Hawks for Dissent A pro-Iraq war ex-soldier defends the generals who took on Rumsfeld.

Americans who care about our country should be very skeptical of the administration's line that no military dissent--not even from retirees--is ever permissible. As a nation, we need to ask ourselves some very uncomfortable questions about the rise of hyper-political defense secretaries, the politicization of military affairs by both Republicans and Democrats, the isolation of the president from frank military advice and civilian interference in the smallest details of combat operations.

Each of these men played by the rules, retiring before speaking out. None prejudiced good order. Not one stands to profit from his courage (quite the contrary).

Ralph Peters was very critical of Rumsfeld in 2006, but makes the point that military dissent is not a bad thing as LONG as the Admiral or General is RETIRED. McChrystal did not play by the long established rules and thus needs to go.

The bigger point is the substance of what McChrystal was saying and it goes to Peter's comments about the politization of military matters and the 'the isolation of the president from frank military advice and civilian interference in the smallest details of combat operations.'

The rules of engagement our troops are operating under may be one instance where civilians may have pissed McChyrstal off. The part of the interview in RS where the General meets with a platoon that had just lost a comrade due to not being allowed to blow up an insurgent house because of the ROE is telling. Could it be that the General was not in favor of these vVERY restrictive ROE but the civilian bosses told him he had to be the one who sold it to his troops and thus it had to be 'his' idea?

I can't imagine what the General would have felt like if met with this heroes comrades and knew the poor soldiers life was lost because of a stupid policy he maybe did not agree with but Barry and the boys forced him to use. Maybe the General wants to be removed and this is his way of protesting what he sees as the bunch of incompetents who are undermining he and his troops ability to win?

Either way, he has to go because he was disloyal, if he wanted to object, resign, retire, and then speak out. That is the way it is done and speaking out the way he did was improper, no matter who the POTUS is.

the politization of military matters

"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.” -- von Clausewitz

War is always political. It is never anything else. I would say that America's problems over the recent decades is that we lack the political will and confidence to win. We used to firebomb cities. Killing women and children? [shrug] It's war time -- casualties happen. But today it's different. Today we don't want to play too rough. We're not sure we're the good guys. We're not sure we ought to win. And because our policy is half-hearted, our war-fighting is half-hearted. People die and in the end they may die for nothing, because we may walk away without resolving the matter. I think that sucks, but it seems to be our current policy.

Generals are an instrument of war and need to serve the politicians. It pains me to say that because I think Obama is a disaster in ever way, but I think a General has two choices: shut up and follow existing policy, or else retire. McChrystal sought a third way: criticize the policy while wearing the uniform. That way is not an option.

I would say the General was disloyal and much as I dislike current POTUS, the ax must fall on McChrystal. Ralph Peters article I posted is from 2006 and applies perfectly to this situation in terms of how the military men who want to criticize current policy need to go about it. ACTIVE duty military have sworn an oath of layalty, retired military are free to state the conscience. The General forgot the distinction.

The bigger question is WHY? The General was contacted by RS before publication of the article and did not object so he had to knwo this was coming. There is more going on beneath the surface than meets the eye. I suspect the ROE may have been the final straw for the General. If it was forced on him and he was in theater watching his men slaughtered as a result of this insane policy he may have decided he could not sit by silently anymore. That is just my guess, that the administration developed these ROE and forced the General to be the face of them. After awhile he could not take the guilt anymore and cracked.

I would say the General was disloyal and much as I dislike current POTUS, the ax must fall on McChrystal. Ralph Peters article I posted is from 2006 and applies perfectly to this situation in terms of how the military men who want to criticize current policy need to go about it. ACTIVE duty military have sworn an oath of loyalty, retired military are free to state the conscience. The General forgot the distinction.

You know that. I know that.

Now, an aide will have to explain that to a Commander-in-Chief CIC that does not know a Corpsman from a Corpse-Man.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.