They Do Fire Generals Yanno!

I'm not suggesting Bush has fired Gen. John P. Abizaid, his pending retirement is no secret. But it does seem as though Bush has been deferring to the Generals and DOD throughout the Iraq War. That isn't an excuse for Bush. As CIC, the war has been and remains his to command and for which to take responsibility. But history is full of examples where Presidents stayed with specific Generals too long. They are not infallible. I think Lincoln and McClellan come foremost to mind.

Early one June morning in 1862, President Lincoln arranged for a carriage to bring Senator Orville Browning of Illinois to the cottage. Browning brought two guests with him, retail magnate Alexander T. Stewart B who was also a contractor supplying uniforms to the Union Army B and Judge Henry Hilton. With these men, Lincoln discussed a subject that was much on his mind at the time B what he saw as the failed strategy of General McClellan, then Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

Up until now we have been going with the sense that more is less in Iraq. But there has always been another side to the argument, elements of it being made by Bush critics. The very Generals the Democrats loved to parade around as critical of the war were, in many cases, calling for more, not less. It was not that they were all simply opposed to the war.

Aside from that, ever since Vietnam, or perhaps even WWII, there has been an increase in the tendency of Generals to see themselves as more and more political, as opposed to war fighters. Sometimes I worry if the entire Vietnam generation of senior officers hasn't been infected in some way.

In any event, it's foolish to think that just because the JCS or some General is opposed to an idea that it immediately makes that idea wrong. Every war has a winner and a loser and many of the losses can be attributed to Generals who made decisions that were flat out wrong.

The last thing I want is for the war to be managed by the Congress. Hell, we know they are hard-pressed to get anything right. Fewer troops, or more, the determinant factor in whether we win or lose in Iraq is still going to be at least a modicum of support for the effort from here at home. We owe our troops that and a lot more.

Comments

[DrBlues]

What comes foremost to mind is Lincon and McClellan? ;-) Exactly! You, Victor D. Hanson and I are on the same page here.

[Ken Larson]

There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:

I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.

If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments”

http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com

The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.

How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def.Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?

Answer- he can’t. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.

From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.

This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.

This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.

We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.

[Phoenix]

I sure would like to know the composition of the pronoun, "we", in your last sentence, Ken.

Also, whose 'high horse' is being ridden and by whom?

[Ken Larson]

"We" in my previous comment refers to the American Public

The "High Horse" is the general viw the American Public has of itself in the word community. The view is that we are the best. It is a dangerous and arrogant view, considering how others look at us these days.

Ken

[Phoenix]

Thanks. That explains it well. You seem very knowlegeable about the inner workings of the military industrial complex. I cannot judge from what you say here whether or not you think *it* is the problem or that the 'we' is the problem.

I guess my interest is from not getting your point of view very clearly and from knowing you worked some place for 36 years .... and 'maybe' hated the place you worked, if not had no respect for the work you did?