I think what we're seeing (again) is a CJCS that is very similar to what we had in Vietnam, at least in terms of the lack of open dissent when it comes to policy.
I think what we're seeing (again) is a CJCS that is very similar to what we had in Vietnam, at least in terms of the lack of open dissent when it comes to policy.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
I've asked H.R. McMaster who he thinks will write the next Dereliction of Duty. He just smiled.Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Paul Yingling I hope
Civ-Mil Literature
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
Shattered Mirrors
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
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.
He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.
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?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.
Tom
Last edited by Tom Odom; 06-18-2007 at 06:30 PM.
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.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
I would definitely agree with that.
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks