Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Listen to the Generals 11

I keep hearing people -- irrespective of political party -- imply, or state explicitly, that if the civilian authority (President, Secretary of Defense, and so on) acts against the views of the military generals, then they are therefore doing something wrong.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There's a reason why the Constitution puts the civilians in charge of the military: because we do not want the military in charge of the military, and hence, everything else. I don't know about you, but I don't want a military government, an unelected police state (NB: if you respond to this with a crack about Bush being unelected or the U.S. being a police state now, you'll expose yourself as a moron; this is a discussion about the real world, not your hyperactive imagination).

That's not to say the opinions of generals are unimportant. It is very important to know whether generals asked for more troops, when they asked, why they asked, what the civilian authority response was, and why, all in order to judge the quality of the decisions made by the civilians. But at the end of the day, the quality of the decision is not judged entirely, or even primarily, according to whether it agreed with the military, else we wouldn't have bothered to put the military under civilian control in the first place.

The recent editorial in the Army Times says, "when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads," and therefore he must go. This is ceding way too much authority to the military leadership. By this standard, the military could reject anyone who didn't let them do anything they wanted to do, thereby effectively removing civilian control of the military.

That's not to say there's not plenty of legitimate criticism against Donald Rumsfeld. For example, it is reasonable to simply say that Iraq is a failure, so therefore he should resign. I disagree, but it's a legitimate position. But saying Rumsfeld must go because the military disagrees with him is simply wrong. It literally subverts the Constitutional system of civilian control of the military.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Listen to the Generals

Comments Filter:
  • Rummy isn't real popular with some specialties in the Armed forces, killing the crusader made him unpopular with the Artillery camp. Heavy armor is being supplanted by striker's and their derivatives. His willingness to use drones hurts his position with manned aviation as well.
  • The Army, Navy and Air Force Times are all Gannett News Service publications. See their other editorials for any difference in the propoganda that they are putting out in the 'service' papers.
  • When people who are more knowledgeable about the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear he must go.

    Assuming of course that they are more knowledgeable about the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are they?

    I also wonder about the generals who have retired. What does the military have in place to prevent officers from being held back for not agreeing with the consensus from the higher-ups?
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      When people who are more knowledgeable about the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear he must go.

      That is an illogical statement, since people who are more knowledgable about the realities in every war in our history, since the Revolutionary War, have disagreed with the civilian leadership. It's not meaningful.

      What is meaningful are actual results, not what the generals think about it. And the results have obviously been, in some significa
      • That is an illogical statement, since people who are more knowledgable about the realities in every war in our history, since the Revolutionary War, have disagreed with the civilian leadership. It's not meaningful.

        It's a near certainty that the amount of disagreement has varied in every war in our history. Meaning that if there is significantly more disagreement in this war, it's meaningful to consider why.
        • by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          if there is significantly more disagreement in this war, it's meaningful to consider why.

          Of course, we do not know that there is significantly more. Regardless, that's you arguing for me, and against you: I never said you should not try to figure out why the generals disagree. I said the fact of their disagreement does not itself justify removal of the Secretary. You said, "When people who are more knowledgeable about the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan start to break publicly with their defense secret
          • Look at my original post. Now look at the title of it.
            "What if they'd said"

            They, as in the editors.

            Your objection is based around letting military leaders having control that belongs to civilians. So I'm asking you what if the editors had changed their phrasing. Maybe there are some people who aren't military leaders who are also more knowledgeable about the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan. If more of these people, along with the military leaders, are disagreeing with Rumsfeld, then maybe he should go
            • by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              Look at my original post. Now look at the title of it.

              Looking!

              "What if they'd said"

              Yep!

              They, as in the editors.

              Right!

              Your objection is based around letting military leaders having control that belongs to civilians.

              Right!

              So I'm asking you what if the editors had changed their phrasing.

              Right! And I responded to that, saying it is not meaningful, because there will always be knowledgable people who disagree with the civilian leadership.

              And the basis of your stance was that would be ceding power to the militar
              • It's not meaningful.

                Then I said/MEANT that it IS meaningful if the amount of disagreement is more than in past wars.
                • by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                  Then I said/MEANT that it IS meaningful if the amount of disagreement is more than in past wars.

                  Did you miss the part where I already tacitly agreed with that ... ?

                  You said: "if there is significantly more disagreement in this war, it's meaningful to consider why."

                  I said: "Of course, we do not know that there is significantly more. Regardless, that's you arguing for me, and against you: I never said you should not try to figure out why the generals disagree. I said the fact of their disagreement does not it
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_Guard [wikipedia.org]

    Although its name has become synonymous with intrigue, conspiracy, disloyalty and assassination, it could be argued that for the first two centuries of its existence the Praetorian Guard was, on the whole, a positive force in the Roman state. During this time it mostly removed (or allowed to be removed) cruel, weak and unpopular emperors while generally supporting just, strong and popular ones. By protecting these monarchs, thus extending their reigns, and also b

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Working...