|
|
|
|
|
Anti-Rumsfeld generals may need to stage retreat DICK POLMAN / Knight Ridder | April 24 2006 PHILADELPHIA - The so-called Revolt of the Generals, targeting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and featuring several generals who led troops in Iraq, is a troubling portent for the White House. These six dissident retirees are merely the boldest. Their decision to go public suggests that a sizeable number of military leaders are convinced that the war is going badly, that the Bush team deserves the blame - and that retired officers should lead the charge, in defiance of the military code that traditionally bars them from engaging in civilian politics or publicly challenging civilian control. That code has been increasingly breached during the last several decades, and even some critics of the war, with an eye toward the long-term consequences, are worried that military dissidents are growing too bold about crossing the line. In the short term, however, the potential damage to Bush is obvious. This flap is not about anti-war mother Cindy Sheehan, camped out in Crawford, Texas, or Michael Moore, insulting Bush at the Oscars. This is about, among others, Maj. Gen. John Baptiste, who commanded the Army's First Division in Iraq and now refers to the "ignorant" Bush team as "the axis of arrogance," and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, former chief of the Iraqi military-training program, who now calls Rumsfeld "incompetent." Basically, "this is the beginning of the blame game," said Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who teaches international relations at Boston University. "It's about asking the question: `Who lost Iraq? Who gets blamed for the fiasco?' The officers remember Vietnam, and their attitude is: `Never again; we're not going to be left holding the bag.' So these guys - and I think they speak for others - have fastened on Rumsfeld as a scapegoat." Not surprisingly, these attacks on Rumsfeld have been welcomed by Democrats and anti-war liberals; when decorated vets rebuke the administration, they provide cover for Bush critics who might not have the same credibility as those who wore battle ribbons. Yet Bacevich, like many other vets who have no love for the Bush team, is concerned that the military dissidents are meddling beyond their proper role in a democracy. He said: "I know that people in the anti-war camp are happy to get the help, but they have to realize that they're playing with fire here. They may rue the day if military leaders decide that they should have a vote on who gets to be secretary of defense." In fact, said Lt. Col. Ike Wilson, formerly the chief of war plans for the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "this whole debate goes far beyond who the defense secretary should be. This is about the need to revisit the relationship between the soldier and the state. ... What does it mean to be a `good soldier' in this day and age," when a war has gone awry? Such concerns have surfaced sporadically throughout our history. In several wars, military leaders crossed the line while still in uniform. Gen. George McClellan openly derided his boss, President Abraham Lincoln, as a "gorilla" and "baboon" and charged publicly that he had lost a key battle because Lincoln's war secretary had skimped on troops. Nearly 90 years later, Gen. Douglas MacArthur assailed his boss, President Harry S. Truman, for not taking the Korean War into China. Ultimately, the presidents exercised their prerogatives, and both generals lost their commands. The politicization of the current military, while not as dramatic, seems far more endemic. Military leaders - the retirees, anyway - have been dabbling openly in civilian politics since at least the early `90s, with full encouragement and support from the politicians. As Bacevich noted, the urge to participate stems in part from the conviction that they had acquiesced too easily to the civilians who led them astray in Vietnam. In 1992, retired Adm. William Crowe, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed Bill Clinton and thereby helped dampen doubts about the candidate's fitness to command. In 2000, candidate Bush was endorsed by a number of retired leaders, including retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak, who defended his decision on TV by saying: "There's really no way that senior military officers can avoid politics. It's always in the mix." In 2004, John Kerry touted four retired lieutenant generals, five retired generals (including McPeak, switching sides), two retired admirals, and one retired vice admiral. He brought them onstage at the convention, as political cover; they were cheered by liberal delegates whose reference points for the military probably include the 1962 missile crisis, which featured the Kennedy brothers overruling the generals who wanted to bomb Cuba. The politicization of the military has continued apace in 2006. Two months before the current revolt, the pro-Bush Progress for America Voter Fund (which put $28 million into the 2004 Bush campaign) ran TV ads that featured U.S. soldiers voicing the White House perspective on Iraq and suggesting (as Bush has) that Iraq was linked to Sept. 11. Nobody in the GOP camp stepped forward last winter to complain that the soldiers in those ads were crossing the line into politics. Nor did anyone in the GOP complain about politicking soldiers when McPeak endorsed Bush in 2000. Nor did anyone in that camp complain this week when the Pentagon e-mailed pro-Rumsfeld talking points to military retirees who might be willing to defend the secretary on TV. Lt. Col. Wilson, who is uncomfortable with the retirees' public dissent, nevertheless contended that "it's completely hypocritical" for the Republicans to invoke the military-civilian barrier when, in fact, they have been breaching it so often for their own partisan purposes. "When I see talking points being handed out, and when I see political speeches and policy speeches being made with entire active-duty units used as backdrops - I find that to be very problematic," he said. Indeed, security experts generally believe that the barrier needs to be rebuilt, even though these retirees, and perhaps many others, feel driven to publicly assail the stewardship of the war. Richard Kohn, who chairs the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina, has long argued for a revival of military reticence. He said the other day: "I understand why the dam has burst. Mr. Rumsfeld is arrogant, and abusive, and he doesn't listen. Civilian-military dialogue has been warped by this man. And these men feel tortured by the feeling that their soldiers' lives were being wasted. "But the code should not be allowed to deteriorate. If that happens, it poisons relations even further. It would poison the military promotion process. Future civilian leaders will simply ask themselves: `What is this officer's partisan leanings? Is this man a loyal partisan? Or will he hang up his suit and go out and attack us?'" And, as the six retirees have learned, soldiers who enter the political fray forfeit the respect that normally comes with rank. In recent days, conservative Web sites have returned fire with impunity. The dissidents have been derided as "perfumed princes," as "jackals," as "gutless," as egomaniacs who have "a hard time adjusting to life after the service," and (the worst intended insult) as "Clinton appointees." This assault on military esteem is one reason why Ike Wilson would prefer that officers avoid the public glare and "create new venues" that would "allow our frustrations to be expressed in honest and respectful dialogue." "This is why we're already seeing a proliferation of military blogs in theater. We have to find new ways to speak truth to power. If not us, who?" Wilson said. But that's taking the long view. The verdict of the moment is that the Bush team has taken another political hit. Kohn said: "The administration has been shelled by its own side. But it's their own fault, in a way, because politically they have always sought to identify so strongly with the military. "You live by the sword, you die by the sword." ---------------------------------------------------
Prison Planet.tv: The Premier Multimedia Subscription Package: Download and Share the Truth! Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate. |
