The Generals' Dangerous Whispers

Washington Post ^ | 4/21/06 | Charles Krauthammer

[ricks_place]

Last time around, the antiwar left did not have a very high opinion of generals. A popular slogan in the 1960s was "war is too important to be left to the generals." It was the generals who had advocated attacking Cuba during the missile crisis of October 1962, while the civilians preferred -- and got -- a diplomatic solution. In popular culture, "Dr. Strangelove" made indelible the caricature of the war-crazed general. And it was I-know-better generals who took over the U.S. government in a coup in the 1960s bestseller and movie "Seven Days in May."

Another war, another take. I-know-better generals are back. Six of them, retired, are denouncing the Bush administration and calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as secretary of defense. The antiwar types think this is just swell.

I don't. There are three possible complaints that the military brass could have against a secretary of defense. The first is that he doesn't listen to or consult military advisers. The six generals make that charge, but it is thoroughly disproved ...

A second complaint is that the defense secretary disregards settled, consensual military advice. The military brass recommends X and SecDef willfully chooses Y. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. ...

What's left of the generals' revolt? A third complaint: He didn't listen to me . So what? Lincoln didn't listen to McClellan, and fired him. ... In our system of government, civilians fire generals, not the other way around...

We've always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. ...

[7thson]

And once again, the left begin their work on tearing down another American tradition.

[1rudeboy]

There was a time, perhaps before yours here, when all threads led to Elian.

[DJ Taylor]

"Did these Generals advance the Bill Clinton military agenda in service?"

An officer can usually make it to the rank of Colonel on his abilities alone. However, to be promoted to General, a Colonel must have political connections, and what we are now hearing from among the retired Generals are the ones who sold their souls to the Democrats during the Clinton Administration.

[fortheDeclaration]

As long as the resign before they complain, there is no problem.

Moreover, isn't Truman the darling of the Left because he fired McCarthur?

[freema]

ping

[Miss Marple]

Yes, that's true. However, McArthur didn't fire Truman, which is Krauthammer's point. Civilian control of the military is one of the cornerstones of our republic.

[stationkeeper]

He was injured in a diving accident at college and has been wheelchair bound ever since.

He has a M.D. in psychiatry.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, that's true. However, McArthur didn't fire Truman, which is Krauthammer's point. Civilian control of the military is one of the cornerstones of our republic.

I agree totally.

However, as long as the ex-Generals complain after they retire, they do so as citizens and not Generals.

Of course, this is all to give cover to the Democrats and their treasonous attacks on our military.

[redgolum]

Optimist I see. It might not take that long.

[newnhdad]

There was a Fox news poll the other day and 64% of the democrats polled said that the military would be better if it was controlled by generals versus civilians.
I wonder if they would have though that if a democrat was president?

[Puppage]

Something is wrong here.... this doesn't sound like the Washington Post at all...

You read my mind

[GonzoGOP]

Putting on my wacko job tinfoil hat and climbing onto my favorite soap box.

First off generals are given their stars only after approval by congress and the president. It is the one rank that you cannot achieve on pure ability alone. You have to be backed by some politician. Generals who are retiring today likely got there stars in the 90s and hence were those vetted by the Clinton administration. Just something to think about.

And history shows us that revolutions rarely are lead by Generals anyways. Watch the colonels. That is where a revolution is going to start. And we are closer than most people want to think.

The only thing that currently stands between the US and civil war is the traditions and honor of our military. Previously if the military were to try to stage a coup the people would never have accepted it. Without any support from the populace they could not hope to accomplish their aims and hence there was no risk. But today, when you look at the recent pole of levels of respect for different parts of society (and unfortunately I don't have the numbers here so if someone would link to them it would be cool) an incompetent Congress, the President who won't defend our borders, Lawyers who only seem interested in defending the criminals, the press, big business and education system all ranked in a tight group with used car salespeople in the mid 20s for who do you trust. The military ranked in the 80s.

So if a revolt started today you might see Academics, Cindy Shecow, the MSM, Ted Kennedy, illegal aliens and peace protesters out in the streets. How many people are going to put there rear ends on the line to stand in front of the tanks for that lot. Because on the side facing them will likely be US Military(now new and improved with years of actual urban combat experience), NRA and the Militias. Any bets on how that is going to go down.

A military takeover is bad, even if those taking over are on your side. Our founding fathers knew that. Lincoln knew that. But today too few people bother to read history to know just how dangerous the lack of trust in civilian authority has made the US.

[johnny7]

Agree or disagree... Krauthammer's columns are well thought and well written. He's a slap of reality on FOXNews' The Panel'... especially when he comments following Nina Easton or Cee Ce Connelly

[R.W.Ratikal]

Generals in America are under the authority of civilians. Deal with it!

[Waverunner]

Funny - They didn't ask these general's position on gays in the military, first strike doctrine, or abortion.
How come?

[norwaypinesavage]

"He has a M.D. in psychiatry."

Yes, and he said once on the Fox News Panel, of Al Gore, "He's nuts, and I'm the only one here qualified to give that opinion."

[ClaireSolt]

Now wait a minute. Just because Americans admire the military and do not admire other professions as much (and I saw and do not dispute that poll) does not mean that the military is poised to stage a coup or lead a civil war. That is a real stretch, if, for no other reason, it is against their sworn oaths.

[ClaireSolt]

Fifteen minutes of fame provided by the media might just be sufficient explanation in itself for their behavior. After all, they gave their lives in service to their country, and who ever heard of them before? Same with Jack Murtha. He's been in congress forever, and he was unknown to the public. Now they treat him like a rock star. I think the networks even pay their retired generals, too.

[bagman]

I checked the poll and it was only 60% of the Democrats agreed that military leaders should have the final say on military matters. Note that word "final". More bad news is that 58% of the Republicans agree. 17% and 22% of the Democrats and the Republicans, respectively, said that civilian leaders should have the final word.

Jeez, doesn't anyone read Clausewitz anymore?

[gondramB]

"Something is wrong here.... this doesn't sound like the Washington Post at all...

It isn't, not really. It's Krauthammer, who is to the Washington Post what Solzhenitsyn was to the Soviet Union."

Aha... I didn't realize that. Thank you.