Some thoughts on retired generals calling for Rumskull's resignation
Recently, seven retired generals have called for Rumskull to resign as Secretary of Defense. Some people have criticized the retired generals for varying reasons. The reason I will address here was stated thusly by Kevin Drum of Political Animal:
As a general (so to speak) rule, we should be concerned about any conduct which could be construed as military commanders trying to take control from the civilian leadership. Civilian leadership of our military has been an element of our government from the beginning. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and declare war. The exclusive nature of that last power is why I have always believed that the Iraq War Resolution was at most unconstitutional and at least an abandonment of duty by the Congress, but I digress. Over the years, various statutes, rules, and regulations have been established which prohibit active duty military personnel from seeking elected office and engaging in many political activities. The rationale underlying civilian control of the military is part of the separation of powers doctrine.
The current criticism of Rumskull does not seem to me to be the sort of "palace revolt" that threatens our democratic system of checks and balances. I will admit that in some ways I really don't care about this issue because Rumskull's ass should have been run out of the Pentagon years ago, and, as I have stated elsewhere on this blog, I think he has been criminally negligent. Thus, I have a bias. However, there are objective reasons supporting the opinion stated to begin this paragraph.
First, all the generals are retired. They are not part of the active military. Technically, then, they are not part of the "palace." They are civilians now, and they have every right to speak out as does any other civilian.
Second--and more importantly--under the current circumstances they seem to be about the only persons 1) willing to speak out who 2) have some credibility. For example, I have been complaining for a long time about Rumskull. But why should anyone in actual power listen to me? I have no military experience. The closest I have come to military experience is working at Sheppard Air Force Base for two summers. I'm just a lawyer in Texas. Compare my record with the generals:
Note that three--Eaton, Swannack, and Batiste--were commanders on the ground in Iraq, and two more--Newbold and Riggs--served in senior positions in the Pentagon under Rumskull.
The views and voices of these retired generals are important because there apparently is almost no one else with any credibility or authority willing to speak up and try to get Rumskull out. And anyone who thinks Rumskull has done a good job needs professional help--and I'm not kidding. Over the last few days Bush has repeatedly and emphatically said Rumskull is doing a great job and will stay on the job. There is no freaking way Bush is going to get rid of Rumskull because to do so would be viewed as an admission that major mistakes have been made, and Bush will NEVER do that. The GOP, which controls both houses of Congress, is not going to speak out against Rumskull. Indeed, this past Sunday, Sen. Richard Lugar, one Republican who has regularly taken issue with the White House over Iraq, said that keeping Rumskull is "a good call." With few exceptions (Sen. Evan Bayh being one), Congressional Democrats are doing next to nothing, and anyone who does speak out is quickly accused of "politicizing" the issue. No active duty military personnel are going to speak out publicly, and there are sound reasons why they will not and should not. Any speaking out has to stay "in house" and within the chain of command. However, when that chain of command ultimately goes to George W. Bush, speaking out does absolutely no good.
What I am saying is that the actions of these seven retired generals do not comprise a palace revolt that threatens the system of civilian control of the military. Instead, what I see is that the civilians in control of the military have done such a horrific job that it has damaged this country now and possible for years to come. Iraq has been a huge cluster f#@!, and Rumskull bears a great deal of the responsibility for that. Something has to be done to get rid of these assholes, and that--not doing away with civilian control--is the basis for the actions of these retired generals.
I am going to write more about this topic. I will address some of the responses in support of Rumskull and in criticism of these retired generals. In doing so, my intention is to support my answer of "yes" to Kevin Drum's question "But has mismanagement of the war become so extreme that the usual rules simply don't apply anymore?"
Regardless of whether or not we agree with the generals' criticism, I think it's wise to be uneasy about something that has a bit of a sense of a palace revolt against the current civilian leadership of the military.Kevin immediately followed with this:
But has mismanagement of the war become so extreme that the usual rules simply don't apply anymore?My answer is "yes."
As a general (so to speak) rule, we should be concerned about any conduct which could be construed as military commanders trying to take control from the civilian leadership. Civilian leadership of our military has been an element of our government from the beginning. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and declare war. The exclusive nature of that last power is why I have always believed that the Iraq War Resolution was at most unconstitutional and at least an abandonment of duty by the Congress, but I digress. Over the years, various statutes, rules, and regulations have been established which prohibit active duty military personnel from seeking elected office and engaging in many political activities. The rationale underlying civilian control of the military is part of the separation of powers doctrine.
The current criticism of Rumskull does not seem to me to be the sort of "palace revolt" that threatens our democratic system of checks and balances. I will admit that in some ways I really don't care about this issue because Rumskull's ass should have been run out of the Pentagon years ago, and, as I have stated elsewhere on this blog, I think he has been criminally negligent. Thus, I have a bias. However, there are objective reasons supporting the opinion stated to begin this paragraph.
First, all the generals are retired. They are not part of the active military. Technically, then, they are not part of the "palace." They are civilians now, and they have every right to speak out as does any other civilian.
Second--and more importantly--under the current circumstances they seem to be about the only persons 1) willing to speak out who 2) have some credibility. For example, I have been complaining for a long time about Rumskull. But why should anyone in actual power listen to me? I have no military experience. The closest I have come to military experience is working at Sheppard Air Force Base for two summers. I'm just a lawyer in Texas. Compare my record with the generals:
- Wes Clark--4-star Army General and former Supreme Allied NATO commander.
- Anthony Zinni--4-star Marine General and former commander of Central Command.
- John Riggs--Army Lt. General; former commander of the Army 1st the first few months of Rumsfeld's term; thereafter was the director of an Army task force to transform the service's structure and weapons systems.
- Gregory Newbold--Marine Lt. General; served as chief of operations of Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to October 2002; resigned in opposition to Iraq war.
- Paul Eaton--Army Maj. General; in charge of training the Iraqi army from 2003 to 2004.
- Charles Swannack--Army Maj. General; former commander of the Army 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq.
- John Batiste--Army Maj. General; former commander of the Army 1st Infantry Division in Iraq from 2004-2005; offered a third star to stay in Iraq, but instead retired rather than to continue to serve under Rumskull.
Note that three--Eaton, Swannack, and Batiste--were commanders on the ground in Iraq, and two more--Newbold and Riggs--served in senior positions in the Pentagon under Rumskull.
The views and voices of these retired generals are important because there apparently is almost no one else with any credibility or authority willing to speak up and try to get Rumskull out. And anyone who thinks Rumskull has done a good job needs professional help--and I'm not kidding. Over the last few days Bush has repeatedly and emphatically said Rumskull is doing a great job and will stay on the job. There is no freaking way Bush is going to get rid of Rumskull because to do so would be viewed as an admission that major mistakes have been made, and Bush will NEVER do that. The GOP, which controls both houses of Congress, is not going to speak out against Rumskull. Indeed, this past Sunday, Sen. Richard Lugar, one Republican who has regularly taken issue with the White House over Iraq, said that keeping Rumskull is "a good call." With few exceptions (Sen. Evan Bayh being one), Congressional Democrats are doing next to nothing, and anyone who does speak out is quickly accused of "politicizing" the issue. No active duty military personnel are going to speak out publicly, and there are sound reasons why they will not and should not. Any speaking out has to stay "in house" and within the chain of command. However, when that chain of command ultimately goes to George W. Bush, speaking out does absolutely no good.
What I am saying is that the actions of these seven retired generals do not comprise a palace revolt that threatens the system of civilian control of the military. Instead, what I see is that the civilians in control of the military have done such a horrific job that it has damaged this country now and possible for years to come. Iraq has been a huge cluster f#@!, and Rumskull bears a great deal of the responsibility for that. Something has to be done to get rid of these assholes, and that--not doing away with civilian control--is the basis for the actions of these retired generals.
I am going to write more about this topic. I will address some of the responses in support of Rumskull and in criticism of these retired generals. In doing so, my intention is to support my answer of "yes" to Kevin Drum's question "But has mismanagement of the war become so extreme that the usual rules simply don't apply anymore?"
posted by WCharles @ 4/19/2006 10:57:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home