Replies

It's absolutely absurd to relate any of these generals' comments on the SeDef to Clinton. Except for when they cast a secret ballot in a partisan election, military officers don't care who's president or in Congress. Officers at the operations/execution level may have their own perspective of plans, events or policy. But, at that level, such as a divisional commander in the field, their training, orientation and fidelity to their oath, they do what Oliver North is often quoted as saying in his congressional testimony: ''I salute, say yes sir'', and carry out the plan. The same attitude is always present at the senior officer level where plans are developed and their advisory role in relation to the civilian authorities is played out. If there is a rational dissent from a plan or defense policy among the JCS or the staff of the JCS, it may be articulated in a counterpoint briefing or in a written memo that works its way up the chain. Once a decision is made relative to such a dissent, the author does the same thing, say: ''aye, aye sir;'' and have no motivation or energy other than compliance with the selected plan or policy decision. Having been at both operational and JCS staff levels, I've never known an officer who acted to the contrary---and it's for certain that no officer ever acts or publicly comments pursuant to a disdain for civilian authority.

That's the way it's suppose to operate and that's the way, with a single exception, I witnessed in my years in that environment. That, however, has not been the modus operendi during the Rumsfeld years. For whatever reason he, and his top level deputies following his example, have been open in their own disdain for the opinions of military senior staff and have made it clear internally that any level of dissent from their predispositions of policy or planning will be met with virtual exile or, in the instance of General Shinsicki, forced retirement.

It's clearly analogous to a corporate environment where, at the top levels, it is well known that suggesting a course of action contrary to what the CEO or chairman wants to hear, will get you sent to corporate Siberia, never to be heard from again. Thus, no such suggestions come from the advisory level. It's an environment of: since the boss wants to do it his way without our operational input or technical advice, we'll simply go-along-to-get-along. And, if you don't accept that as a Pentagon truism, well, I've got some waterfront land in the Everglades I'd like to sell you.

It shouldn't go as unnoted that the vernacular name for that attitude is known among historians as the: German General Staff Syndrome. No officer on that fellow's staff during the late 1930s or 40s would dare offer advice contrary to what the ''boys'' knew the boss had decided to do. While every officer, at some point in his training or being mentored as a junior officer, is specifically taught about how that infallible leader syndrome was a major factor in the defeats on both the Eastern and Western fronts. Similarly, each officer is fervently instructed that it is to be avoided because our oath is to the sovereign nation and the Constitution, not an individual. Nonetheless, the human nature to yield to the power over one's career and promotions may, and often is, as we have seen, too great.

The general officers now raising the issue, and these are critical issues of great importance, do so only after they retire in faithfulness to their oath and chain of command. This is a matter that should not be governed by setting of one's feet firmly in concrete and blindly accepting that the critical comments and suggestions of policy are unwarranted and deserve censure and disrespect. We shrug them off as disaffected politics at our peril. And, like many of us here, having been where the stuff flies and danger-close jeopardy is all around and, having been where policy has cost the lives of many friends and BOQ drinking buddies, we'd do a hell of a lot better by listening to these generals and examining their suggestions. Ad hominen attacks on them and otherwise misdirecting the issues does not address the issues neither does it answers the questions raised, all of which are legitimate for examination. It isn't merely rhetorical to remind everyone of last September when the supportive comment was made on national TV that: ''Brownie, you're doing a great job.''

...have been open in their own disdain for the opinions of military senior staff and have made it clear internally that any level of dissent from their predispositions of policy or planning will be met with virtual exile

Yeah, right, that only happened under Rumsfeld. The Penatagon is the world's largest bureaucracy. I have worked as a government bureaucrat for 36 years, almost 8 years in DOD and 28 years in the State Department. This is the way government bureaucracies work and have always worked.

...or, in the instance of General Shinsicki, forced retirement.

Not true, Shinseki served his full term and retired on schedule.

The general officers now raising the issue, and these are critical issues of great importance, do so only after they retire in faithfulness to their oath and chain of command. <

That is the way they would like to be perceived, rather than be seen as petty bureaucrats with bruised egos or bent on personal ambition. Admiral Crowe received his ambassadorship to London and Wesley Clark ran for President and will do so again. Zinni is selling books after his own failures at CENTCOM and as a middle east envoy. Swartzkopf made commercials. Many are receiving speaking fees and acting as analysts on TV. Some prance around at the Dem national convention acting as shills and potted plants for John Kerry. Very few are really dealing with great issues. It is all about me, me, wonderful me.

will be met with virtual exile or, in the instance of General Shinsicki(sic), forced retirement.

Revisionist history. Shinseki retired when he was scheduled to.

Limbaugh brought up a good point about Rumsfeld. He knows how the people in the Pentagon think and behave. He knows that they will try to get him to go one country or another, or some type of ceremony, etc. The reason for this is that if he makes a decision, the Pentagon people consider it open to interpretation. However they can't tinker with a decision because when he's physically present, he won't let them stray from his decision. They chafe at his "micromanagement." I love it!