Just Wondering
April 21st, 2006 - 9:15 am
First, the Left used the “chickenhawk” argument to claim that only active-duty soldiers could venture any opinions on war. Now the Left is filled with glee because we have a clique of generals dissing their elected civilian commander-in-chief.
It’s enough to make you ask if the Left is preparing this country for a military dictatorship.
Well, their favorite world leader is Fidel Castro, after all…
It’s enough to make you ask if the Left is preparing this country for a military dictatorship.
I don’t think they lefties are planning that far ahead.
Frankly, I don’t think they’re planning at all…. the Democratic agenda these days looks like knee-jerk reactions, nostalgia, and blatant opportunism.
Besides that, I know more than a few veterans- not officers, enlisted personnel- and their response to that kind of order would be “Go to hell, Sir”.
Members of the US military swear an oath- not of loyalty to the President or anyone else, but to uphold and defend the US Constitution. The ones I know take it seriously.
What? You racist/fascist Hilter-man!
When has the Left ever used the military to start a dictatorship?
When? WHEN?
…besides North Korea, Cuba, China, USSR, Nazi Germany, etc. etc.
I’m confused,
Wasn’t the right tauting how much we can rely on the expertise of our Generals at war as a reason for voting for the stupid one.
Now the right says the generals don’t know what they’re talking about?
Same old song and dance.
Now, now, EVIL.
While the Nazis were socialists, they weren’t Leftists. The Left (Commies) hated them … not that they wouldn’t have formed a dictatorship, given the chance.
While the Nazis were socialists, they weren’t Leftists.
Huh? How is a socialist not a leftist?
Krauthammer has a very good article on this subject worth checking out. I think that the glamorization of military leaders who attack elected officials is a very slippery slope that we should all be very concerned about.
I’m confused,
Wasn’t the right tauting how much we can rely on the expertise of our Generals at war as a reason for voting for the stupid one.
I think you must mean “touting.” Nevertheless, clearly, you are confused, as that most certainly was not the case.
I just love how you guys try to make shit up to justify the other shit you make up.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: If…
…we take the ‘chickenhawk’ argument to it’s logical conclusion….
ONLY those people running for public office have the authority to make public statements about politics.
Hey! Vox!
Ya got THAT???!?!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Commies also hated Trotskyists and social democrats.
Hence by your logic, Trotsky = Edmund Burke.
Besides, commies killed more commies than anyone else.
The great Battle of International vs. National Socialism was a bunch of Leftists warring against each other as “apostates.” (Like Catholics vs. Protestants in the 30 years wars — all were “Christian.”)
The expertise of our generals at war may be a reason for deciding to go to war–after all the question of whether we can win is rather important to that decision and the expertise of our generals may be rather relevant. That’s rather different from going to war because our generals SAY we should go to war. That’s out of bounds and improper. And that’s the analogy to what the right is, consistently, objecting to now.
TO: Richard
RE: The Generals Speak
The generals SHOULD speak.
However, the active ones should ONLY speak CANDIDLY to the SecDef, SecState, Vice President and President. And maybe a few others within the executive branch as the need dictates. As the old adage amongst officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, goes….”It all depends on the situation.”
Flag-grade officers, i.e., ‘generals’ and ‘admirals’, speaking candidly outside of the executive branch, e.g., to the press, is a distinct No-No for those active component and reservists that have not retired. That is unless they are interested in leading a banana-republic-esque coup. [Note: Watched Seven Days in May lately?]
As for the retired ‘flaggers’, I don’t mind their saying what they think, as long as they are not disclosing classified material.
Personally, in light of my experiences with Wesley Clark, it’s perfectly legit that he run for political office. However, I’d as soon have the head of the KKK in office as Clark. Clark, from my experiences with him in 4ID(M) in the early 80s, was/is/and foreverwillbe, an overbearing megalomaniac with deliusions of godhood.
But, hey, it’s a ‘free-country’. And, despite Clark’s ‘best efforts’ at making life miserable for everyone he had any power over, he’s entitled to his say. Just like you and I.
It’s up to the rest of US, e.g., guys like Swift-Boats, to get the ‘other side’ of the story out.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. There is a caveat to the retired flaggers speeches….
…I’d take EXTREME unction at their calling for the overthrow of our constitution. But, for most of US, that goes without saying.
Pete,
If you don’t understand the issue being discussed, there is no need to inform us of that fact.
Chuck, if you’re really angry at something, you want to take “extreme umbrage” . To take “extreme unction” you have to be dead.
P.S. Also Catholic.
If only soldiers can opine on the war, then can only taxpayers opine on government spending?
TO: Dr. Weevil
RE: Not a Catholic
“…if you’re really angry at something, you want to take “extreme umbrage” . To take “extreme unction” you have to be dead.
P.S. Also Catholic.” — Dr. Weevil
Okay…
…I guess I need to settle for ‘umbrage’.
Thanks for the correction.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Take THAT you silly retired general-persons!
Now begone or I’ll taunt you again!
Chuck: not to mention the historical record that generals are (well) generally reluctant to go to war, WW1 excepted. And look what happened then…
No, really. Most of the time, given the opportunity to provide feedback, the generals vote for “no war right now.” Even Hitler’s generals thought that way.
The Brits, the Soviets, the Americans; all wanted to put off a second world war. Same thing for Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the time the generals prefer not to fight a war.
They aren’t cowards, mind you. They just have a decent grasp of how screwed up any war gets.
Also -if memory serves- former general Maxwell Taylor told someone in DC (prior to significant US involvment in Vietnam) that given the chance, nearly every general will ask for more troops.
I wrote this last week and sent it off. (And no, not to Stephen. My bad.) So, of course, no one listened.
A Note Concerning Your Post(s) on the Generals
I so do NOT agree. A President gets to be there by virtue of a popular vote, is there for 4/maybe 8 years and has the ultimate platform for changing and implementing policy. That’s his shot at the whole enchilada and if it doesn’t pan out, or the next ELECTED guy goes a different direction, too bad and yes, keep your mouth shut. Go do good works in the Sudan.
A General or senior officer on the otherhand spends 25 to 30 years of his life in compensated servitude to his country. When he raises that right hand for the oath,
he has effectively (and willingly) abdicated any of the rights he has as a citizen until such time as he no longer is in the service of his country. ONE of those is the freedom of speech. You can be circumspect at work in any job in the country, go home at night, maybe run for office, run a piss and moan blog, maybe mouth off
to a local reporter at the watering hole whilst in your cups and the ramifications are what? Generally nothing, unless you zapped your boss and he fires you. There are no penalties for your earnest, even obscene expressions of your POLITICAL opinion.
ANY military member could lose everything and do jail time for what you take for granted. That right to free speech has been ceded by those who serve and for very good reason. Like I said, without those controls we’d be Argentina or Chili. BUT,
after faithfully going the distance, advocating as best they could within the confines
of the UCMJ and the prevailing administration’s policies, are you saying when they retire they STILL have no right to a public difference of opinion? Even when lives are the issue? This isn’t a resigned/fired/loser presidential advisor writing a book after 2 or 3 years in the White House, out to make a dime while people still
remember who he is, or Clinton/Carter squabbling over what Bush is doing this week
because they need to see their mugs on the tube or names in the Times. These are general officers of DECADES of faithful service who felt a strong enough MORAL obligation to the lives of the troops they lead to speak up. It doesn’t happen very often ~
as a matter of fact, never before with this unified a voice that I can think of offhand. That should be indicative of the gravity of what they feel is wrong.
It’s a tough choice as an active duty flag officer, especially ~ if you are a man of integrity and honor, when you challenge your superiors. If they are not in a
sympathetic mood and inclined to agree with you, I’ve read in quite a few conservative columns that they should then resign in protest and thereby make their point. So
I would also have to believe that 97% of these pundits have never served in any capacity or, if they did, in lesser positions. That man of integrity would also be asking himself, “if I resign, who then becomes the advocate for my troops?
Who watches out for their best interests if I leave?” And he may well do more damage by pulling chocks (leaving). Troops appreciate a straight shooter, even if the big guys slough him off. They know they have a champion they can trust and
would vastly prefer having him cover their six than on FoxNews as a ‘retired’ commentator.
I used McNamara as an example in one of several posts
( http://www.coalitionoftheswilling.net/archives/2006/04/were_torn_on_th.html )
on this subject. If ANY of those Vietnam generals had a SHRED of moral fortitude, how on EARTH do you think they felt when that a$$hole’s book came out and betrayed them. They’d kept the faith, held the line, even after there was no UCMJ penalty
hanging over their heads for speaking out…yet they didn’t. And then along comes the old SecDef to say it was all lies. Kids died for his lies ~ no snappy slogan there, just the truth. They don’t call it the Vietnam generation for nothing ~ we’ve
got a whole traumatized slice of American service members who felt betrayed, WERE betrayed and are still paying for it.
And what a load of hooey ~ “threatening the trust between civilian/military” ~ PUH-leez! These officers are RETIRED, served faithfully and well; EXECUTED THEIR
ORDERS to the best of their abilities in accordance with the constitutional oath they swore. I could be mis-stating, but I believe only one officer has said he ‘spoke for active duty members’ and THAT WAS 100% WRONG and inexcusably arrogant. There is no speaking for ‘active duty members’. The President, SecDef and Congress speak for them. As for lumping the others in with him, how dare someone question
the fabric of our democracy because a RETIRED officer spoke his mind? Is the military
to be forever accountable to the UCMJ and the strictures contained therein regardless of their active status, while their appointed civilian leaders are never subjected to eventual scrutiny from those who served? Is there small print on the retired
paystub requiring the beneficiary to be mute for life to accept it?
Those who have never had to live under such an edict for an extended period of time need to think about that a smidge before so roundly dismissing what these fellows are saying. General Zinni was NOT part of this administration’s war efforts and
has been speaking plainly since he retired. And for example ~ (agree with their viewpoints or not) NO one seems to have a problem with McCain, Wesley Clark or Murtha
speaking out, who are ALL retired senior officers. (How the hell do you get elected if you can’t offer an opinion?) Or is it only ungentlemanly, unseemly and seditious if it’s JUST your opinion and you’re NOT running for office?
The military is so often viewed as second-class, sub-human citizens. Are they obligated to remain that way even after they’ve served honorably and well?
(I was an active duty United States Marine for 12 1/2 years, but I’ve been out since
’92, so I’m supposing this is okay to write. After all, EVERYone’s entitled to their opinion…eventually.)
Thanks.
tree hugging sister
http://www.coalitionoftheswilling.net
Not sure what precisely the point on McNamara was, but otherwise well said.
I think it is important that we value the opinions of these generals and face up to the incompetence with which this administration has executed the war in Iraq.
Just because they’re extolled by hard-core liberals does not mean they are to be dismissed.
On a side note, comparing our “left” to Germany’s “left” or Russia’s “left” was a fairly idiotic topic. Remember if you go far back enough, the “right” were all those monarchs and emperors fighting Napoleon, but I in no ways use that to judge modern conservatives.
Sorry to say I didn’t quite make it to the end, tree hugging sister, but I get long winded too, so it’s all good.
For what it’s worth, as former enlisted I have two separate reactions to this… first, for those flag officers who were retired before our present conflict started, I sort of roll my eyes and make grumbling “what is the point of this” noises.
For those flag officers who served in this conflict, but kept their mouths shut until they were safely retired, I have contempt and anger.
Because if this is important enough to say, then it always has been important enough to say, and they failed in their duty to the troops they served… or didn’t serve, as the case may be. Apparently because they valued their career more than they valued their job.
Because officers *can* speak, even though the where, when and how, are more constrained than enlisted endure. But they *can* and they are duty bound to do so.
That Abu Ghraib idiot woman used-to-be-a-general makes me even madder. She wasn’t punished for speaking up or making waves, she was punished for not doing a d*mned thing. But afterward… oh, she’s got advice about all sorts of “problems” the military has. Not so long ago she was telling us that female soldiers were dying of dehydration for fear of night-time potty trips and the rampant rape on our bases… yes, after she’s not a general anymore. What the heck did she do while she was in a possition to do something about the “problems?” Nothing.
Any general who choses not to make waves, when waves are called for, doesn’t deserve to be in uniform, and we can only be glad they are not in uniform any longer.
No William, we can dismiss them because either, 1) they weren’t in on the planning and are operating on the second hand information we all have, or 2) they were in on planning and execution and, at the time, clearly decided that the “mistakes” weren’t worth making a stink.
Besides which… do you think generals agree with each other? Do you suppose war planning involves consensus building? The fact that some fellows had other ideas about the best way to proceed is a no-brainer. Probably every single officer of flag rank would have made different choices.
The question is… so?
The antiwar movements in this country have always been willing to embrace officers who said the words they wanted to hear, like McClellan and Smedley Butler. This is nothing new.
The thing about the generals in question at present is, I don’t trust them as a matter of character. Wesley Clark’s performance in the Balkans was erratic enough to get him an early out (ordering your troops to throw down on each other, kinda embarrassing… especially when they tell you no). And Zinni’s behavior since his retirement has been nothing less than reprehensible. He steals money from enlisted men, guys, with that First Command scam.
I have no time for men like that or those who would run with them.
Here are two good links on the whole general’s flap.
Q and O Blog
and
In from the Cold
The left isn’t preparing us for a military dictatorship… just a good catered affair with marines serving caviar on melba toast. The Generals want a shot at the head waiter positions.
The Clinton’s proved this.
Yes, Rumsfeld was probably exposed to a variety of plans, but he still picked the wrong one. When somebody makes the wrong decision, they are responsible for it.
Worse, he made didn’t just pick the wrong plan, he picked the lazy plan. He didn’t know that a leaner force would be more effective, evidence actually pointed to the contrary. He did know it would cost less (in the short term) and create less political stress.
So… our SOD is incompetent. We should fix it.
Actually, that’s an idiotic question.
You say that like you know it’s true, William.
The fact is that we don’t and *can’t* know what result other choices would have had. Nor do we expect that any plan will be without it’s own set of drawbacks… all hypothetical at the time decisions are made.
Hindsight is important while planning the *next* action, not the last one.
Leadership principles practiced at the top set the tone for everything all the way down to some poor private making a decision to enter a building through a door or through the window. It’s more important to *make* a decision than to make the best decision, and the poor fellow can’t be worried about getting reamed for making the wrong choice when he’s looking at the door and the window and trying to decide.
You watch movies, don’t you? Ever see one where the bad guy punishes his minions when they make mistakes? I watched one of those last night. This is not good management practice. It destroys morale. You can’t treat people like that and expect them to do dangerous work effectively.
If Rummy were completely hopeless it would be different. That he’s not godlike perfection is irrelevant.
If the attitude of the latest traitors (Generals) is an indication we are very lucky that we kept Algore out of office and even more fortunate that the known traitor Hanoi John was sent packing. The had the defense department, FBI, and CIA packed with left wing leberals (all indications these days say ‘communist’) and were poised to take over the entire government. If Hellary get in that will be your last vote in a free country. The next election will be like Saddam’s, she will get 99.9999 % of the votes and those (.0001 %) that voted differently will be found years later in a mass grave.
Zinni’s Zinger?
Tuesday , April 18, 2006
By Brit Hume
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:
Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni
The, too, wasn’t it Zinni in charge during the fiasco in Mogadishu?
Also, from BigLizards at
“the New York Times article:
Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically.” Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that “Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.”
Um… wasn’t 2003 and 2004 the period during which our training of the Iraqi Army was completely botched? There was a lot of controversy at the time among those who thought we should have just kept the Baathist Iraqi Army and put new commanders in charge. The training during this period was a disaster, with Iraqi Army units literally fleeing in panic from the insurgents and the terrorists, the first Fallujah campaign (where the Iraqi Army let Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda In Mesopotamia escape), and so forth.
TO: Tree Huggin Marine
RE: What a Bunch of Hooey
“A General or senior officer on the otherhand spends 25 to 30 years of his life in compensated servitude to his country. When he raises that right hand for the oath,
he has effectively (and willingly) abdicated any of the rights he has as a citizen until such time as he no longer is in the service of his country.” — Tree Hugging Sister
Seems to me that huggin all those trees turned your [BAM] brain,gray matter to so much excrible ‘fertilizer’.
Just because someone raised their hand and swore to defend the Constitution against “all enemies; foreign and domestic”, they didn’t give up their rights under the Consitution.
You know…’right to bear arms’, ‘freedom of religion’, ‘freedom of the press’, ‘freedom of speech’, etc., etc., etc.
Otherwise, they’d all be rather combative monks in some red-white-and-blue monastic order.
The point here being that WE, who DID swear to give up our lives for everything we hold dear are just as entitled to speak as anyone else….as long as we are non-partisan about it.
I know, because I’ve argued non-partisan politics before the state house of reps IN UNIFORM.
The issue, at one time, being giving servicemen and women in this state the right to pay ‘resident’ tuition for classes they attended at the state universities.
THAT’s ‘non-partisan’ politics.
What THESE cretins have done is NOT ‘non-partisan’.
Go back to huggin your trees….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Colorado Master Gardener (Apprentice)….THIS year…..
P.S. There ARE some degenerative diseases ‘trees’ sustain by ‘direct contact’; e.g., dutch elm disease. I suspect our tree hugg’n BAM has contracted some such ailment…..
P.P.S. And where most such disorders are some form of root or cambian rot, I think hers is of a ‘higher’ order.
Either way, most of these disorders are fungal in nature.
Go fig…..
The guy that wastes half his words mocking Ms. Tree Hugger’s alias is also an expert non-partisan debater. Right.
Julie, you act as though this was the choice between no decision and the wrong decision. It entirely was not. There were two paths. The tried and tested one, the Powell Doctrine, which worked, or his new-fangled “we can do everything with nothing”.
For my part, this is not hindsite either. At the time of the invasion, I thought it bizarre that we were merely passing through most of Iraq without leaving garrisons behind. I dismissed such thoughts as strategic ignorance, in retrospect they were not.
Yet what disturbs me most in your arguments is the notion that we cannot do better. If such a thing is true, then we cannot afford another Iraq, and thus we cannot afford to bring democracy to anymore countries. We can do better, but the first step toward fixing a problem is admitting you have one.
I’m not touting a partisan line. I doubt the liberals could do any better. I just want to see incompetence called out and accounted for.
Ah, two paths. Right and Wrong.
Tried and true. Untested and false. But nothing in between. How simple.
Tell me please… where were we supposed to get troops to garrison a whole country when Clinton reduced our forces so badly? And would we not then be clearly, in all ways – political and psychological, an occupation force?
And after three years and several elections and strife and corruption and striving, our people are still very locally concentrated. I’m sure most Iraqis never see us at all.
But three years is failure? By what measure? Suppose we had an army to occupy, pacify and control every square mile… suppose we moved in slowly, taking months to reach Baghdad or even longer, while Saddam hung on and those in prisons waited and the lives of people were exactly what can be expected of a slow siege. But suppose we did and we fortified and we garrisoned and we occupied every date palm grove and bit of sand. Three years later what would we have? Would we really be closer to a free and democratic Iraq? I don’t see how.
As light as possible a touch has many advantages. A slow and steady slog has many disadvantages.
Tell me where, please, did the Powell doctrine work? Where was it tried and tested? I’m pretty darned sure that the Powell doctrine never lead to the long term occupation and rebuilding of any nation in the world. So how tested? How obviously better?
Besides, clearly it’s not doing “better” that interests you in this but in “accountability.” You want someone punished. That is not a clear headed evaluation of strategic decisions to figure out what worked or didn’t work in the context of the particular situation, but a political accounting, a blood letting for sins committed.
Mistakes were made at every level, of course they were. Correct decisions and choices were made as well. It’s not that we can’t do better but that better is a point on the line on graph, somewhere between cluster f*ck and godhood.
It’s not a “yes or no” question with a “yes or no” answer.
Nor is it something that you or I could figure out, even if we actually were brilliant, this close to events. The pros and cons will be debated and discussed and argued over for generations by those who study war professionaly.
I don’t think he meant “tauting” or “touting.” I think he meant “taunting.”
Just an opinion.
Chickenhawk, was first used to define certain rightwing types in a comic page that saw mass distribution in Al Franken’s widely read “Rush Limbaugh is a big Fat Idiot, and Other Observations.” The title was “Operation Chickenhawk” featuring Ollie North leading Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, George Will, Phil Gramm and Newt into battle in Vietnam…..[Ollie gets fragged by the troops.]
So, Green, what is the worry? comic pages getting you down now?
Of course I want to improve our performance, not fire people, but accountability is most certainly part of doing better. Identify the problem so that you can solve it.
Fair enough, the Powell doctrine has not been applied to the occupation of a country, but I still believe it stood a better chance.
As for a massive occupation, I do not equate that with a longer conquest. I do equate that with guaranteed security. Better the people of Iraq be intimately familiar with our soldiers than the various insurgents, terrorists, and militias. My proof? Our occupation and rebuilding efforts in Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Granted, a huge force does not guarantee ultimate victory, it must go hand in hand with a good PR and rebuilding effort among other items, elsewise see Vietnam.
I certainly will not take this newly proposed path of yours, the claim that we are too ignorant to pass judgement, much less discuss, such issues.
Obviously we do not have access to all the information our government did, but we are also freed from many dis-advantageous biases, such as political ideology and their tendency to minimize effort.
Additionally, if anything Iraq should look better than the real situation, not worse, seeing as our government controls most of the information and is further reinforced by the vast persuasive resources of the Republican Party.
Finally, it is up to we, the people, to pass judgement on the success and failure of this war, and thus the re-election of its various proponents and executers. Having such a decision to make, is it not wise we fully discuss the issue and draw firm conclusions?
I’ve got no problem with the discussion. I have a problem with the need to draw firm conclusions. Because so much of it is and always will be hypothetical any conclusion is pretty much limited to a best guess.
William: As for a massive occupation, I do not equate that with a longer conquest. I do equate that with guaranteed security. Better the people of Iraq be intimately familiar with our soldiers than the various insurgents, terrorists, and militias. My proof? Our occupation and rebuilding efforts in Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Look – this has been discussed many times. Every military effort is different. The response is always different. The key is commitment. You know that occupation of Germany that you cite as an example of guaranteed security? That’s not true at all. A number of groups held out against the allies and raised fears that our efforts to rebuild would be fruitless. So your proof falls apart.
Boilerman10: Chickenhawk, was first used to define certain rightwing types in a comic page . . .
Apart from the grammar typo, you are wrong in this assertion. The term chickenhawk, used in a political context, has been around for a while. I remember hearing it used to describe Vietnam-era incidents.
MakeMineRed
Willie, i want you to explain HOW the Powell COULD be applied to the occupation of a country.
last time I checked, the two were mutually exclusive