Another Take On Retired Generals

Some pundits are still going on about a select few retired General Officers criticizing the Sec Def and the Iraq War. I admit the issue has given me enough concern to continue pondering it longer than normal. I'd like to offer what might be a somewhat different point of view. Or, at least a view I haven't seen clearly expressed.

I wonder if some of it isn't a form of Vietnam syndrome not quite as politically motivated as pundits, who see the world in terms of Left and Right, might think.

Until now the media has unsuccessfully tried to paint Iraq as a new Vietnam. I'd still argue it is far from that. But even Generals, retired or not, are subject to influence. And history has shown that some Generals can ultimately be pessimistic, or somewhat defeatist just like anyone else.

For the General Officer of today, Vietnam is still a defining moment in contemporary military history. And what is it that actually happened there? The media, the politicians and ultimately the society itself failed the military and left them holding the bag.

Politicians didn't pursue victory and it ultimately led to soldiers, not politicians being spat upon in the streets. I am not suggesting that is happening in Iraq, only that some senior officers may have reason to be over-sensitive to such an event.

And what would a military loyalist who happens to be a retired officer do if he or she, rightly or wrongly, sensed another Vietnam? I'd argue they might attempt to distance the military from its civilian leadership while blaming them so as not to allow the military to be left holding the bag, again.

I'm not defending the Generals and certainly some likely do have political motivations. But it is also quite possible that, victims of their own pasts, their thinking is shrouded in sort of a Vietnam influenced haze.

I still believe their speaking out is wrong. But I am also suggesting at least some may be doing it out of an unnecessary and perhaps even misguided loyalty to the military in a world they see as military versus civilian, more so than Left and Right.

While still thinking it a bad decision, which Generals can and do make, my new perspective fits my thinking somewhat better as I have always thought the absolute best of our military and its officer corp.

Comments

[bryce]

Creating a democracy in an a country where the majority of people believe that if you blow yourself up, you get the spend eternity with a bunch of virgins is a bad idea, who wants to hang out with a bunch of virgins anyway?

At this point Iraq is not a winnable situation and the generals seem to be acknowledging that.

[Phoenix]

Nice analysis, Dan.

There is no denying a chasm between civilian leadership and military leadership. It has always existed. But your bringing in the possibility of some psychological, 'traumatic' memories of Vietnam that these generals may still hold is a valid perspective. Some of these generals fought in Vietnam, and no doubt felt the sting of the civilian reaction personally.

For every overt reaction there is an equal covert stimulus that feeds that reaction. While it may not be true for all the generals who are speaking out, I have no doubt that 'internal feed' is affecting them even now.

Good for you for picking up on this. It is a fair analysis, for sure.

[Colorado]

If the generals are speaking out because they are politically motivated to bring the president down, I think they are despicable. But if they believe in what they say, and find it safer to speak out in retirement, I understand.
You learn early on as a lietenant, captain and major, that it is your responsibility to advise your seniors when you disagree with their decisions. But you also learn, that after they listen and tell you that you are about to cross the line, that you should shut up. Do we know if these generals voiced objections while on active duty and were silenced? That would be interesting.

[Phoenix]

Good point, Colorado. My father was a career Army officer, retired Colonel. I heard plenty about the chain of command. I had a chance to talk to my dad a few weeks ago, and we talked about his time in the Army. He was in for thirty-three years. He is not an out-spoken man, but when I asked him about the good and bad times of his service, he said it all depended on his superior officers. Many of the officers who were on the track to make general were pretty much jerks willing to silence anyone and willing to step on anyone. (You see that in the civilian world, too.) But in the military, you shut up. Word eventually gets around about a bad officer, but usually not before he's ruined a few good men.

[The Observer]

I don't think Iraq is as bad a situation (yet) as Vietnam was. However, there are some similarities. In both cases, it seems that the military (specifically, the generals who had to implement the wishes of the civilian leaders) didn't have confidence in what the civilian leaders were doing. The attempt to use attrition to make the Vietnamese back down, never invading and taking North Vietnam, not understanding that the Vietnamese were fighting a war of independence and were enemies of Red China, et cetera, were not sound strategies. (It is my understanding that early on, the American military as a whole and the American public as a whole were not against the Vietnam war. However, as it began to drag on and casualties mounted, support waned...) After 11 years of fighting and many, many thousands of people being killed, the U.S. basically walked away. I can't imagine how it must have felt when Johnson went on TV in '68 and told the American people he wasn't going to try and win the war (paraphrasing). His pennance? He decided not to seek re-election. (As if he would have won for getting that many people needlessly killed...)
Similarieties? We went to war in Iraq when we were not only NOT attacked (at least Johnson bothered to dream up the pretense of an attack with the Gulf of Tonkin incident), but Iraq couldn't even begin to be a threat to us. Once again we went into a country where we didn't seem to understand the politics of the region, in the case of Iraq, the infighting that goes on between different groups. Rumsfeld's decision to use a light and fast military force (worked quite well against a very weak military, but hasn't worked well for occupation) versus the big military force Franks wanted to use. Plus, the reasons for going (WMD) were complete nonsense:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html

I think these generals are speaking out because a lot of damage is being done to the military/guard reserves by what is taking place and it will take years for the military to recover from it (as was the case after the Vietnam war). Plus, if the U.S. really was attacked, it seems like we'd be hard-pressed not to resort to some form of nuclear weapons.

[Phoenix]

It doesn't matter 'why' we went into Iraq. We had to. And we have to establish a presence there for years to come - even if it's a small base with the world's best spy tools and most secret weaponry. That is the neo-con stance. They do have the ability for forward-vision. Somebody has to have it. All this backward second-guessing gets us nowhere. Ignorant appeasement and wishful thinking and isolationism will just get us skunked.

I don't doubt mistakes were made. No war is without them. But what good does it do to harp on them over and over again?

[The Observer]

Why did we have to go into Iraq? It is obvious that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. and Bush has said several times that there was NO connection between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, so why attack them? What was different about Iraq when we were giving him lots of aid versus when we invaded?

The reason for harping on the mistakes is so they are not made again (and again and again). These "mistakes" are getting a lot of people killed. (Note that not many, if any, of the famed neo-cons participated in a war themselves.)

[Phoenix]

>(Note that not many, if any, of the famed neo-cons participated in a war themselves.)<

Yeah? And men don't give birth but they sure have a lot to say about abortion.

Why should we be in Iraq? Better to ask why not. We need a presence in the Levant. Lots of countries over there, many with nuclear capabilities, who would love to see the end of us. And Israel.

Why have we had bases all over the world? Pick any base and determine if our country's security or national interests played a role in our presence there. That should answer your question.

The reason people are harping on the mistakes at this time is purely political gouging. Not until a war is long over can analysts study what went right and what went wrong, evaluate the entire picture, and then synthesize it for future reference. Sitting around bitching about it in the midst of action is solely for political purpose.

[The Observer]

Men have a lot to say about abortion because men contribute 50% to the creation of a child.

"And Israel."

That is probably most of why we are in Iraq. I also suspect the main reason why we are not popular in the region is we support Israel, and that is all. Otherwise, I doubt the Arabs would have a beef with us. It is funny when you think about it, that Israel engages in many of the practices they decried in others. The U.S. is in a funny position in that regard. We tell China that they need to improve on their human rights record (and they do) yet we ignore Israel sticking it to the Palestinians.....

I would argue that we really don't need a presence in that part of the world. The U.S. isn't going to be attacked by any of those countries, so why should American men and women die over there? (This was the obvious question of the Vietnam War as well....)

OK, I'll pick some countries...Germany? Italy? Spain? Greece? Aren't they all part of the EU? Can't they work together and defend themselves? Are they worried that the Russians are going to attack? The Germans sure aren't, based on the way they are doing business with them. Why do we still have bases over there? Korea? I suspect the North Koreans can't attack the U.S. and are unlikely to attack South Korea. Japan? They have the 2nd largest economy in the world. Let them pay for their own defense. Turkey? Only use bases there to meddle in the Middle East.

"Not until a war is long over can analysts study what went right and what went wrong, evaluate the entire picture, and then synthesize it for future reference."

Not true. At the peak of Vietnam when over 300 Americans a week were being killed and the end of the war was nowhere in sight, I'm quite sure military and politicians alike didn't need the benefit of years to tell things were going wrong. In Iraq, when they realized ("they" being the politicians who favored invasion...the military knew what was going to happen) that rather than celebrating with happy, freed Iraqis, they had a beehive of pissed-off, factious Iraqis, they realized many mistakes had been made. In the military's case they knew the reasons for going to war were BS to begin with; they didn't need the passage of years and analysts to tell them things were wrong.

[The Observer]

"Lots of countries over there, many with nuclear capabilities, who would love to see the end of us."

Other than Israel, what countries in the Middle East have nuclear weapons? Syria? Iran? Iraq? Jordan? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Libya?

I don't believe any of those countries have nuclear weapons.

[The Observer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23military.htmlei=5094&en=d9c90a77b877dfd6&hp=&ex=1145764800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[rwilymz]

I get so tired of this:

"Observer" asks:
"Why did we have to go into Iraq?"

We did not *have* to go *in*. We were, though, stationed around Iraq as the bulk of the UN's containment force, and were obliged to stay on babysitting duty until:
1] the UN authorized the release of US troops to that commitment, or
2] the UN replaced the US troops with those from other nations.

"It is obvious that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. and Bush has said several times that there was NO connection between Iraq and the September 11th attacks"

All speculative, somewhat situationally incorrect, and irrelevant.

Depending on what you mean by "threat" and in what context you mean it, Iraq was either "no threat" or Iraq was "continually attacking the US".

Since I work in a field which requires that I understand the diplomatic realities of the situation, I am in a position to see both perspectives; most people who claim that "Iraq was no threat", however, do not understand the international diplomatic realities and are flummoxed when presented with Diplomacy 101.

"so why attack them?"

1] The US had 110,000 committed to the UN's containment of Iraq, and was obliged to maintain that force for the UN until the UN released or replaced US troops. The easiest way for the UN to release US troops would have been for the UNSC to have declared that Iraq was no longer a threat to regional peace and stability -- which the UNSC would not do.
2] Iraq was under very tight, some [including me] have termed it "versailles-like", cease-fire restrictions. A cease-fire is a very very very specific form of international treaty, a contract, if you will. It is never stated in any cease fire, but the penalties for violating the terms of the cease fire are: you legitimize military action being taken against you.

In other words: you break the rules, we get to kill you. How we kill you is up to us.

"What was different about Iraq when we were giving him lots of aid versus when we invaded?"

The 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire.

"The reason for harping on the mistakes is so they are not made again (and again and again). These "mistakes" are getting a lot of people killed."

Define "a lot". By historical comparisons [which is the only valid form of comparison you can make] the Iraq invasion/conquest/occupation is very very very tame. Modern US wars kill far fewer across all categories than any other wars at any other point in history, for the objectives they achieve.

Conquer and occupy [for three years] a nation of 25 million and only inflict a few tens of thousands enemy military deaths and a few thousand of your own, and inflict only a few thousand civilian deaths ... If your name is Caesar, or Alexander, or Ghengis, or Napoleon, or Saladin, the task is impossible.

"(Note that not many, if any, of the famed neo-cons participated in a war themselves.)"

This might be pertinent if it meant anything. Most people who recite it assume that the mere utterance of a dismissive is enough to forestall debate. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Explain the pertinence to a nation existing in a society in which political power is largely independent of military credentials.

[rwilymz]

"Observer" continues to be unobservant and opines:

"That is probably most of why we are in Iraq."

Your zionist-conspiracy theories are noted for the record.

"I also suspect the main reason why we are not popular in the region is we support Israel, and that is all."

Hmmm. So prior to 1973 we should have been given a pan-islamist pass, then, eh?

So was it Pan-Am or TWA jets which were hijacked and blown up in the Jordanian desert in 1971?

Why did US shipping in the Mediterranean get pirated in 1784 again...? Oh yes, that's right, we supported Israel.

"Otherwise, I doubt the Arabs would have a beef with us."

The "east" has had a beef with the "west" since before the advent of writing. "Arabs" are merely the current manifestation of that beef.

"It is funny when you think about it, that Israel engages in many of the practices they decried in others. The U.S. is in a funny position in that regard."

oh, DO tell.

"We tell China that they need to improve on their human rights record (and they do)"

They do? That's certainly news.

"yet we ignore Israel sticking it to the Palestinians....."

Diplomacy 101 again. If you are a sovereign nation and you are repeatedly attacked by external military or paramilitary forces you are permitted to respond militarily to such attacks; you are also permitted to take the attacker's land and occupy it, or annex it, at your pleasure, and treat the inhabitants pretty much as you like.

Rude? perhaps, but historically valid.

Don't think so? Then return East Prussia to Germany. Return Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, Corsica to Italy, Thrace to Byzantium, etc, etc, etc.

The Palestinians started not one, not two, not even three wars of conquest and expurgation against the recognized state of Israel, and lost, each and every time. It was in 1967 war Israel said "enough" and remained in occupational control over the lands housing [some of] the people who repeatedly attacked them. Under international law, this is their right to do.

Under international law, the inhabitants are Israeli citizens to the degree Israel's laws define them such. Policing them becomes an internal matter and not really subject to international control; mere nanny-booing will suffice.

[Similarly, Darfur is not an internationally viable issue, unless Sudan violates a neighbors territorial sovereignty while being merde-heels to its own people. You, however, are free to cry all you want.]

Now, we can sit back all judgmental and say "But Israel isn't polite to its Arab residents" and I'd agree with you; Israel is extremely harsh and not uncommonly high-handed. But an extremely large portion of Israel's Arab residents are actively attempting to eliminate the people and the government of a sovereign nation, which is called insurrection, and it suddenly becomes less a matter of civil law than military.

[rwilymz]

To continue...

"I would argue that we really don't need a presence in that part of the world."

Then I'd argue that you're channeling Buchananist isolationism and are inviting the next Pearl Harbor or 9-11.

"The U.S. isn't going to be attacked by any of those countries"

The US was attacked repeatedly by Iraq between 1991 and 2002. Diplomacy 101: every military station is an extension of a nation's sovereignty. When Iraq fired at US aircraft, they attacked the US. The USS Cole ... Khobar Towers... Blackhawk Down...

The two embassies that were bombed... diplomatic missions are also an extension of soveriegnty.

Teheran, 1978. Beirut, 1983[?].

"OK, I'll pick some countries...Germany? Italy? Spain? Greece? Aren't they all part of the EU? Can't they work together and defend themselves?"

Good question. Ask Merckel, et al.

"Why do we still have bases over there?"

In no small part, because the host nations don't want us to leave. A US base is a guaranteed economic pick-me-up, always has been. What goes along *with* the economic benefits may be a downer, but every silver lining has a black cloud as it were.

"Korea? I suspect the North Koreans can't attack the U.S."

Suspect again...

"and are unlikely to attack South Korea."

The US is way more than willing to leave the Korean peninsula, we have the SKorean's blessing and the UN's to boot. ...we are in Korea under terms of a UN cease-fire enforcement as well, and can't leave without UN permission.

Only one problem: the UN has put a caveat on our departure: we cannot destabilize the region by leaving. Every time we talk about pulling our troops out of Korea [and the backups and reserves from Okinawa and Japan] Kim plays the Castro card: accuse the US of imminent invasion. Then mobilize your forces and and rattle as many sabers as you have.

Remember the headlines? "Kim: US Threatens Nuclear Attack; US Troop Pullout to Avoid Radiation"

That is inherently destabilizing, and hence, we can't leave.

"Japan? They have the 2nd largest economy in the world. Let them pay for their own defense. Turkey? Only use bases there to meddle in the Middle East."

Until 1990 they were there to meddle in the Cold War. But you've got largely the same problem as with our bases in Germany, Italy and Spain: our presence creates cash flow for a somewhat backward economy. The Turks may be populated by somewhat pan-islamist adherants, but their government knows which side of the bread is buttered, and who's buttering it.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[rwilymz]

ad nauseum:

"At the peak of Vietnam when over 300 Americans a week were being killed and the end of the war was nowhere in sight, I'm quite sure military and politicians alike didn't need the benefit of years to tell things were going wrong."

How does that translate across military strategic planning?

"General Eisenhower/McArthur, sir, the operations to push the Hun/Jap back are extremely costly in lives, taking 500 soldiers a week. The end of the war is nowhere in sight. Are you sure this wasn't a very foolish move...?"

Howzat work for ya?

In all actuality, the US won virtually every military engagement which occurred in Vietnam. Even in the withdrawal, VC forces were attempting military actions that they failed to achieve, and the withdrawal out-Dunkirked Dunkirk.

"In Iraq, when they realized that rather than celebrating with happy, freed Iraqis, they had a beehive of pissed-off, factious Iraqis, they realized many mistakes had been made."

Mistakes are always made. So what? It's how you handle them that matters.

"("they" being the politicians who favored invasion...the military knew what was going to happen)"

You say that as if "the military" was this big monolithic entity which has one and only one opinion and a crystal ball. It is not. Here's how military planning works:
a group of people who've studied military strategy get together to say "what if there was a ... civil war in Canada from Quebeci secession... how would we respond?" and they invite folks who have studied the geography of Canada and the US-Canuckian border, and others who know US military manpower, and they figure out -- after literally months of bickering -- that a US response to a Canadian Civil War would be to, say, mobilize the 10th Mtn Div along the NY/New-England border, and provide close air to Canadian nationalist forces. These planners have no clue whether or even if Canadian nationalists will need support. Or whether Quebec will secede. They just plan.

And they make plans for as many variations as they can think up.

They don't "know" anything. They guess a lot. They make contingencies, or "contingencyize" if you will. But until it actually happens and they have time to digest the information, they don't "know" squat.

"In the military's case they knew the reasons for going to war were BS to begin with"

They did? That's also news.

But I think I know where you're getting your information, and why it's confusing you. Some generals are right now backbiting the administration over the same old issues that so many ignoramuses got mileage from for the last few years. Only, that's not their beef.

These generals are uniformly critical of the civilian leadership's policy changes going from hardened permanent forward deployments to soft, temporary deployments with rapid response. But they know that going after the policy change is not politically tenable, so they are trying to decoy and flank -- a classic battle tactic, by the way.

Even though the UN itself delared that Iraq was a regional threat in March of 2003 because they had unaccounted for chemical weapons [unaccounted for either by failure to disclose per cease-fire requirement, or the chemical weapons found by the UN 1992-98 were catalogued and locked in Iraqi territory but not under UN control], many conveniently forgetful US critics decided to declare that "Iraq had no 'WMD'".

Playing the 'WMD' card would be a sure-fire way to get Rumsfeld in the public's crosshairs, and if enough pressure could be brought that he resigned, why then these retired generals can work on Congress to get the future military response policies that they disagreed with changed.

"they didn't need the passage of years and analysts to tell them things were wrong."

Never been in the military, have you?

It shows.