Friday, September 26, 2008

Our Generals almost cost us Iraq?

Dude...

In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. "foot-dragging," "slow-rolling" and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership -- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid's successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president's policy.

If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic
.


More from M.T. Owens fantastic article on Bob Woodward’s “The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008”, here

1 comment:

B-Daddy said...

Some sayings come to mind. "La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires." Clemenceau, and often translated as "War is too important to be left to the Generals." Also, Clausewitz, commenting on Napoleon, "Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln," War is merely a continuation of politics by other means. In fairness, Clausewitz was not actually saying that was true, but posing the hypothesis as a way to think about war. He concludes that there is some truth to it.

Certainly, a lack of political understanding and attempts at butt covering by the military leadership can lead to bad strategic decisions if left in their hands alone. This is why the President is the Commander in Chief and ultimately responsible for the conduct of war.