But if we're supposed to shut up and support our troops, than our troops can speak with an authority we've denied ourselves.
My instinctive opposition to anything Edmund Burke says leads me to put "An army is an instrument" upside down. The army of a modern democracy is more than that, even if less than or other than a nation-at-arms.
I agree in general, although I also wonder: If the Administration is pursuing a strategy that is insane from the military point of view (which they are), who else is going to be able to say it? I guess the answer here is, anyone with one eye open can see that they're screwing up.
I also would prefer a, er, breakdown in civilian control over the military to use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. But that's an easy one; officers should not commit war crimes even when ordered to do so by the leader of a democracy.
Anyway, quibble with this:
It should not have been a political factor that the military wasn’t fond of Clinton (and it wasn’t a significant one – but the fact of it got a fair amount of media play)
Not significant? It destroyed his attempt to remove the gay ban (something he actually ran on), which I think helped set the stage for 1994. A whole lot of people should've lost their jobs for insubordination there.
Fair quibble. I guess I had the impression that that was the sort of thing that Clinton could have quashed by simply being firmer about -- that the fact that it had a political effect was Clinton's lameness more than any particular power of the military's unhappiness.
But if we're supposed to shut up and support our troops, than our troops can speak with an authority we've denied ourselves.
And this is exactly the sort of thing I'm getting at. It's as if the military has become something that's both very alien to most voters, and somehow sacred, and politically neither one of those makes me happy.
4: You could well be right. I was out of the country and pretty isolated from news in 93-4, so I don't have much of a firsthand sense of gays-in-the-military, Clinton's-health-care, or anything else that happened politically in those years.
Charlie Peters and Paul Glastris have a solution for you, LB.
Draft. Thirty-five years of the Washington Monthly.
I guess I had the impression that that was the sort of thing that Clinton could have quashed by simply being firmer about -- that the fact that it had a political effect was Clinton's lameness more than any particular power of the military's unhappiness.
This seems exactly right. What refusal to obey orders by the military do you have in mind, Matt and IDP? I think Clinton--who had a political problem because of his prior expressed views about the military and avoiding service in Viet Nam--simply was not willing to expend the political capital necessary to try to completely end the ban on gays in the military.
On the main topic of the post, LB I think you are right that civilian control of the military is important, and it would be better if that principle were not changed for political advantage--whether by the left or the right--but I think you are overplaying the import of the evidence you cite. Politicians citing statements by active or retired officers who support their views is a pretty far cry from a military takeover. It's a slippery slope argument, and the slope is not that slippery, it is very long, and we are not very far down it.
I've toyed with that idea. There's something about the attitude men my father's age have toward the Army -- that it's neither alien nor sacred but both mundanely necessary and vaguely risible -- that I think comes from there having been a draft, and I think is the appropriate attitude in a democracy. (Well, Dad enlisted (post-Korea, pre-Vietnam), but I believe he was draftable at the time.)
But I get stuck on the whole "Involuntary servitude is bad, man," thing. And I've had this conversation with Idealist, who I expect to show up shortly and point out that the Army doesn't want any nasty draftees, thank you very much, they'd just be all useless and break stuff.
I think of the general's discontent the way I think of any expert testimony against the administrations managerial policies. EPA guys are resigning claiming that the administration doesn't understand environmental issues. Counter-terrorism guys say the administration knows nothing about counter-terrorism. Etc.
The generals are the relevant experts here. I want their opinion.
the Army doesn't want any nasty draftees, thank you very much, they'd just be all useless and break stuff
Conscripts are better than no soldiers at all. If you are engaged in a major land war, you do not have much choice. One of the biggest problems with the post-WWII draft is the short enlistment. When people are in for the duration, it likely makes little difference whether they are draftees or not. One of the huge problems in Viet Nam was that the combination of short enlistments for draftees and the desire to limit combat tours resulted in everyone--soldiers and leaders both--being pretty inexperienced. This can be a fatal shortcoming in battle. Many things are being done differently in the current war in the Middle East as a result of lessons learned from Viet Nam in that regard.
It's a slippery slope argument, and the slope is not that slippery, it is very long, and we are not very far down it.
I'm certainly not sure you're wrong, and I hope you're right. You're probably right, and I'm being paranoid -- there's a reason why the title of the post invoked 'heebie-jeebies' rather than 'This Must Stop Now!'.
The generals are the relevant experts here. I want their opinion.
Yeah, sort of. I do want their opinions, and I'm not sure what else I want them to do than what they did. I just don't want the political affiliation and loyalty of the military as an entity (or, rather, a group of entities) to be called into question.
Yeah, I'm with 12. I'm not sure yet I understand why the military should work differently than any other government bureaucracy. If the people who know what they're doing think we're screwing up, it's their duty to say so.
I've actually come around to thinking that mandatory service for all citizens would be a very good thing, although it's very easy to advocate for that from this side of 30.
Yes to 12.
I think it's pretty clear that this is happening because so many officers have decided that the plan to bomb Iran is insane. Which it is.
Also, what Idealist said.
I didn't say there was a refusal to obey orders, but IIRC many military men including Colin Powell suggested that they would be unable to implement the policy. I think Clinton should've called Powell in and said, "This is the policy the American people voted for, and if you don't think you can implement and maintain unit cohesion I'll find officers who know how to maintain unit cohesion. That's your fucking job."
Maybe Clinton should have been more willing to spend political capital, but it wouldn't have taken as much political capital if the active military hadn't spoken out against the policies of the democratically elected government who it's their job to serve.
I strongly disagree with something about the tone of this post—the suggestion that there is a degree of signaling behind military complaints about Rumsfeld bears just the quietest hum of black helicopters, and ignores the fact that high military figures have always had some hand in the course of the military (and political currents), even "from the grave." If there's a cynical read for these reports, it's that the military has assumed a media role, as the final arbiter of the facts on the ground—something perhaps reinforced by the Wesley Clarks who have recently begun to occupy journalistic roles.
18 - that's what I always thought, too. One of many blown opportunities.
I should clarify: In an ideal world, that's what should've happened. If Clinton had actually tried it, he probably would have been crucified. We were farther down the slope then than we are now.
But what the army wants and what would be good for society are not necessarily the same thing.
Something mentioned in passing on the other thread is that the civil war had the consequence of purging a large part of the officer corps, arguably of it's most reactionary elements. Traditionally the regular army was so small that in major conflicts it served as a cadre. Vast numbers of both officers and men came from outside, and brought their social views with them. I heard a joke once that an old soldier's reaction to VJ day was "Thank God that's over, now we can get back to soldiering again."
In the early seventies, some social observers wondered out loud about a large permanent volunteer army, an unprecedented development in American History. I still wonder about it. If I had ever heard of a senior officer who was also a liberal--no, Wesley Clark doesn't count and neither does "libertarianism"--I'd wonder a lot less.
Maybe Clinton should have been more willing to spend political capital, but it wouldn't have taken as much political capital if the active military hadn't spoken out against the policies of the democratically elected government who it's their job to serve.
Well here's the thing. When generals speak out in opposition to something one opposes, one thinks its called patriotic and important input from the true experts. On the other hand, when they oppose something onewants, it's interfering with the democratically-elected government. That's politics, but we should recognize it for what it is. LizardBreath, to her credit, is willing to take the consistent position that they should not engage in the public debate for policy reasons.
As long as--at the end of the day--the military does what its civilian masters say, we are OK. There is no reason to think that the military would not have followed the law if the ban on gays in the military had been lifted, even though some leaders spoke out against lifting the ban (and getting way off topic, the notion that people in the military care a geat deal about whether or not gays serve in the military is way overblown by civilians on both sides of the debate. Mostly, people are way too busy doing important stuff to worry about such stuff).
I strongly disagree with something about the tone of this post—the suggestion that there is a degree of signaling behind military complaints about Rumsfeld bears just the quietest hum of black helicopters, and ignores the fact that high military figures have always had some hand in the course of the military (and political currents), even "from the grave."
Well, I certainly may be being paranoid, and it does sound black-helicoptery. But is your last quoted sentence really true? Isn't it pretty unusual, as in, unprecedented, for military officers to be resigning in protest and calling for the resignation of a Cabinet member? (My history is weak -- if you come up with six examples I will be instantly apologetic. But I can't think of any.)
Wes Clark is pretty honest-to-god liberal.
As long as--at the end of the day--the military does what its civilian masters say, we are OK.
No. You may be, and probably are, absolutely right that we are well, well up the slope from any point where it is a problem. But it's not true that there's no problem until the military starts disobeying orders. There is an immense, intolerable problem at the point where reasonable well-informed people (I claim to be reasonable, but not necessarily well-informed) have a legitimate fear that the military may not obey certain orders (outside of the whole not-committing-war-crimes thing, which is a separate question), and the realm of what is politically possible is shaped by legitimate, sane worry about how the military will react or what it will do.
I'm not claiming that such worry is realistic or sane now. I'm just thinking that the point at which becomes sane is a little closer than it used to be.
24: Did you miss the word "active"? I don't think the active military should be speaking out against the civilian leadership. I also don't think the active military should be making shit up, which happened frequently in the gays in the military debate.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the retired military people speaking up, for reasons mentioned above, but there's a big difference between retired and active duty here. For one thing, the retired people aren't going to be in charge of implementing the policies they just attacked.
the notion that people in the military care a geat deal about whether or not gays serve in the military is way overblown by civilians on both sides of the debate
Maybe if the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hadn't taken such a strong stand on the issue, people wouldn't have this impression.
The test case here may be Shinseki. Obviously he was right, and I don't think he was setting his face against the civilians' policies. Should he have just let the civilians speak up without publicly offering his opinion as to how many troops were necessary? I'm not sure what the answer is.
I could give you perhaps double that number of examples from the Civil War, but perhaps that's not appropriate for this consideration, given the way the Civil War changed the infrastructure (not to mention that it took place more than a century ago).
I'm also not entirely comfortable with the phenomenon, and even less so with Kevin Drum's suggestion that the thing for such generals to do would be to register their complaints while active. But I don't get even a whiff of the black helicopter-y badness that you do, LB; it seems to me that it's become the norm for soldiers to have the final journalistic word on soldiering. I blame Tommy Franks, but it goes back as far as McClellan, who was as likely to publicly bitch about his received orders as he was to follow them.
Now, that one struck me as not problematic at all. He was asked to testify before Congress and give a professional opinion, and gave it. He admittedly did not shape it to what the civilians in authority wanted to hear, but that's different (or seems so to me).
Isn't it pretty unusual, as in, unprecedented, for military officers to be resigning in protest and calling for the resignation of a Cabinet member?
McClellan and MacArthur come immediately to mind, even though the facts are not exactly the ones you posit.
I agree that the recent criticism of Rumsfeld is unusual (although, as I understand it, there are institutional factors here that make this criticism as much about Rumsfeld's inability to get along with the senior uniformed leadership as they about the actual decisions being criticized.)
31: I had completely forgotten the details, so that's OK.
31 to 29.
To 30: Well, isn't this:
it seems to me that it's become the norm for soldiers to have the final journalistic word on soldiering.
part of what's worrisome? If we're in a media universe in which soldiers are regarded as having vastly expanded credibility on all matters relating to war because of their profession, and they are expected to speak out publicly on those matters, don't you get to a place where it becomes difficult, politically, to disagree with them? E.g., not that anyone has said this, and given the current state of what's coming out of the Army, no one is likely to, a soldier stating as a professional opinion to the media that the entire destruction of Iran is imperative.
Yeah, I don't find the Civil War precedents compelling. For one thing, that was arguably the worst, most dangerous moment in the country's history -- saying "Things were less stable than this during the Civil War" is not reassuring.
I guess I had the impression that that was the sort of thing that Clinton could have quashed by simply being firmer about -- that the fact that it had a political effect was Clinton's lameness more than any particular power of the military's unhappiness.
Somewhere in the deep past I've read an account of Gore actuallly breaking out the bibles and praying and reading with the generals in an attempt to get them to come around. And my impression from that acccount, which I can't source for the life of me*, was that the problem was not so much the immediate political fall-out of going against the joint chiefs as the long term policy fall out if they were sure the joint chiefs wouldn't implement the policy fairly and diligently---a failed implementation of integrating gays in the military was seen as much more dangerous than a deferred implementation. Might have been a miscalculation, but it seems like a fair one.
I think if we had a military that just sat around following orders and shooting people on command, the never-speak-up policy would make sense. But even a field-trip to the Pentagon will make you realize how much of the administrative and policy work is taken up by active and retired military personnel, and for them to never ever speak up sounds like a bad idea, especially given how easily uninformed the rest of us are. There was a great throwaway line in a recent Fred Kaplan column about how a military coup these days would be a moderating influence, but I really don't think anyone fears one. A military strike/workstoppage might be kind of interesting, but not an actual armed revolt. Given that unlikelihood, I think it's important for the rest of us to be able to get as much information as we can, and if the educated and experienced people who actually know what the military's strengths are and how it's being run and what it can and cannot do have something to say about war, we should know about it. Information is the oxygen of democracy.
*I think it was a book. It must have come out before 2001 because I have a vague memory of reading it in the ASUC bookstore at Berkeley.
I think if we had a military that just sat around following orders and shooting people on command, the never-speak-up policy would make sense.
In so far as I understand what you mean by that, I'm all for having that sort of military. Quite firmly so.
mandatory service for all citizens
I always find it shocking that mandatory service in the military is considered reasonable, but mandatory service in the police force, as street cleaners, babysitters, tax collectors, dish washers, housecleaners or even mentors... isn't. We should remember that a society is defined in part by what it thinks is preferable to charge as admission into citizenship.
As for members of the military speaking out; “Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's soul is his own.” So, I can’t help but listen to any member of the military who speaks out; then wish them my best as they’re carted off to jail.
When I mentioned these generals (with surprise at such a thing happening at all) dissenting from the admin's line to a conservative friend of mine (former military) he scoffed and said that was nothing new, you always had that during wartime. OK, so I can't find anything like that for say vietnam? Seven retired generals openly criticising? Even then?
If we're in a media universe in which soldiers are regarded as having vastly expanded credibility on all matters relating to war because of their profession, and they are expected to speak out publicly on those matters, don't you get to a place where it becomes difficult, politically, to disagree with them?
I've seen versions of this in this thread and others and I have to say that I do not see the point you are making. The media are notoriously ignorant of things military, and have been for the entire post-Viet Nam era. I am aware of no evidence that--whether through the use of military experts or actually taking the time to learn about it on their own--that the media or opinion leaders are interested in changing this state of affairs. People give credibility to military leaders when they say something that confirms their own position and prejudices--that will not change--but I do not see that this has anything with the media has done anything to advance the military's credibility. Put differently, if a bunch of generals came out in favor of the war and of Secretary Rumsfeld, how much voerage would it get?
This is different, I think, from what I take to be LizardBreath's point that active or retired military officers should not take so much of a role in the debate that it looks like the military has become another locus of political power. I think this is right, but I think we disagree on the extent to which this has happened.
I think it's a political issue, unlike the Clinton thing, for a few reasons.
The Clinton problem was about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and about ppl not liking his foreign policy--where we'd engage, etc.
The current complaints about Bush are partly about problems with his foreign policy--third war on the horizon--but more about Rumsfeld and incompetent strategy, incompetent planning, and refusing to listen to the experts in the field about these things. The problem is less "we object to being at war in Iraq" than it is "the civilian leadership is asking the military to do things without giving them the resources to do so, it is making military decisions that put people at risk and undermine any chance for victory, and it is planning based on ideology and wishful thinking rather than on realistic assessments of strategy, consequences, and manpower." I think those are all things that it's *vital* to have people speak out about, and the people who are best suited to do so are military guys.
When a general retires, he becomes a talking head—we're agreed that this is a troubling departure from precedent. I see this as another blow for journalism and an impediment to an informed citizenry, but it does not follow how this leads to active soldiers refusing orders from their civilian commanders. The solution for the problem is tied up with the media, not with a breakdown in our basic understanding of the command structure. Our military most definitely still is the one that follows orders and shoots when commanded—what about these retired generals makes you think there's been some substantive change to the way the active side works?
Gavin (famous paratrooper general, WWII) opposed Vietnam openly. When Johnson convened "The Wise Men;" Ridgeway, one of the greatest American soldiers of the 20th Century, was one of them and advised withdrawal. His own book about his greatest command, The Korean War was out that year ('68), and in it he argued persuasively that the concept of victory was obsolete.
re: 38
While I am disagreeing with you about the extent to which the recent comments are a problem, I more or less agree with you. The uniformed services take orders from the civilian leadership, and it is the leadership which speaks for the military. Now, as has been pointed out by others, this does not mean that the uniformed leadership does not have an obligation to testify truthfully and completely before Congress, for example (my memory is that Powell's comments re: gays in the military were made in congressional testimony, as were Shinseki's re: the forces needed for the current war). Further, it someone wants to resign because of disagreement with policy, it is troubling to say that--as a civilian--they still cannot speak out.
LB: What I mean is, we do not have an army of GI Joes. These people are administrators, analysts, policy-makers, researchers, engineers. They're not robotic shooters that the civilians can control like video game players. They have to implement policies that are handed down to them, and collect data to inform those policies, and measure productivity and efficiency. They frequently go on to do things like run the Red Cross when they retire. They're managers, just like any other sort of manager in the government, but they can get shot at and can't resign to be with their family the very instant times get tough. So it's quite likely that they're going to know important information about how their directors are not being good administrators, and I think it is crucial that they share that information with the rest of us, one way or the other.
31/33: But now that I think of it, Powell may also have been asked a question in a hearing. That might then be better filed under "Sam Nunn is a dick." OTOH, I'm pretty sure other active-duty people were speaking out outside the context of hearings.
Mmm. I think the 'military is seeking to ignore civilian control!!11!' is the new 'criticizing us is unpatriotic!!!11!', and should be taken about as seriously. It's hard to call a general unpatriotic without pissing off veterans, so it's recast as a general trying to set policy rather than follow it.
But that's not what's happening. None of the retired officers are suggesting that the military should refuse to listen to civilian authorities. None are suggesting that civilian oversight is unnecessary. What they are saying is that Rumsfeld's (alleged) refusal to give their experience and testimony any weight led to the problems in Iraq, and that Rumsfeld's continuing to do so will really fuck up Iran.
One would hope that tactics are still up to the people who know how tactics work.
LizardBreath, you're conflating two different things. One is military preference for leadership, which manifested itself during the Clinton years and the 2000 campaign. I don't agree that there is a parallel between that and what is happening today, which is military feedback about the handling of an actual war. It isn't about party, or politics, but about the use of the military in war. The kind of feedback that is happening now is unavoidable. To disallow the military any feedback, to resign it to an inhuman, objectified too, would be fascist.
And now this, I think, is a wee foolish: And, even though now I finally agree with them, it shouldn't be a political factor that the military is now unhappy with the Bush administration.
This depends upon your (explic) inference that the military is unhappy with Bush. Probably a majority of Democrats would agree with this assessment, but would many Republicans? In any case, how is it not important to the voter if the military is unhappy with the way a war is being run? I do not see any way in which it would be better if we were ignorant of this, even supposing it were a possibility that the military could keep a widely-felt preference under wraps, which I don't think it is. And again I'll say that I don't see a parallel between this and the suggested abstract preference for Republicans during the 90s.
(my memory is that Powell's comments re: gays in the military were made in congressional testimony, as were Shinseki's re: the forces needed for the current war).
If I was going to draw a distinction between the two, it would be on the assumption that Powell, to the extent he claimed that openly integrating gays into the military would be impossible without damage to the military, was (1) incompetent (2) lying (3) tacitly stating an intention to deliberately sabotage any such attempt. That is, gays serve openly in the military of enough countries that it seems implausible that allowing them to serve in the US military would actually be a significant problem. (See also your 24.)
So Powell's testimony before Congress, if that was where it was, indicates either that he was very, very wrong about his facts, or that he was twisting his facts to serve a political purpose. Shinseki, on the other hand, seems to have been giving testimony straight.
Further, it someone wants to resign because of disagreement with policy, it is troubling to say that--as a civilian--they still cannot speak out.
Oh, I'm waffling all over the place here. I did say that they weren't doing anything wrong as individuals. The apparent coordination of their statements is what's giving me the impression that something about the Army as a whole is being signaled. Armsmasher called me black-helicoptery for this, and there's a very good chance that he's right.
Fast comments...
38 scares and worries me. It really, really does.
47 posted without having seen 45. I want to make sure I get full credit.
something about the Army as a whole is being signaled
Yeah, that's sort of my impression too: The retired folk are speaking on behalf of active-duty folk, who are quite properly keeping it in channels.
52: I'm not sure what scares and worries you about 38, but if you look at 45, Ideal, a veteran, appears mostly untroubled by it. What do you see as the problem?
Yeah, I disagree with 38. One of the results of Vietnam is that officers, at least, are instructed--rightly--that it is their *responsibility* to refuse orders if those orders are flat-out illegal or immoral. Which is one of the reasons why the Abu Ghraib shit is wrong, btw. But aside from that, it seems to me that one of the responsibilities of a professional military is, yes, to defer to civilian leadership--but that does not mean, and should not mean, suspending independent judgment or refusing to recognize that questions of strategy, capability, and so forth *are* things that the military leadership know a great deal about, and are responsible for communicating to that civilian leadership. And if the civilian leadership lies, then I think that soldiers *should* speak out about it.
In fact, I think the fact that at this point it is only *retired* generals who are saying things demonstrates the incredible integrity and sense of responsibility to civilian leadership that the active military holds.
Also agreement with 48. Although, most of the people who are attacking the generals are definitely just being jerks, but we shouldn't let that stop us from worrying about whether there's an issue here.
Even if other factors clearly override the issue -- I endorsed a hypothetical refusal to obey orders in comment 2 -- there may be an issue worth thinking about.
But aside from that, it seems to me that one of the responsibilities of a professional military is, yes, to defer to civilian leadership--but that does not mean, and should not mean, suspending independent judgment or refusing to recognize that questions of strategy, capability, and so forth *are* things that the military leadership know a great deal about, and are responsible for communicating to that civilian leadership.
Absolutely, and I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with this.
And if the civilian leadership lies, then I think that soldiers *should* speak out about it.
This is what worries me.
black helicopter-y
What I mean by this is that, granting that there was ever an era during which a retired general would certainly answer a phone call from a journalist with, "What? Get out of here, I'm a retired general for chrissakes, of course I will not comment," a change in this dynamic is not necessarily a harbinger of a troubled pecking order.
Ret. Gen. Newbold, at least, explicitly says that his willingness to speak out about Rumsfeld reflects a changed understanding of military figures' post-military civic responsibilities, learned after Vietnam. That effectively explains the "apparent coordination" to me, though I'd have to think about the Powell example a bit.
B got right at one of the things I had in mind - I like the idea that generals are people and can refuse crazy orders. "You've given your order to nuke the mideast Mr Bush, but you're going to have to do it on your own, because you can take a flying leap as far as we're concerned."
More deeply, 38 expresses a desire for an inhuman killing machine - not a human army. It's the same desire all the scary people in history had. I want a human army; with it's disagreements, complaints, and even politics. I think it is much preferable to the cold killing machine.
B got right at one of the things I had in mind - I like the idea that generals are people and can refuse crazy orders. "You've given your order to nuke the mideast Mr Bush, but you're going to have to do it on your own, because you can take a flying leap as far as we're concerned."
More deeply, 38 expresses a desire for an inhuman killing machine - not a human army. It's the same desire all the scary people in history had. I want a human army; with it's disagreements, complaints, and even politics. I think it is much preferable to the cold killing machine.
So Powell's testimony before Congress, if that was where it was, indicates either that he was very, very wrong about his facts, or that he was twisting his facts to serve a political purpose. Shinseki, on the other hand, seems to have been giving testimony straight.
I happen to disagree with the ban on gays in the military, but really isn't this just saying that that we like comments from military leaders when they agree with our policy preferences and we disagree with them when we disagree. I think Powell was wrong--but based on my experience, he was not nearly as dishonest as you accuse him of being. Further, Shinsecki was not as obviously right as you want him to be.
One of the results of Vietnam is that officers, at least, are instructed--rightly--that it is their *responsibility* to refuse orders if those orders are flat-out illegal or immoral.
I think you are wrong in your history here. Long before Viet Nam, officers knew that they did not have to obey unlawful orders. One of the lessons learned from Viet Nam was that the uniformed leadership has a responsibility to tell the civilian leadership when it is screwing things up, even if what the civilian leadership was asking for was lawful, and that includes resigning in protest. Now, this is not necessarily inconsistent with LizardBreath's position, because telling the civilian leadership, or even resigning in protest, is not the same thing as creating a competing base of power or making the disagreement public.
So Powell's testimony before Congress, if that was where it was, indicates either that he was very, very wrong about his facts, or that he was twisting his facts to serve a political purpose. Shinseki, on the other hand, seems to have been giving testimony straight.
I happen to disagree with the ban on gays in the military, but really isn't this just saying that that we like comments from military leaders when they agree with our policy preferences and we disagree with them when we disagree. I think Powell was wrong--but based on my experience, he was not nearly as dishonest as you accuse him of being. Further, Shinsecki was not as obviously right as you want him to be.
One of the results of Vietnam is that officers, at least, are instructed--rightly--that it is their *responsibility* to refuse orders if those orders are flat-out illegal or immoral.
I think you are wrong in your history here. Long before Viet Nam, officers knew that they did not have to obey unlawful orders. One of the lessons learned from Viet Nam was that the uniformed leadership has a responsibility to tell the civilian leadership when it is screwing things up, even if what the civilian leadership was asking for was lawful, and that includes resigning in protest. Now, this is not necessarily inconsistent with LizardBreath's position, because telling the civilian leadership, or even resigning in protest, is not the same thing as creating a competing base of power or making the disagreement public.
More deeply, 38 expresses a desire for an inhuman killing machine - not a human army. It's the same desire all the scary people in history had. I want a human army; with it's disagreements, complaints, and even politics. I think it is much preferable to the cold killing machine.
This is a philosophically (in the loosest sense of the word, implying nothing about actual philosophy) interesting point -- is it more humane to view an organization as a soulless thing, or as a living organism? I lean toward the former, rather than the latter -- viewing the organization as deeply human implies that the people that make it up are no more than cells, with no individuality of their own.
I fully recognize the humanity of soldiers -- some of my favorite people are or were soldiers: my dad; my cousin Timmy who's back home after a year as a combat medic in Iraq; Ideal, and of course soldiers should disobey criminal or clearly insane orders (for example, in the situation Weiner posits in 2, loss of civilian control over the military seems very much like the lesser of two evils).
But once we start accepting that the Army as an institution has goals and interests other than obedience to the civilian leadership, the possibility becomes open that it might have goals and interests that I disagree with. And that the civilian leadership disagrees with. And then it becomes apparent that they also have all of the tanks, and artillery, and other such things.
I completely agree with the position the generals are taking in this instance -- it's just that if they are speaking for the Army as an entity, then I really worry about the next position the Army takes. What if next time they want to blow stuff up?
But I don't think that's what the generals are arguing, is it? It's not that the decision to war Iraq qua right-of-civilians to boss around the military is wrong, but that the decision to war Iraq while ignoring all the tactical problems is wrong.
I guess all I'm saying is that it's not fine if the Army has different goals than the civilian leadership, but it's perfectly fine if the Army uses its knowledge of combat operations to point out that the civilian leadership's plans aren't plausible.
I happen to disagree with the ban on gays in the military, but really isn't this just saying that that we like comments from military leaders when they agree with our policy preferences and we disagree with them when we disagree.
I don't think so -- Powell's facts seem really unlikely to me, and he shouldn't have been giving his opinions -- but there's no way for us arguing here to settle if he was honestly and reasonably mistaken, honestly but incompetently mistaken, or dishonestly mistaken.
67: Oh, these comments aren't the end of the world. What I'm worried about is a slippery-slope problem, and as Ideal says, we probably aren't far at all down that slope. Just, maybe, a little further than we were last month.
I'm quite happy to be wrong on my military history w/r/t Vietnam and refusing unjust orders. Thanks for the correction.
Re. the current situation, though, the fact is that the people who are criticizing the administration *are* retired--some of them as a direct result of the administration policies. I see nothing wrong with their making their opinions public. Then again, I also see nothing wrong--and a great deal right, really--with uniformed military serving as whistleblowers or speaking out about their personal opinions w/r/t policies and strategy, particularly if they make a point of doing so *as* individuals, rather than claiming to be spokespeople for the military.
That said, it seems to me that most military guys disagree, and in fact *don't* criticize civilian leadership while they're in the military. I don't see a real problem with what's going on.
I think there's a big difference between an army that will DO something even if the civilian government tells it not to, or doesn't tell it to, and one composed of individual who will REFUSE to do something, or speak up and protest something that they *have* been told to do, especially on moral or even pragmatic (as opposed to skin-saving) grounds. The first two cases are what we are all deathly afraid of, the last case seems like it's simply soldiers exercising their rights as citizens and human beings.
We can't lose sight of matters of degree and scale either, right? I mean, if you had a moral objection to gays in the material, your objection was probaly based on a couple of lines in leviticus and romans, and on some general squeamishness. You were unlikely to have solid evidence of there being operational problems very likely leading to many unjustified deaths. If you have a problem with nuking Iran, I think it's safe to say that your objections are probably based in a thorough understanding of the effects of explosions on human flesh, and you are likely to have some solid evidence of operational problems very likely leading to many unjustified deaths. Moreover, if you have a problem with an incompetent boss, I think it's your duty to tell your true boss--the American people---that the person they've hired to tell you what to do is incompetent. If you don't say anything how the hell are the rest of us supposed to find out until it's too late?
Oh, btw, has anyone seen Sir! No Sir! yet?
I think there's a big difference between an army that will DO something even if the civilian government tells it not to, or doesn't tell it to, and one composed of individual who will REFUSE to do something, or speak up and protest something that they *have* been told to do, especially on moral or even pragmatic (as opposed to skin-saving) grounds. The first two cases are what we are all deathly afraid of, the last case seems like it's simply soldiers exercising their rights as citizens and human beings.
Yikes! With the exception of the clear rule that one may not obey unlawful orders, this is a really bad idea. I do not know what idiot in Recruiting Command thought up this "Army of One" foolishness, but an essential part of military service is that you give up the right to choose which orders to obey (with the unlawful orders exception). The idea that each individual decides whether they feel like taking the hill is a short and fast road to failure.
I'm arguing harder than I'm committed to, because although my concerns are pretty weak, they aren't really being addressed.
I think there's a big difference between an army that will DO something even if the civilian government tells it not to, or doesn't tell it to, and one composed of individual who will REFUSE to do something, or speak up and protest something that they *have* been told to do, especially on moral or even pragmatic (as opposed to skin-saving) grounds. The first two cases are what we are all deathly afraid of, the last case seems like it's simply soldiers exercising their rights as citizens and human beings.
This is absolutely right, and I tried to acknowledge it when I said that the generals weren't doing anything wrong as individuals. Taking a stand opposed to the civilian leadership on behalf of the Army as an entity, though, scares me, even if this stand is one that I personally agree with. It is not clear that that is what is happening -- these guys are retired, they're not explicitly saying anything like 'the Army won't stand for more of this,' or anything of the sort. I am just worrying that there is a message being sent -- if there is, I strongly disapprove.
Moreover, if you have a problem with an incompetent boss, I think it's your duty to tell your true boss--the American people---that the person they've hired to tell you what to do is incompetent. If you don't say anything how the hell are the rest of us supposed to find out until it's too late?
This bothers me too. We knew they were incompetent before the war -- if you were paying attention, it was pretty clear. Since the war started, it's been absolutely clear. The retired generals here aren't adding new information, they're adding credibility to information that was already out there: when Democrats say it, it's political, but when retired generals say it, it's serious. That is too much weight to give the political opinions of one small group of people, however well trained and competent, and however likely they are to agree with me in this instance.
73: I thought she was talking about war crimes and similar.
re: 75
moral or even pragmatic
does not equal
I thought she was talking about war crimes and similar.
War crimes is covered by the rule that you may not obey an unlawful order (and, of course, the rule that you may not commit war crimes).
73: Yeah, I was, hence the not for saving one's skin bit. I definitely recognize the whole necessary Thermopylae-we-lie-here-obedient-to-your-commands bit. I'm thinking more like, "no, I'm not going to shoot that little girl," type stuff. I left the pragmatic in there b/c it occurs to me there could be a situation where a more technically informed junior officer would know that action A just wouldn't work the way senior officer thinks it would, but that's a minor point that I'm not very sold on myself, so consider it redacted.
So speaking on behalf of the army as a whole, not so good. But wholes are just aggregates of individuals, at some level. I mean, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I do think that the managers of the institution are likely to give a more evidence-based accounting of incompetent administration than the opposition political party. I dunno, maybe it's the scientist in me--evidence is evidence, and I'd rather have it than not. If some people weigh it too much, that's there problem.
The retired generals here aren't adding new information, they're adding credibility to information that was already out there: when Democrats say it, it's political, but when retired generals say it, it's serious.
I don't know that I find this bothersome. I mean, it bothers me that "when Democrats say it it's [just] political," because of the implied presumption that half of America doesn't have any actual integrity; but I see nothing wrong with the idea that expertise in military matters counts for something.
thinking more like, "no, I'm not going to shoot that little girl," type stuff.
See, the thing is, sometimes you have to shoot the little girl.
a more technically informed junior officer would know that action A just wouldn't work the way senior officer thinks it would
Putting to one side the arrogance of the assumption that you get to change the plan because you know best, in real life this does not come up much. In general, the mililtary (or the Army, at least), works by telling suborbdinate officers what to accomplish, but not how to accomplish it. So if you are told to take the hill, you do not have a choice. However, the methods by which you take it are to a great extent up to the person charged with taking it.
thinking more like, "no, I'm not going to shoot that little girl," type stuff.
See, the thing is, sometimes you have to shoot the little girl.
a more technically informed junior officer would know that action A just wouldn't work the way senior officer thinks it would
Putting to one side the arrogance of the assumption that you get to change the plan because you know best, in real life this does not come up much. In general, the mililtary (or the Army, at least), works by telling suborbdinate officers what to accomplish, but not how to accomplish it. So if you are told to take the hill, you do not have a choice. However, the methods by which you take it are to a great extent up to the person charged with taking it.
sometimes you have to shoot the little girl
When? Assume she's not armed.
When? Assume she's not armed.
You have just assumed away the main situation where it would be necessary. And this come up.
There likely are others (use of human shields, maybe) but I could not tell you off the top of my head.
Yes, but clearly there can be situations where you DO NOT have to shoot the little girl, and in those situation, we would expect a soldier to refuse. I wasn't trying to define such situations, just note that they exist. Can we all agree on that?
And like I said, the technical situation seemed hypothetically possible to me, so I wanted to leave room for it.
Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that the important thing is actually not just doing the order, but being able to speak about it. It's one thing to say that a soldier should not be able to disobey an order, but another entirely to say that the soldier should have no recourse for registering his or her disagreement later.
Y'all comment so fast... when's a fella supposed to eat?
In response to 39, I'm not necessarily in favor of mandatory military service (although I'm not necessarily opposed to it either) but I am in favor of mandatory service. Some kind of program where you could fulfill your obligation by serving in a local police force, or as an EMT, or as a teacher perhaps, could be very interesting.
when Democrats say it, it's political, but when retired generals say it, it's serious. That is too much weight to give the political opinions of one small group of people, however well trained and competent, and however likely they are to agree with me in this instance.
Trying to understand: LB, is this concern unique to the military?
Just saw a movie the other night, "By Dawn's Early Light", in which the acting President, an ignorant religious fanatic, was murdered by the military in order to keep him from pushing the Button.
We do not know what is going on here;what plans are being activated;what operations are being implemented. Or resisted. With this particular President, with his history, with the international situation I have much more confidence in the professional military than the Executive Branch. God help them.
I don't get it. Retired generals are citizens like everybody else; why shouldn't they be able to speak out? They have strategic and tactical expertise; why shouldn't we want to hear what they have to say? And if they're expressing opinions that are common among the active military, shouldn't we want to know that too?
On the timely topic of shooting little girls, here's a section from Bowden's Black Hawk Down:
Peering from underneath towards the north now, Nelson saw a Somali with a gun lying prone in the street between two kneeling women. The shooter had the barrel of his weapon between the women's legs, and there were four children actually sitting on him.
That anecdote has a happy ending. But not all of them do. The one on page 196 (in the amazon search inside you can use "flowing purple robe" to get there) is particularly grim. It's a terrifying world.
With this particular President, with his history, with the international situation I have much more confidence in the professional military than the Executive Branch. God help them.
Amen, brother.
Something to keep in mind about the whole "when can they refuse orders" thing is the differing oaths taken by enlsted vs. officers. While part of the enlisted oath is to obey officers the and President, there's no such provision in the officers oath. Instead they are to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution and "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office".
With regard to the general's speaking out, I think a large part of it is due to something Steve Gilliard said on his blog. That is, saving the military. Vietnam was disastrous for the military in many ways. The generals know damn well Iraq is a total clusterfuck that's going to have a bad end. They're trying to ensure that the inevitable fallout goes where it belongs, on the idiots that sent them over there rather than on the military, as happened with Vietnam.
Something to keep in mind about the whole "when can they refuse orders" thing is the differing oaths taken by enlsted vs. officers. While part of the enlisted oath is to obey officers the and President, there's no such provision in the officers oath.
I believe that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, officers and enlisted persons have identical obligations with respect to obeying lawful orders, notwithstanding that the oaths are worded differently. Indeed, I believe that it still is the case that disobediance of a superior officer's orders during wartime is a capital offense (though I am not aware of that punishment having been carried out for disobediance of a lawful order in this century or the last).
Trying to understand: LB, is this concern unique to the military?
Well, yes. Because they have an odd, semi-sacred status in American political discourse that is based on their presumed apoliticalness, and the whole fact that they're out there fighting and dying to keep you safe. It is very hard to, in our current society, give military testimony only the weight it is due as a professional opinion, rather than an additional moral effect from the emotional regard in which the military is held.
This is complicated by the additional military-only concern, not directly implicated here, but not far off, that you don't want to give the organization that controls all of the things in the country that explode a political voice.
Of course they have to obey lawful orders, but the oath makes it quite clear that their primary duty is to uphold the Constitution. I think an good illustration of this was during that press conference with General Pace and Rumsfeld when a reporter brought up the torture issue. Namely, what should a soldier do if he/she witnessed prisoner abuse? While Rumsfeld gave a pat answer about reporting it up the chain of command, Pace contradicted him on the spot and was quite adamant that the service member witnessing it had an obligation to try and stop it. It was an interesting contrast.
Because they have an odd, semi-sacred status in American political discourse that is based on their presumed apoliticalness, and the whole fact that they're out there fighting and dying to keep you safe.
Maybe. I missed the whole semi-sacred thing while I was on active duty. I had people refuse to take my checks, I heard people who had returned from Vietnam talk about being spit on, I have seen the military treated with contempt by the chattering classes. In this thread, you and others have been contemptuously dismissive of statements from military leaders with whom you disagree, like General Powell on gays in the military.
This whole sacredness thing must be of recent vintage.
Because they have an odd, semi-sacred status in American political discourse that is based on their presumed apoliticalness, and the whole fact that they're out there fighting and dying to keep you safe.
Maybe. I missed the whole semi-sacred thing while I was on active duty. I had people refuse to take my checks, I heard people who had returned from Vietnam talk about being spit on, I have seen the military treated with contempt by the chattering classes. In this thread, you and others have been contemptuously dismissive of statements from military leaders with whom you disagree, like General Powell on gays in the military.
This whole sacredness thing must be of recent vintage.
On the subject of having too much power: a fella who works at iRobot told me the goal is that by some not too distant date, 1 in 4 military vehicles will be fully autonomous, that is, able to go and kill people all by itself. So eventually, whoever controls the vehicle fleet won't even need soldiers on his side; just some mchanics and geeks who are good at video games. This disturbs me a lot more than the talking generals thing, since unpopular wars will be yet more feasible, including suppression of insurrections at home. On the other hand, how smart will a smart vehicle actually be?
Oh, for christ's sake, Idealist. The military is the most trusted institution in the United States. The press and the population-at-large treats service members with tremendous respect. I'm sorry you've been personally slighted.
The latest Gallup poll, found here (second poll down), puts the percentage of Americans who have "A Great Deal" or "Quite A Lot" of confidence in the U.S. military at 74%. "Very little" or "none" gets 8% combined. We're probably the most pro-military country in the world.
92: That's interesting. I wonder if a similar concern applies to (or ought to apply to), say, police officers (who are also out there keeping us safe) and to clergy (who have that whole sacred apolitical thing going, certain members of the Christian Right notwithstanding).
The "blowing things up" aspect obviously applies more to the military than to the cops, although the cops are armed.
Idealist, although I'm too young for post-Vietnam, I think the public regard for members of the military these days is quite different. That's been my experience in airports, anyway. A lot of handshakes and awed stares when folks in uniform are around.
As for this: In this thread, you and others have been contemptuously dismissive of statements from military leaders with whom you disagree, like General Powell on gays in the military.
Although I wasn't one of those who had been dismissive of such statements, allow me to join that group now and say that I think the comtempt has little to do with General Powell qua general, but rather General Powell qua apparent homophobe. I think that equal contempt will be expressed here for anyone who advocates discrimination against gays, whether they're in uniform or not. It's an added bonus that I think he was wrong on the pragmatic and logistical aspects of the ban, but of course it's possible I'm wrong about that, since I'm not in the military.
Actually, now that I look at it, that may not be the latest Gallup poll on the subject, since it's from last year. But the point still stands, I think. It's just plain silly, or willfully obtuse, to act as though we're a country that is disrespectful to service members.
As for the chattering classes, I don't know what you've been watching, but I've never seen uniformed officers treated with anything but reverence by the media (did you turn on a TV in 2002? I mean, come on).
(Okay, that's not quite true: the generals speaking out are currently being swift boated by the right. But this is the first time I can remember it happening, and I don't think it's quite what you mean.)
This whole sacredness thing must be of recent vintage.
I was wondering if I should address your concerns before you brought them up, given that we've had this conversation before, and then figured that would be rude. But now that you've said it, first, you left the Army over ten years ago, and attitudes have changed. Second, there's nothing incompatible about military personnel being simultaneously treated with disrespect, and the military generally having the status of a semi-sacred fetish object -- I'm not saying that this status does people who are in the military any particular good, but the status is there.
For example, look at the rhetorical move you made by calling what I said about General Powell 'contemptuous'; I said his facts were egregiously wrong about gays in the military, and surmised that given the level of wrongness, that he was either incompetent or slanting his facts for political gain. While I may be wrong about my conclusions, that's a perfectly normal thing to say about a public figure with which one disagrees; I spoke of him as I would speak of anyone else testifying before Congress.
Calling my comment 'contemptuous' implies that Powell is due some special respect for his honor and honesty because he is a military officer. You may think that that is the case, and many, many people in the US agree with you (look, for example, at the credibility accorded Powell's testimony before the UN). If that is to be the assumption, though, statements from military officers are going to be given more factual weight than they fairly deserve by the media and the general public.
... I heard people who had returned from Vietnam talk about being spit on, ...
Did the spitting ever actually happen? Once again my Google skills have proved inadequate (or I'm having another false memory event) but see:
http://www.slate.com/id/2091111
I did hear Sylvester Stallone speak quite eloquently of being spit upon, in Rambo.
I do recall press reports of anti-war protesters being set upon with truncheons and chemical weapons during the 60s and 70s.
I do recall press reports of anti-war protesters being set upon with truncheons and chemical weapons during the 60s and 70s.
Not spit, though!
Did the spitting ever actually happen?
I am aware that there is now a move to claim that this is all a myth. Sure, it is possible the people I heared talk about this in the early 70's were all lying. It's just a made up story that they got from a movie that had not even been made yet. That's it.
Sacredness:
When Mr. B. was in the military, we lived in a city in the middle of Red America, very very very "Support our Troops," yellow ribbons every damn place.
But none of that lipservice translated into, you know, actual *support*. Mr. B. would test it out sometimes when he was back from the Gulf and ask if they had a military discount, and they never did. As a military spouse, I never found that my employer was interested in, say, giving me half a day off work to go meet Mr. B. when he came home from the Gulf, or in even being particularly understanding about the heightened stress I was under.
I'm a li'l impatient with the idea that the common folks who post the yellow ribbons and put the bumper stickers on their cars are offering anything other than self-aggrandizing faux patriotism.
OTOH, I don't think the "chattering classes" are particularly disrespectful of the military; on the contrary.
Can I ask that we not argue about the 'spitting on soldiers' thing? It's not directly germane to what we're talking about, and it can, I think, only lead to bad feeling.
For what it's worth, a good friend is a history professor who specializes in collecting oral history from Vietnam vets, and is firmly agnostic on the point. He's never heard anyone give him a first-hand experience of being spat on, but he's talked to a lot of vets that firmly believe that it happened.
If that is to be the assumption, though, statements from military officers are going to be given more factual weight than they fairly deserve by the media and the general public.
But shouldn't that be the case when Powell speaks on matters military? The Surgeon General's statements are given more factual weight when he speaks about health. The Fed's pronouncements are given more weight when the topic is the economy.
I'll grant that the media aren't in the business of serious investigation, only selling papers, but I don't think they're excessively deferential towards the military. The aura of sacredness toward Our Troops? Definitely exists, but there's lots of other parallels/archetypes. (Concerned Mother, Grieving 9/11 Widow, Endangered Conservative Professor.)
104: B, I 100% agree that it's nothing but faux patriotism. Even worse, they aren't stickers any more -- just magnets so they can be peeled off once the patriotism fad wears off. The whole thing is just oh-so-American: we talk a good game.
I'm a li'l impatient with the idea that the common folks who post the yellow ribbons and put the bumper stickers on their cars are offering anything other than self-aggrandizing faux patriotism.
OTOH, I don't think the "chattering classes" are particularly disrespectful of the military; on the contrary.
I think this is dead on, and explains how to reconcile Ideal's experience with the polls Drymala identified, the way the chattering classes treat 'the military', the deference Powell got making the case for war, the 'Support our Troops' yellow ribbon thing, etc. It's not about treating soldiers (sailors, airmen, marines, whatever) particularly well, it's about idealizing the military as an entity, and handing disproportionate deference and respect to anyone purporting to speak for it.
Bill Maher had a sign about that that I like: "Put a flag on your car...it's literally the least you can do."
Well, but I do agree with Cala that there's a lot to be said for the rationality of according deference to the opinions of experts. If only we felt the same way about teachers....
But seriously, and again purely anecdotal, ime, military guys are often really well educated about not only strategy and manpower issues, but also foreign policy, history, world politics, and the like. Mr. B. certainly is. I don't think that Powell, for instance, is probably any better informed than Juan Cole, and in some ways perhaps less (and in others, more), but I would certainly give a great deal of credence to anything either of them said about the middle east.
Which is part of what sucks so much about Powell's statements when he worked for Bush (and why I give a great deal of weight to his resigning). I honestly think that the man allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes in the name of loyalty; the military virtue of the latter trumped what I think is the more important military virtue of telling--and knowing--the truth about the facts on the ground.
I also think that Powell may be a special case. He's a media darling not just for being military, but for being black and high-ranking, a reputation of honesty, and intelligent-sounding. I'm not sure other military spokesmen receive the same sort of deference, but I'm having a hard time thinking of examples.
Remember Stormin' Norman, from the first Gulf War? He got an awful lot of trust and respect, and I think it was largely for his uniform rather than his personal qualities. (Not that his personal qualities don't merit it, which they might but I don't know much about, but he wasn't well known outside the military before the war. He became a media darling for being able to stand up and tell the public about all the amazing things our troops were doing in Iraq.)
I was only 11, and my mom had a crush on him, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was personal qualities. Honestly, I don't have much of any idea, but I don't think the deference is excessive. Didn't Powell get a lot of shit for the don't-ask-don't-tell thing?
We need a draft. Then the idiot rightwing will have to realize it might be their little darling going off to fight a nuclear war, and the idiot leftwing will realize that 'military man' doesn't mean 'gang rapist', and maybe we can put the draftees on duties where it won't matter as much if they break things.
he wasn't well known outside the military before the war
He was a four star general and all, but he was not even that well known in the military.
My roommate in Korea told me about Schwartzkopf giving a talk to his Armed Forces Staff College class trying to induce them to seek an assignment at CENTCOM, Schwartzkopf's headquarters, in 1989 or 1990. Apparently part of the pitch was a picture of the Pentagon parking lot at 5:30 PM (full) and a picture of the parking lot at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa at 5:30 PM (mostly empty). However, events conspired to change the profile of CENTCOM and Gen. Schwartzkopf.
