I wish people would educate themselves, re: the chain of command

[CatWoman]

I've seen at least four threads in the past couple of days, critical of the retired generals and wanting to know why they didn't speak up against Bush and Rummy while on active duty.

If it wasn't the thread itself, it was comments inside the thread.

Please, please understand: it is political, financial and career suicide for general officers to publicly deride their commander in chief.

We had one general comment, and he was unceremoniously "retired". Another was demoted and then "retired".

I think we should be happy to see these guys coming forward.

[wtmusic]

1. At least the "retired" ones can sleep at night

as for the others, I don't know. I couldn't.

[Atman]

2. It's not just career suicide...these are REAL military men

who respect the chain of command! That is how they've been taught and how they've lived their own careers. By the book. It is against the military code to speak out against your superiors, especially in a time of war. So they retire and THEN speak out, or they speak out after retiring...but to speak out against Rummy while still on the battle field...that is just plain not done.

[PATRICK]

14. The old Catch-22

Anyone who even secretly thought about the limit where an act of heroic conscience superseded all the laws and traditions that make up the career and the mind could never be theoretically sure and therefore indecisive. Decisiveness unfortunately is made very routine for efficiency and dependability.

What one expects, without enough reflection, is that the primary mission of the US military would at some point outweigh the systematic abuse into ruin and destruction by a rogue executive. But this would be a moment of extreme crisis and enlightenment equivalent to a strong conversion and martyrdom. By definition to save the system from itself one must oppose or go outside the system, and also be part of its possible destruction. The moment when that becomes clear must be rare for a rare individual or else confined to almost harmless outsider status such as being fired or retired.

Mutiny is something else and while the motives might be extreme they are not always noble and the results in either case, historically, can be either frightening or hopeless.

Waiting for the behemoth to reassert rationality and values or becoming outside critics are the chief options. Taking the real chances in the surety of one's beliefs is as unpredictable as it is unlikely. And why single out the military, hardwired not to act or think this way, when the insider impotence of the legislative branch is a real disappointment.

[Virginia Dare]

3. That is an excellent point...

there have been some General's careers that have been absolutely trashed over the past couple of years for reasons that aren't publicly clear. I remember reading about at least one within the past year. I believe he was caught up in a "sex scandal". I think there are alot more things that are happening behind the scenes that the public is unaware of.

[RB TexLa]

4. Thank you for your post

I love how some posters seem to know that they did not protest when they were going over the plan.

[CatWoman]

9. and another thing

the "why didn't they speak out before" meme is nothing but a GOP talking point.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Haven't I seen this one before?

It's not the chain of command concept that offends me. It's the timing.

These men didn't speak out the day after they retired, but they waited until the public tide turned against the whole Iraq matter, and then they grabbed their tickets and got in line for the big GangBang on the Pentagon.

I don't find that terribly courageous or admirable. Understand, I'm glad they're speaking out, but they're still craven gentlemen who chose to cover their asses rather than do the right thing.

Sorry, but there are no heroes in this group. Too little too late.

[skyblue]

6. Exactly!

:applause:

They are only helping to shed light to a public that is unaware of the problems there, and also may think that if the generals think this action is ok by their not speaking out then the action must be relatively safe and good for the country.

Considering what happened with Valerie Plame, I can see why anyone would hesitate to speak out against WH.

[northzax]

7. not to mention that

they have spent their entire professional lives following orders. And they are strong believers, at least the Admirals and Generals I have known, in the concept of civilian control of the military. And because of that, they are very sensitive to the issue of speaking out against the civilian leadership while in uniform.

[JHB]

8. Old saying: "Officers will sacrifice their lives for their country...

...but not their careers." Or in this case, pensions.

While I'm critical of "cover-your-(br)ass" decisions and other violations of "loyalty down", here these guys followed proper procedure. The "stay out of politics" ethic in the military is one that if anything needs more encouragement, not criticism.

[jarab]

10. Succinct and all that needs to be said. Thanks. n/t

...O...

[IselaB]

11. I don't think the argument you're making is very compelling

Because what kind of a man is going to put his career first when the soldiers to whom he is responsible are going to live or die based on decisions made by or endorsed by him. He could always resign and then speak freely.

But I do think we have to recognize that one of this country's greatest strengths is the professionalism of our military which requires uniformed soldiers to respect civilian authority and a chain of command that is topped by an elected, civilian official. We take it for granted that the military will always defer to civilian authority, but in most countries throughout history that has not been something to take for granted, and we should recognize it is a pillar of our way of life and our freedom.

So I understand and respect how difficult it is for soldiers to speak out against the civilian leadership. It should be difficult. It's good that it's difficult.

[converted_democrat]

16. I "understand" why they can't speak out, but what is "good" about it?

We have a leader that is bat shit crazy.. If the people of our armed services were allowed to speak out we wouldn't be in the position we are in now with Iraq, and the position we are about to be with Iran.. I understand why they can't speak out, and that is a big reason that * kept giving speeches in front of the soldiers, because he and his handlers knew that the soldiers wouldn't dare heckle or boo him.. I understand it, but I don't see how it's "good." If the officers, and soldiers on the ground could've spoken out earlier without having to give up their positions, or risk their benefits to do so, I don't think we'd be where we are now.. I think it would be great if the military could speak out.. They know better than any what's viable in terms of plans, strategy, and what risks are and aren't worth taking..

[atreides1]

12. No More Billy Mitchells

As a former soldier and NCO I do understand, but with all respect the reasons you give don't really
help their case.

Political, financial, and career suicide as you state, are all personal reasons. General Billy Mitchell faced the same losses, yet he had the courage and the integrity to stand up for what
he thought was right.

General Mitchell was court-martialed, found guilty of insubordination, and suspended from active duty
without pay. He resigned from the service and was a proponent for air power, today he is considered
by many to be a hero, within the USAF his name is held in high regard.

Maybe one of these generals could have been more like Billy Mitchell, if just one had been like him,
maybe, just maybe, 2300+ families would still be complete.

[CatWoman]

13. I suppose I could have gotten deeper and provided a better defense

but I'm on my first cup of coffee.

P.S. -- I am also a former soldier and NCO.

[Nickster]

15. Right on the money. Not to mention, he has a great airport in Milwaukee.