

I doubt either has an excess of respect from most Americans. THAT is as it should be. They're people, no more, no less -- some are good and some are not. Over here, for most people, respect is accorded only if earned by a person, not by his or her job (military excluded; 'respect' must be and is proffered by law -- but even in the Armed Forces, true respect is still really given to seniors ONLY if earned).

Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.

We don't, we make our own; that's enough without copying any other nation's. Been doing that for those 200 years I mentioned and probably will for another 200 or so. Enjoy. We mostly are enjoying it.

P.S.: Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.

That's scary. Weird even. Really. Was that not sort of the case there back in the 30s? The Generals were derided, sidelined and the Politicians took over. How did that work out?

Politicians are generally crooked to one extent or another, worldwide, nearly as I can tell. Goes with the job. They bear considerable watching, distrust even. Some Generals are crooks also and bear watching -- in the end both are people and they should be judged as individual people, not as job holders.

Respect is an earned commodity; it does not automatically accrue to any job.

[John T. Fishel]

1. US citizen (natural born or naturalized - makes no difference)
2. Not less than 30 years old.
anybody who meets those 2 qualifications can run for Senate - not a very high bar.

Cheers

JohnT

[tequila]

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.

Just by way of explanation, I wasn't implying you were personally a libertarian --- just that your statement had a marked political lean in that direction.

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

[Fuchs]

Why, Fuchs, I didn't know you cared...

I care because the USA is (still) an ally of my country and it's - in modern terms - too big to fail.
The sheer size means that any major failure hurts more than your own country.

The alliance also means that we can be (and are) held responsible for your failures. The alliance and friendship is a connection that can hurt is if your country does dumb things.

That's why I care.
I don't care about Luxembourg's politics - it's a great country, but simply too small to hurt us in any way.

The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance.
An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.

I believe the reactions to the senator/general affair that despise the senator and are in love with the rank of the general display a very poor political culture. Americans may be used to it, but that did never and will never make things right. You're used to a lot of stupid things that would ruin our lives if more countries would get used to them as well.

[Steve Blair]

I believe the reactions to the senator/general affair that despise the senator and are in love with the rank of the general display a very poor political culture. Americans may be used to it, but that did never and will never make things right. You're used to a lot of stupid things that would ruin our lives if more countries would get used to them as well.

I don't think you quite grasp the subtle nature of the reactions, but then again I'm not sure if you're really aware of the internal context of these reactions, either. Boxer is cordially disliked by many, and anyone who got grilled by her in anything approaching a rude manner would likely get some sympathy. I personally know plenty of military people (both current serving and retired or out of the service) who believe that you have to in essence sell your soul to make general rank, and would consider them not much different than Boxer. Feel free to read some dire prediction about the future of America into those reactions if you wish, but also understand that there are many in this country who would have exactly the opposite reaction (despise the general and love the senator). That's one of the interesting things here, and one that seems to confuse a great many people.

[Ken White]

The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance...

I think that in view of our mutual history since 1917 I'll forgo any comment on that line of thought.

On this

...An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.

It is probably superfluous to point out that your objections to a culture and priority system reflect merely your opinions. It is not superfluous to say that the ill informed arrogance thus shown does your net credibility on any topic more harm than good.

[Fuchs]

I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.

Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.
You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.

[jmm99]

post # 17.

Some children do not play well with other children.

Some adults are disruptive of discussions.

[Ken White]

I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.

memory. I've been here all that time and was not aware we had any disasters -- other than the random hurricane or tornado.

Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.

I think you're confusing deliberately ignoring -- which we did and do with great regularity; something about considering the validity of the source -- with "inability to grasp."

You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.

Actually, as you say the financial crisis is a world (actually just a European hearth. Greedy bankers will be greedy bankers where ever located *) phenomenon; Iraq was a mess mostly because the US Army erred, not due to US policy error. You may think the end result is not worth it. I disagree. Too early to tell in totality but indications thus far are that it accomplished what it was supposed to and did the world more good than harm.

Though it admittedly did mess up the EU Constitution and a few cozy commercial arrangements some in Europe had in the area. Both probably good things for many. Sorry about that..

* Except in Canada -- with more lax regulation than in Germany or the US, the Canadian Banks did not let their greed get ahead of their common sense.

[J Wolfsberger]

A couple of observations.

First, the ruckus over Boxer's behavior has little to do with general vs. politician. It has, I think, much to do with the American sense of fair play. The general was appropriately courteous and polite to Boxer. Her remarks were an entirely inappropriate cheap shot. (At least one person I know observed that she worked even harder to earn another title, and she wouldn't have to change any monograms to use it.) She knows it, and is backing down. But being the person she is, I expect her to blame the general for her embarrassment.

Second, in the points you raise about your own country, ask yourself who were the better men: Hitler and the political leadership, or Guderian, von Keselring, von Manstein, and several hundred others who behaved professionally and as morally as the situation permitted. Soldiers, and generals, are innocent of the crime of war. Politicians are not. If modern Germany is holding the generals responsible for WW II, then modern Germans have a serious problem.

[Steve Blair]

A couple of observations.

First, the ruckus over Boxer's behavior has little to do with general vs. politician. It has, I think, much to do with the American sense of fair play. The general was appropriately courteous and polite to Boxer. Her remarks were an entirely inappropriate cheap shot. (At least one person I know observed that she worked even harder to earn another title, and she wouldn't have to change any monograms to use it.) She knows it, and is backing down. But being the person she is, I expect her to blame the general for her embarrassment.

This is really the main point to be understood here. Without some background in the current US political system and its players (and knowing those who annoy people more quickly than others), the discussion won't make much sense. Much like needing to hear an interview in its original language, if you don't understand the context of this discussion with an American audience, you will reach the wrong conclusions.

Fuchs, you're simply reading too much into a discussion about a single senator's behavior. For every rude politician we have one who is courteous and proper during hearings. You don't seem to understand the reaction Boxer can generate in people. That's all.