« Corporal Brett Lundstrom, USMC | Main | Bloggers as news-fixated mavens »
April 16, 2006
Dear Generals: Please Stop, Immediately
The public denunciation of a sitting Secretary of Defense by several now-retired Generals is a profoundly disturbing affair. It would be equally disturbing were the Secretary a member of a Democratic administration. It would be no less disturbing were the generals advocating more aggression in our foreign policy, opposed to a Secretary who was more dovish -- the seeming opposite of the case we are confronted with today.
This is disturbing because, quite frankly, generals -- even retired ones -- are not supposed to do this. When General Newbold -- to take one example -- writes that officers swear an oath not to a single individual, but to the Constitution, he is papering over the fact that that very Constitution requires those same officers to follow the orders of a single individual.
Indeed, a public disagreement of this sort is not just bad for partisan politics. It's also bad for the very foundations of our democracy itself. Here's the reasons why I must respectfully ask these distinguished men to please cease and desist:
1. It is impossible for the outside observer to know the nature of a given General's retirement. Are any of them speaking out of spite? Were they passed over? Unless the news failed to report it, none of the several generals who have so publicly rebuked their former boss retired in protest. I think that would be the only case in which one of them might be justified in publicly criticizing a sitting administration -- and only temporarily at that.
2. For generals to publicly criticize the secretary of defense for whom they worked is to perpetuate a myth that has become prominent in our culture: the myth that participation in warfare is ultimately the provenance of the professional military, and not a joint effort with their political masters. Let us not forget Clausewitz's dictum of the link between warfare and politics. To suppose that politicians merely telling the generals to attack how they see fit would be the best way to run the Defense Department is to cede the political aspect of war to warfighters, whose political skills are understandably dwarfed by professional politicians who've made careers of reading political situations. All I've expressed in this paragraph is easily summed by another old expression: "war is too important to be left to the generals."
A corollary to this myth of the useless nature of politicians is the "chickenhawk protest:" that those who are not professional warriors have no business in warfare. As Eliot Cohen (who literally wrote the book
For more on this, please read this article in its entirety:
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/programs/ir/strategic/cohen/docs/wp5sep02.pdf
3. But even that is not the most disturbing aspect of all of this. Most disturbing is the trend toward more open political expression among recently retired senior military officers. Recall the 2004 election, when each candidate lined up on stage with a few dozen retired senior officers, hoping to prove that he would make the best leader for their ranks. Are we soon to enter a period when a candidate cannot think of running successfully without vocal support from the officer class? Many democracies live with this curse, but I for one do not think it is healthy.
Suppose Rumsfeld were to resign at the behest of his generals. Would the next Secretary of Defense be more or less likely to challenge his generals in a very aggressive or pointed way? What if they all shunned him once they were out of uniform? Perhaps it would be best if he just kept his trap shut and let them have the run of things, rather than try to rock the boat, no? This is the danger that we face if we give too much encouragement to the type of behavior on display of late.
If the officer class needs some examples of how best to exhibit their professionalism, I offer three:
General George Marshall refused to even so much as vote while in uniform. He also literally wrote the first edition of the "Armed Forces Officer's Guide," a copy of which -- as far as I know -- is handed to every new officer soon after commissioning. I think Marshall would be appalled at such an outpouring of criticism toward a sitting Secretary of Defense.
Example number two: General Shinseki. Andrew Bacevich (who was interviewed in this space about a year ago) mentions him as a good example in a recent opinion piece:
In the meantime, they can best serve their country by heeding the example set by the martyred Shinseki. Since his departure from active duty, Shinseki has kept his own counsel. He has not joined the pack of those hounding Rumsfeld. His silence is a rebuke more telling than any words that he might speak. And it offers a model of true military professionalism as well.For a third example, I offer an unorthodox one: Ayatollah Al-Sistani, one of the indispensible men in postwar Iraq. He sees himself as inhabiting a special class of individuals -- a priesthood of sorts -- who should not participate in politics, but have a subtle influence on it nonetheless.
I don't think American retired brass should have nearly the influence that the clerics do over there, but retied generals are a sort of quasi-priesthood for sure. Sistani's forbearance in seizing power -- when it is clearly there for his taking -- offers many valuable lessons.
All of the generals who have spoken out in criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld are honorable men. Each has served over a period of time, and held a magnitude of responsibilities that strike awe into the hearts of the average guy like me. But I must ask them: please, gentlemen, keep your criticisms behind closed doors. To do otherwise is to take our democracy into territory best left unexplored.
Posted by Chester at April 16, 2006 11:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/854
Comments
Well-said!
And it's about time that somebody said it!
Thanks,
DRK
Posted by: DaveK at April 17, 2006 2:03 AM
If I'm not mistaken, didn't General MacArthur advance some idea similar to General Newbold's, some claim about a requirement of special loyalty to the Constitution, as opposed to the President or his appointees ? Not sure, but it sounds familiar (at work, away from my books).
Your point is very well taken, as the previous commenter indicated.
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at April 17, 2006 12:59 PM
You are perhaps not familiar with a book called Dereliction of Duty written by a serving officer called McMasters about the silence of military officers during the Vietnam war. During the 90's the then CCCOS Hugh Shelton distributed copies to officers throughout the Pentagon with the aim of ensuring they not remain silent in the face of civilian pressure again. These men of total integrity who are all very senior, and at the heart of policy making or field command during the last five years, saluted the flag and got on with it while they were on active duty, when they retired they have a perfect right, nay duty, to speak out if they feel the civilian leadership of the military has shown incompetence or poor judgement. We should be applauding this not castigating them. I'm sure they are the tip of the iceberg and we will hear more of this. And btw rumor has it that McMasters is writing a new book.
Posted by: John at April 17, 2006 3:21 PM
"These men of total integrity"
John,
It would be a REALLY good idea for you to talk with people who are actually familiar with some of the officers you laud. They are not all the paragons of virtue that you claim.
I say that without prejudice against their duty performance. Suffice it to say that the very personality characteristics that make one a superb warrior and leader, also can create problems in more domesticated areas of life.
MG
HINT: If one is a lieutenant general, and doesn't get to keep the third star at retirement, that is a hint that something isn't quite right.
Posted by: MG at April 17, 2006 4:59 PM
John:
The problem with Vietnam is you had the Administration making tactical decisions from the White House.
You seem to be forgetting one inconvenient fact. Everything I have read from retired and active servicemen who have worked with Rumsfeld and Bush is that they do indeed leave the military decisions up to the generals.
Some of their criticisms of the administration are related not to their bailiwick but to overall policy.
These officers are also making commments after the fact. Comments which, in some cases contradict what they said publicly when they were in the service. This in itself gives me pause when I read your "men of total integrity" statement.
Men of total integrity do not say one thing when the boss is close and another when he is away. When were they derelict.
I will not bandy words about good service and men of integrity. They have chosen their path and they should pay the piper.
I will close with one last request. Please Sir, tell me, when were they telling the truth.
Posted by: davod at April 17, 2006 6:04 PM
Were I in right now, after watching Clark and the new bunch, I would have serious doubts about whether they were telling me the truth about the jobs that they sent me on. If the truth were as fluid as their principles, if nothing else, I would be doing CYA big time.
At that point discipline fails.
Posted by: Mike H. at April 17, 2006 6:54 PM
Chester,
May I have permission to reprint your article in www.orbat.com's ANALYSIS page?
Ravi
Editor
Posted by: Ravi at April 18, 2006 4:27 PM
I have been reading quite a bit on the topic and have been writing my own blogs and commenting on others about this.
These men of total integrity who are all very senior, and at the heart of policy making or field command during the last five years, saluted the flag and got on with it while they were on active duty, when they retired they have a perfect right, nay duty, to speak out if they feel the civilian leadership of the military has shown incompetence or poor judgement. Dr. Richard Hohn marveled at this. Our military commanders and soldiers are the least democratic and our political leaders the most. That is we can, by periodic election, change our political leaders while generals are generals until the retire or are sacked. That is we lionize the least democratic and demonize the most democratic.
I am in full accord with Chester on this. The military is a tool in the hands of our political leaders. They are the ones who are in full knowledge of the political, the diplomatic, and other situations affecting a conflict. The military is not the whole band just a section. The president is the conductor, and believe me the people ripping on Rumsfeld dont' want just Rumsfled.
President Clinton had to deal with the same exact thing only it was much more deeply felt by the military than it is now.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 18, 2006 4:53 PM
A quick study of Fallujah I and Fallujah II is also instructive. Did we have everything in place to win the battle of Fallujah I? If you say yes than you are missing two important fields of battle.
The other two were the political and the diplomatic battlefields. Once those two fields were adequately prepared Fallujah II proceeded and was a victory.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 18, 2006 4:57 PM
George McClellans, every one.
Posted by: George at April 18, 2006 10:31 PM
I am in full agreement with Chester.
I find this not only disturbing but suspicious. I wonder what type of levers are being pulled to influence these three Generals to make derogatory statements leading up to an election.
Posted by: Ledger at April 18, 2006 11:20 PM
One other note regarding Col McMasters' book. His approbation was for men long-retired (and the vast majority deceased). A work of history focused on the events of 30 years before its publication is far different from public posturing about ongoing operations (whose effects on the nation and the people and institutions involved in uncalculable as yet).
As a serving military officer (reserves, right now), I must cast my lot with Chester and with Gen Keane, the recent Army Vice Chief of Staff, in saying that recently retired generals should not become or allow themselves to be used as political props in the ongoing arguments between the Democrats and Republicans. They are welcome to make their opinions known through the non-public institutions of their profession (they have many opportunities to do so), but should never become public advocates or opponents of the civilian leadership of the military. If they wish to enter politics, let them do so honestly by running for office.
Posted by: Jem at April 19, 2006 10:22 AM
One other note regarding Col McMasters' book. His approbation was for men long-retired (and the vast majority deceased). A work of history focused on the events of 30 years before its publication is far different from public posturing about ongoing operations (whose effects on the nation and the people and institutions involved in uncalculable as yet).
As a serving military officer (reserves, right now), I must cast my lot with Chester and with Gen Keane, the recent Army Vice Chief of Staff, in saying that recently retired generals should not become nor allow themselves to be used as political props in the ongoing arguments between the Democrats and Republicans. They are welcome to make their opinions known through the non-public institutions of their profession (they have many opportunities to do so), but should never become public advocates or opponents of the civilian leadership of the military. If they wish to enter politics, let them do so honestly by running for office.
Posted by: Jem at April 19, 2006 10:22 AM
Consider that you do not retire from military service, you transfer to the reserve.
These officers are guilty by their actions of Conduct Unbecoming at a minimum.
Unless they want to give up their monthly military paychecks from DFAS...
USNFR
aka: USN(Ret)
Posted by: dj elliott at April 19, 2006 2:01 PM
This sort of thing drives me nuts. If you have ever been around the Pentagon during budget planning times, you know how the Army operates- it is always about money (a lot of USAF-envy).
The same nonsense that brought us Crusader for almost 10 years until Rumsfeld had the cojones to stare down the brass and kill it now has the same brass getting even. The fact is, the horse cavalry leadership didn't like tanks in 1941 any more than the field artillery mafia likes combined arms warfare with the USMC in 2006.
All of this smiping and back-stabbing for political reasons, by everyone from Clark to McCain to Kristol to Shinseki (who at least behaved like an adult about it) to the current gang of O-8s-yearning-to-emulate-MacArthur pretty well shows why the modern American society will not be able again to win any wars longer than the Panama action.
Posted by: Duane at April 19, 2006 3:13 PM