or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Especially for "WE" ........................................................................ |
Erewhon |
04/17/06 |
As policy decisions loom, a code of silence is broken
by Richard Holbrooke
The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951.
In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct -- MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.
First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue...
Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak."
These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing.
Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)
This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations -- perhaps soon -- from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.
Facing this dilemma, Bush's first reaction was exactly what anyone who knows him would have expected: He issued strong affirmations of "full support" for Rumsfeld, even going out of his way to refer to the secretary of defense as "Don" several times in his statements. (This was in marked contrast to his tepid comments on the future of his other embattled Cabinet officer, Treasury Secretary John Snow. Washington got the point.)
In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because "someone must be held accountable." Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform.
The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld's famous "long screwdriver," with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom reexamination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change.
That first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?
***
Original article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401451.html |
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/18/06 1:05 pm:
I wasn't in Iraq. My cousins (two of them) and one of my closest friends have been there. My friend was there twice, once during the initial invasion and once more during 2005... both times as a Captain in the special forces. My information comes directly from the front, from the people who are on the "sharp end" so to speak. And that information directly contradicts the criticisms from these former generals. Not just in a few details, but the whole ball of wax.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/18/06 4:20 pm:
Who said they shouldn't or couldn't air their opinions? That isn't the issue, the issue is does their opinion constitute a mandate to fire Rumsfeld? Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/18/06 6:22 pm:
Which one of them claimed to have a mandate? What have I missed?
Perhaps you were exaggerating?
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/18/06 7:30 pm:
Me exaggerating? I'm not the one using six retired generals as a "growing number."
>>Which one of them claimed to have a mandate?<<
Read the reply Ronnie, it says nothing of any of them having "claimed to have a mandate." It does ask "does their opinion constitute a mandate to fire Rumsfeld?"
Constitute: SET UP, ESTABLISH: as a : ENACT b : FOUND c (1) : to give due or lawful form to (2) : to legally process
3 : MAKE UP, FORM, COMPOSE (m-w.com)
Do their opinions ESTABLISH a mandate?
Do their opinions MAKE UP, FORM or COMPOSE a mandate?
>>What have I missed?<<
You really don't want me to answer that.
Steve Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/18/06 8:13 pm:
Thank you for putting the bulb in the lamp. Perhaps you will not think ill of me if I turn on the power.
MANDATE: noun
1. A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court;
2. a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey.
A mandate might be issued upon the decision of an appeal, which directs that a particular action be taken, or upon a disposition made of a case by an inferior tribunal.
The term mandate is also used in reference to an act by which one individual empowers another individual to conduct transactions for an individual in that person's name. In this sense, it is used synonymously with power of attorney.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/18/06 8:29 pm:
Nor me if I remove the lampshade.
1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. Instruction, order, permission to allow or permit something to happen.
The question was, and it was a proper question, does their opinion constitute a mandate to fire Rumsfeld? The answer is no. Their opinions do not establish a mandate to fire Rumsfeld. He serves at the pleasure of the president. He's twice offered his resignation and that offer has been twice rejected. You may see that as a weakness in the president but I see it as a strength of character that's rarely displayed these days. It certainly isn't displayed in the 'drive-by media' and I can't recall the last time I've seen it among those in the Democratic party.
Steve Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/18/06 9:09 pm:
Steve,
This is a no-brainer, but if you really need me to answer your question, then the answer is no. Now you know what a mandate is I would have thought it would have been obvious. Perhaps you are aware of some who have suggested or insisted that it is a mandate? if so, tell all.
The criticisms they make sound well-grounded. That should be your focus, not some semantic fratch.
I expected better from you. Perhaps that is where I am at fault.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/18/06 9:25 pm:
Ronnie, the no-brainer is that my question was rhetorical.
This Rumsfeld flap is just the latest outrage du jour manufactured by the president's critics. Should these generals be heard? Absolutely, but the "drive-by media" is doing what they've done with every "outrage du jour" under Bush in trying to manipulate public opinion, force Bush's hand and ultimately get their way. The 'mandate' is that the 'drive-by media' and their cohorts on the left believe it's their responsibility to destroy Bush and all things conservative. If it's a terrorist at Gitmo it's 'innocent until proven guilty' and they pull out all the stops to protect their 'rights'. If it's a conservative they pull out all the stops to convict them without a trial. That is what's pathetic.
Oh, and I think I've already demonstrated that it isn't what I say, your expectations are low already because of who is saying it.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/19/06 1:17 pm:
Generals are sometimes wrong: were Kennedy's military advisors correct when they recommended a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Generals are experts in how to fight, not whether to fight.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 ? Perhaps it would be best if he just let them have the run of things, rather than try to rock the boat ? This is the danger that we face if we give too much encouragement to the type of behavior .Why not just let the military run the country instead of civilians ?
Sometimes they are right ,and still I think the President needs to clamp down on this type of critique from them.
In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson warned FDR that the US pacific fleet was exposed at Pearl Harbor and refused to keep the fleet there. He called Pearl Harbor a g**d** mouse trap . He was relieved of command and replaced by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Richardson was proven correct in his analysis but is little more than a footnote to history . Everyone knows Kimmel on the other hand because he was made scape goat after the Japanese attack .
Here was another President's response to a generals insubordination :
"With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the U.S. Government and of the U.N. in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. and the added responsibilities entrusted to me by the U.N. I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command and have designated Lt. Gen. Matthew Ridgway as his successor". Harry Truman April 11, 1951
If MacArthur had his way ,the Korean conflict would've escalated to a nuclear war.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
