« Beneficial inaction | Main | Important bases »
May 02, 2006
On the revolt of the ex-generals
The latest wave of criticism to target Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has come from a cadre of distinguished, retired generals. It differs significantly, however, from previous attacks on the secretary of defense. More than simply calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, it raises a fundamental question about U.S. military policy: Has the concept of civilian control of the military gone awry?
The recent criticism is most distinguishable by its sources. Calls for Rumsfeld's resignation have come from at least six generals, including Marine Lt. General Greg Newbold (ret.), director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002; Maj. General John Batiste (ret.), who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005; and Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.), former chief of the U.S. Central Command.
The substance and source of this criticism has created a unique alliance of sorts. For Democrats, liberals and everyone else instinctively opposed to the Iraq war, the notion of military officers criticizing the Bush administration is a priceless commodity. The political left in the United States has long been tagged -- rightly or wrongly -- with an intense aversion to all things military. For them to criticize President Bush is nothing remarkable; it is entirely expected.
But when military officers with distinguished service histories and combat records join their chorus, people take notice.
Beyond the specifics of Rumsfeld's management of the Iraq war, however, this alliance of liberals and generals risks confusion and misinterpretation. The principle of civilian control of the military is enshrined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the president exercises this authority directly and through subordinates such as the secretary of defense. By so eagerly claiming the generals' criticisms as their own, however, the political left could appear to be challenging this constitutional principle. That alone would contradict the political left's own intellectual and antiwar roots. In terms of who should control the U.S. Armed Forces, then, does military expertise trump civilian accountability?
The answer may not be as simple as it appears. On the basis of fact alone, the criticisms leveled by the retired generals appear sound. The situation in Iraq remains violent and unsettled -- conditions that can be traced to decisions made before the war and shortly after the invasion. Rumsfeld's pre-Sept. 11 goals to reform the military into a leaner, more technologically advanced fighting force may have been sound in theory and even in certain cases of practice, such as the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But his ideological and political rigidity has cost time, treasure, and lives in post-invasion Iraq.
The attraction of the so-called ''generals' revolt'' for the political left is thus readily apparent. But this attraction must be treated with caution, for it risks adopting a shortsighted view of history. During the Korean War, Gen. Douglas MacArthur brazenly challenged President Truman's authority when he publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons on China. In 1951, Truman fired the immensely popular general, and he suffered politically in doing so. But history has judged Truman's decision to be the correct one. By risking his short-term popularity, Truman reasserted a fundamental constitutional principle at the very outset of the Cold War and the nuclear age.
The current situation requires not just a reassessment of the short-term strategy in Iraq. It also demands a far-sighted vision for how civilian leadership of the military will function in the future. The questions raised may be academic in nature, but they are immensely important. Much as Truman did in the 1950s, the United States today finds itself in the early years of what may well be a long, dangerous and endemic military conflict. Fundamentally, the principle of accountability must reign supreme. Military officers -- as tempered with experience and caution as they may be -- are not directly accountable to citizens at large. Civilians -- as arrogant, wrong-headed and eager to fight as they may be -- necessarily are.
San Francisco Chronicle, 2 May 2006
Posted by Daniel Widome at 09:40 AM to U. S. Politics
