“I was only following orders.” The very, very model of a modern Major General – and that’s the problem.
On March 19, 2006, recently retired Major General Paul D. Eaton, in an Op-Ed in The New York Times, called for the immediate dismissal of his erstwhile boss, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld, he argued, “is not competent to lead our armed forces.” He went on to state: “In sum, he (Rumsfeld) has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq.”
Major General Eaton then went on to say: “In the five years, Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon, I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.”
Brave stuff – and there is no doubt that Secretary Rumsfeld has a great deal to answer for – but it misses the key point that that the our Army generals are at least as much to blame. In effect, General Eaton is trying to distance the Club of Generals from the fiasco in Iraq – and his accusations will not stand because it was and remains the job of those very same generals to implement the policies of the administration, and the evidence quite clearly shows that their track record has been abysmal.
Look no further than the results after three years of war in Iraq. Precisely how can one invade a country with no plans for what do after the invasion is successful? That defies credulity. Then consider the fact that one of the poorest nations in the world has fought the richest nation in the world to a halt even though we are spending $6.8 billion a month there. That is a demonstration of incompetence by those in charge, the generals, on an epic scale. Then factor in Abu Ghraib and the consistent way in which the blame has been kept away from general officers – even when the evidence points clearly in their direction.
Simply put, the generals must be held accountable too. They are the interface between policy and action, and the notion that they can wriggle out of responsibility because they had not got the guts to stand up to Secretary Rumsfeld is more a condemnation of the lack of character of our generals than a criticism of the Secretary.
Honorable generals resign – and then speak out publicly - when asked to do things they are fundamentally opposed to. Instead, the current crop of generals has chosen to put its careers ahead of country, its lavishly paid defense contractor retirement jobs ahead of the welfare of its soldiers, and to adopt the Nuremburg strategy: I was only following orders. It’s someone else’s fault.
That will not do. When you are a general, with all the authority, prestige, rewards and responsibilities of such a position, you have a proportionate duty of care towards the nation you have sworn to defend. If you take your oath as an officer seriously, you do not have the option to be a moral coward and to take refuge in groupthink. Morally, you must do the right thing. It is your obligation as an American soldier, and it is your sworn duty as a general.
Or it used to be. All too many of the current crop seem to lack the competence, character and values which the rank of general requires.
Retired Major General Eaton concludes his article by urging that Congress must assert itself. He points out: “Too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call our generals, colonels, captains and sergeant to testify frequently…”
He is partially right, but he misses the two main points: Firstly, the Senate needs to pay much closer attention to the caliber of the generals it confirms. Secondly, it must hold the generals of this Great Nation accountable in the fullest sense of the word – or Iraq will merely be another name on a list of grotesquely expensive military disasters.
Rumsfeld, he argued, “is not competent to lead our armed forces.” He went on to state: “In sum, he (Rumsfeld) has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq.”
Major General Eaton then went on to say: “In the five years, Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon, I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.”
Brave stuff – and there is no doubt that Secretary Rumsfeld has a great deal to answer for – but it misses the key point that that the our Army generals are at least as much to blame. In effect, General Eaton is trying to distance the Club of Generals from the fiasco in Iraq – and his accusations will not stand because it was and remains the job of those very same generals to implement the policies of the administration, and the evidence quite clearly shows that their track record has been abysmal.
Look no further than the results after three years of war in Iraq. Precisely how can one invade a country with no plans for what do after the invasion is successful? That defies credulity. Then consider the fact that one of the poorest nations in the world has fought the richest nation in the world to a halt even though we are spending $6.8 billion a month there. That is a demonstration of incompetence by those in charge, the generals, on an epic scale. Then factor in Abu Ghraib and the consistent way in which the blame has been kept away from general officers – even when the evidence points clearly in their direction.
Simply put, the generals must be held accountable too. They are the interface between policy and action, and the notion that they can wriggle out of responsibility because they had not got the guts to stand up to Secretary Rumsfeld is more a condemnation of the lack of character of our generals than a criticism of the Secretary.
Honorable generals resign – and then speak out publicly - when asked to do things they are fundamentally opposed to. Instead, the current crop of generals has chosen to put its careers ahead of country, its lavishly paid defense contractor retirement jobs ahead of the welfare of its soldiers, and to adopt the Nuremburg strategy: I was only following orders. It’s someone else’s fault.
That will not do. When you are a general, with all the authority, prestige, rewards and responsibilities of such a position, you have a proportionate duty of care towards the nation you have sworn to defend. If you take your oath as an officer seriously, you do not have the option to be a moral coward and to take refuge in groupthink. Morally, you must do the right thing. It is your obligation as an American soldier, and it is your sworn duty as a general.
Or it used to be. All too many of the current crop seem to lack the competence, character and values which the rank of general requires.
Retired Major General Eaton concludes his article by urging that Congress must assert itself. He points out: “Too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call our generals, colonels, captains and sergeant to testify frequently…”
He is partially right, but he misses the two main points: Firstly, the Senate needs to pay much closer attention to the caliber of the generals it confirms. Secondly, it must hold the generals of this Great Nation accountable in the fullest sense of the word – or Iraq will merely be another name on a list of grotesquely expensive military disasters.
posted by Victor at
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home