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]

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

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?

[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

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Schmedlap]

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

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.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

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]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

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.

[Fuchs]

1-4 star general:
Limited edition. About 300 in the army alone.
Had to convince a couple dozen people, at most a few hundred to support him to get his rank.

Senator:
Limited edition. 100 (well, 99 as of today)
Had to convince several hundred thousand voters (in this case several millions) to get the seat.

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.

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.

Other countries have gone through such mistakes and phases. 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.

*: no party meant here


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.

[jmm99]

of Germany and the USA since the late 1700s, I will continue to place my bets on the USA. Where you place your bets is a matter of complete indifference to me.

[Watcher In The Middle]

A rep for Boxer said she and Walsh later spoke and discussed their respect for each other.

"Senator Boxer called Brigadier General Walsh earlier today. They had a friendly conversation, expressed their respect for each other and talked about how they look forward to working together to protect our communities from natural disasters."

Link

Didn't take very long for that phone call to occur. Whatever you may think of Senator Boxer, she's not politically stupid. There's an old political rule out there that "Friends come and and go, but enemies accumulate". No need to make "non-friends" when you don't have to - and more importantly, at the same time make your fellow senators "uneasy" about your having an elevated sense of "privilege". That second part's the real story.

It's just one of those times where all the parties involved just wish they all had a "Do Over Card" they could put down.

[Surferbeetle]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

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.

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.

Other countries have gone through such mistakes and phases. 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.

...for all of my life we Americans (Amei's? in Deutsch) have been publicly grumbling about the various failings of politicians who inhabit our system. This shouldn't be misconstrued as a desire to switch systems, instead it is an example of our ability to articulate our desire for better outcomes and for accountability of those politicians who do not measure up to public opinion. It can appear chaotic from the outside, in particular if one believes in ordnung and a more formal way of doing things.

America's military is an example of one of our institutions in which a higher standard is routinely demanded of it's members and strict accountability for failures is publicly demonstrated. This is why it gets the respect that it does in our society.

There is a firewall in America between politics and the military and both sides have and will continue to police the line. No worries

Best,

Steve

[Ron Humphrey]

Of course as is so often the case there may be a slightly different Americanesk view of such things.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

1-4 star general:
Limited edition. About 300 in the army alone.
Had to convince a couple dozen people, at most a few hundred to support him to get his rank.

Senator:
Limited edition. 100 (well, 99 as of today)
Had to convince several hundred thousand voters (in this case several millions) to get the seat.

Many here might be more likely to look at such a comparison from perhaps a sales standpoint

Such as which is harder; for a door to door salesman to sell a couple hundred vacuums a year or for a conglomerate to sell a couple million in a month.

Or Legal- Is it easier to win a case in mass media to create mass outrage thus tainting the pool or to convince twelve jurors to rule the way you think they should.

Or (oh well I hope you get the point)

Originally Posted by Fuchs

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.

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.

One of the most amazing things about this particular model we love and call American is that we the people can and feel like we should have opinions about it and how its working. Thus we have this nasty tendency to react somewhat personally whenever we feel that the responsibilities laid at the feet of those whom we elect are not being carried out in such a way as suits our varied and multiplicitous ideas about what they should be. Neat thing about that is its ok cause more often than not someone else feels differently then we do and therein is found that which makes us strong.

As for the military since only a very small percentage serve there is a given level of respect that exists for all service members and thus the expectation is that as long as they are serving honorably they should be treated as such. On the other hand I think you will find that when this is not the case they are subject to the same if not harsher criticisms then you seem so concerned about our political leaders receiving. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Other countries have gone through such mistakes and phases. 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.

*: no party meant here


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.

On the first I'm sure most would agree with you

on the second considering the history I guess that probably makes sense it's quite interesting however how much of the rest of the world still finds that it could learn from those historic German warrior/scholars.

You get the bad with the good, not sure there's ever a way to completely avoid that. Still; kinda like what we got going so appreciate your concern that we keep it



PS: MAn you guys are fast, or maybe I'm just a slower typist