They are career men......

[Joe Fields]

This is just a snippet from a Washington Post editorial by former Ambassador Richard Holbrook that bears out my post from two days ago which was so highly criticized.

These generals had a duty to speak out when it counted. Now, they will have to rely on the hundreds of colonels, generals and admirals who share their concerns.

"...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."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401451.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

[MADem]

1. Holbrooke's point was WAY more nuanced than that, though

The sentence you cite was preceded by this crucial point: 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.)

And followed by this:

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...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?

[Joe Fields]

2. And your point is.......?

Not once in my post from two days ago was there a mention of politics. It had EVERYTHING to do with the snippet from this morning's Holbrook WAPO article.

The generals had a duty, if they felt the way they did, to speak out, and they didn't. Now there is a sense of guilt, because many had vowed not to let another "vietnam" happen.

[MADem]

4. What's yours???

You post "they are career men" from Holbrooke's POST dissertation. I posted the nuance surrounding the comment. It wasn't just "guilt" as you imply. It was an unwillingness to meddle in domestic politics, among other reasons.

[Joe Fields]

7. I don't see how you can come away with that point of view.

It was clear as crystal, in Holbrook's article that they were determined to not let the mistakes of Vietnam happen again, concerning poor war planning, or no war planning. They felt guilt because of their lack of courage to keep similar mistakes from happening again.

That was MY point and I thought I made that clear. What part of that don't YOU understand?

As for nuances? What do You mean? Because, I don't really think nuances matter in this story. You either have the courage of your convictions, or you don't.

[MADem]

10. I came away with that point of view because I read the entire article

...and did not ascribe more weight to one paragraph than another.

If you ever served in a senior leadership position in the military, you'd appreciate the challenges faced by some of these dissenters. There's a reason for civilian control of the military--otherwise, we'd be TURKEY. Perhaps these guys waited too long, but at least they didn't wait until the casualty figures topped 58K and war without end, Amen, was going on for more than a decade.

[Joe Fields]

12. I read the entire article also.

You are reading things into it that aren't there.

[MADem]

13. I did time in service, I read into it my experience in uniform and

first hand understanding of the way things work.

Look, your mileage obviously varies. You want a big argument, you aren't gonna get one from me. I disagree with your viewpoint. Carping at me isn't going to change my perspective.

[Joe Fields]

15. I also was in the service.

Luckily, I walked away without being brainwashed.

[Drum]

3. Fortune cookie w/my dinner last night:

"It is a stupid fish that is caught twice with the same bait."

Well which are you, generals: brave warriors, or complicit yes-men? Or just dumb, or simply more worried about high-grade pensions than the soldiers under your command and the honor of the armed services? Seems that whichever you are, Rumsferatu and Co. have your number, and they played it. The eleventh-hour speak-up may help you sleep better, but the rest of us (and many dead/wounded people) are screwed.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. Think they angry Generals

Generals are soldiers
OK now angry soldiers

Bush want to listen
This guy got lots of poker chips
Nah bush better listen
Never mess with the military
You dont want a coup.

[Joe Fields]

8. Rumsferatu......scary, but most appropriate!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. We called them "lifers" when I was in. And it wasn't a compliment.

To get to the top in the military hierarchy you have play by the rules (no matter how stupid), kiss a lot of asses, learn how to shift blame for screwing up, and go along to get ahead.

That's why I don't trust guys who flaunt their military background. Especially of the officer class.

[tabasco]

11. You flaunt your military experience all the time.

To make broad brush indictments against all officers.

I don't trust people who make unsupported generalizations.

[MADem]

14. I'm with you--I know plenty of great officers, FWIW, and a few jerks, too

And of the great and the awful, some came up through the ranks. It's the PERSON, not the paygrade, that determines if someone is good or not. If you were "raised right" you'll do well at any paygrade, enlisted or commissioned.

At least that's my perspective. Anyone who says otherwise might have a bone to pick over a particular negative experience with one individual that colors their viewpoint.

[bemildred]

9. It is folly to think something can be salvaged in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The mistake was the attempt to colonize.

[KAT119]

16. Hi, Joe, read that a damning book re General's dereliction of duty in Iraq

is coming out by same Vietnam military officer (H.R. McMaster) who wrote the blockbuster in 1998 ---"Dereliction Of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, And The Lies That Led To Vietnam." This author, McMaster, is currently an officer in Iraq....and writing, says the article. Sorry I cannot find where I read this yesterday. More should be coming out about this. The Generals are derelict INDEED.