On Speaking Truth To Power
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Policy — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The BBC Newshour service ran this piece today in which various senior military officers--both current and former--talked about working with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Former General Paul Eaton said that truth was not spoken to power. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers and two other generals dispute that assertion and say that it was always possible for them to give dissenting viewpoints to the former Secretary of Defense.
The debate has fallen along this basic fault line for about as long as it has been going on. There have been a number of generals--most of them retired--who have come out and said that they were never listened to. By contrast, people like General Myers and his two colleagues have stated that they had no problem airing their views and getting a fair hearing. I personally think that if General Eaton were listened to more, he would be describing the Secretary of Defense as the soul of sober, Solomonic judgment and that if General Myers were shunted to the side, he would be complaining to anyone who would listen that the former Secretary of Defense didn't care what other people thought.
Perhaps it is high time to see these dispute for what they are; disputes consisting of people praising an administrative process which accepted their ideas and people condemning that same process for having rejected their ideas. It is also time for us to see that none of this has any real bearing on how well Secretary Rumsfeld did in taking dissenting viewpoints into account and that there has been a lot of myth-making that has gone into the discussion of this issue. Much of that myth-making centers around former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who supposedly was fired for having stated in public that winning in Iraq would take more troops than were apportioned to the liberation of the country. That's just not true.
Read on . . .
MCINTYRE: Rumsfeld also says Kerry is relying on bad information when he repeatedly claims Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki was forced out for giving unwelcome advice.
KERRY: Go ask the military leaders. General Shinseki told this country how many troops we need. The president retired him early for telling the truth.
RUMSFELD: First of all, he was never fired. And the newspapers that repeat that month after month after month are wrong, inaccurate, unreliable, irresponsible. I could think of a few more adjectives.
Egregious, yes. But it's a myth. He was never fired. He served out his full term.
(END VIDEOTAPE) MCINTYRE: Now, Secretary Rumsfeld is fond of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts. And the fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.
To be sure, Secretary Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's replacement a year in advance of the latter's retirement, but that timeline makes clear that Shinseki's replacement was not in response to his comments about needing more troops. The announcement that Shinseki would be replaced was made in April of 2002 and Shinseki made his comments in February of 2003. It is therefore absolutely impossible that he was replaced because of his comments.
I don't quite know how to resolve the controversy over whether Secretary Rumsfeld adequately entertained dissenting advice. Perhaps if the minutes of discussions were ever released, we might have a better idea of how things went. But I wasn't born yesterday and I do know how Washington works. As Secretary Rumsfeld himself has observed--quoting the words of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan--"Stubborn opposition to proposals often has no other basis than the complaining question, 'Why wasn't I consulted?'"
Both Senator Moynihan and Secretary Rumsfeld might have added that opposition also derives from the question "Why wasn't I listened to instead of the other guy?"
To become a general you have to be sponsored by another general (Old boys club). Once selected you have to go to "Charm School", an instructional course for general officers which includes several phases.
The purpose of this process is to teach the fledgling general how to tow the party line and how politics work. General's have had to kiss a lot of butt to get where they are and most are slick politicians to boot, or they'd still be LtCol's or Col.
See if this reminds you of a soldier or a politician: After USAFE drew down from 6 A-10 squadrons to one in Europe (Clinton, duh) a visiting general called us together and said "I know you guys are concerned with the drawdown and all the extra tasking we're asking you to pick-up for the TAF, but we are not going to do more with less, we are going to do less with less." WTFO, one squadron is handling the tasking that 6 squadron performed previously but we're doing less with less? Political party line - "The drawdown in forces is having no effect on our ops tempo or operational capability."
A few soldiers make general, Chuck Horner, "Bear" Chambers, "Stormin" Norman, and others come to mind (Petraeus appears to be one), however, the greatest percentage are simply politicians and to quote Patton "Know about as much about fighting a war as they know about fornicating!"
I know the general public listens to general officers, but those who have served only listen to the ones they trust and know. Kind of like used car salesmen their not all crooks but you only partially trust the ones you know extremely well, then you ask for a money back guarantee, in writing.
Bottom line: Real warfighting generals don't break bad on the SECDEF they follow orders while fighting internally to provide the troops the means to win, political generals look for opportunities to advance themselves on the backs of the troops.
P.S. Having Lt, Capt, Major or LtCol, before your name gives you more credibility than General with soldiers. I.E no possible political motivation just honest conviction. Been there, done that, got 7 squadron T-shirts (& Beer mugs).
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.