I saw that President Bush recently affirmed that he intends to stay in Iraq, and that he will listen to his generals and follow their advice about when and how to draw down and eventually exit.
This seems reasonable, but I’m not so sure it is. Staying or leaving is a political decision, not a military one. Generals don’t decide national policy, politicians do. If a general is told to pull out, the general can then figure out the best way to do that and can advise of the expected consequences. That is not happening yet, so asking a general about when to leave is pointless.
If the President is determined to stay the course, and you ask a general about pulling out, of course you’re going to get an answer that says pulling out is bad. Generals support the president. They’re military men and women, and it’s in their nature and training to agree with the President. Also, the example of General Shinseki, who famously opined about the large numbers of troops we’d need contrary to the administration, and whose career then immediately suffered, reinforced the need for generals to support the administration position.
Which they should do. We don’t want generals to set national policy. Being military, they will believe that a military solution is best, just as if you ask a surgeon and a non-surgeon about how to cure an ailment, the surgeon will recommend surgery and the non-surgeon will recommend drugs or physical therapy. A person always turns to what they know.
President Bush should listen to his generals about how to accomplish a mission, not whether to accomplish it.
1 comment:
Also, the example of General Shinseki, who famously opined about the large numbers of troops we’d need contrary to the administration, and whose career then immediately suffered, reinforced the need for generals to support the administration position.
Just one clarification: you are aware that Shinseki had already put in for his retirement at least six months before this bruhaha?
It's a little disingenuous to say his career suffered because of his commentary. His career was at an end already which is why he felt free to say what he wanted to say.
He got short timers disease.
I'm afraid that the "shinseki lost his career because he told it like it is" is one of those myths that gets started and never seems to go away. Kind of like Davy Crocket killing a bear when he was only three. ;)
Having said that, I don't think that Bush is basing his decisions on generals telling him they are or are not ready to leave. You are correct that the president sets the national security expectations and the generals decide the strategies and tactics to accomplish the mission. The feed back on conditions and expectations can often serve to re-enforce an already preconceived position, however, it doesn't stand to reason that generals are just going along with the President and saying what he wants to hear because that is what is expected.
That does smack of the Vietnam syndrome. Now, I'm sure that these guys remain respectful and don't necessarily tell the president they think his strategy or directives are crazy, but, having been around career officers, I'm comfortable saying that they can get their point across without resorting to podium banging.
On top of that, I see that the decision making includes anaysis from multiple intelligence agencies, private sector analysis and advise given by the NSC. It's not as if there aren't dissenting opinions out there, but if the President makes a decision to keep going forward and it happens to agree with his generals, is that something that creates a conspiracy to just do what the president says?
As far as generals giving their opinions, on of the things that is missing in a large way is a good information campaign. Now, who is going to give this information (not disinformation, but information) if not the DoD, its representatives, etc when you couldn't get a news station to show medics treating children or talk about a medal of honor recipient?
Somebody has got to do it and when the military is tasked with winning the war because, yes, the president decides if we go or stay in the final, and the president says we stay and information analysis says that your losing the information war, then there is more work to do than just commanding men and trying to find the jihadis and local national insurgents.
Post a Comment