Posted on 04/21/2006 2:14:07 AM PDT by 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. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Like the like; it's a perfectly reasonable discussion of the issue. But it reads like something I would have wanted to write thirty or thirty five years ago. In the sense that it sounds perfectly naive about why the whines of these particular generals are so much in our ears.Back then we naively wondered when they would get around to our side of the story. But by now, few Freepers are in any doubt that "the MSM" is an identifiable, monolithic-behaving institution. And I flatter myself that I have been in the vanguard of the effort to understand "bias in the media."
Not that I taught Reed Irvine anything - back in the 1970s I read his Accuracy In Media (AIM) report assiduously for a year or two - but while he and others have stayed fixated on trying to get "the media" to "do their job" I have moved on. We-the-people have to grow up and understand that "objective journalism" is the Wizard of Oz - it is all image and no substance other than "a man behind a curtain."
The job of the
manpeople behind the curtain is not to impart truth, it is to maintain the image of "The Great and Powerful Oz." Or in this case, the wise and objective media. The reason that maps to "liberalism" is quite simple - "liberalism" is simply political expression of the idea that nothing actually matters but PR. The "liberalism" of journalism is not being in the pocket of the Democrats" - it is the other way around. Liberal politicians say what journalists are thinking - naturally journalists approve of it."Liberalism" is simply contempt for society, and the arrogation of the right to speak for society. The particular part of society for which liberalism presumes to speak via the publicizing of the opinions of the six retired generals just happens to be the active military.
Interesting and very plausable, I have often wondered about that myself. The next 10 or 15 years are going to be very interesting, just the watching the Minute Men in action is remarkable, the politicians had better damn well wake up!
Media Bias Bump.
BTTT
There was a time, which we all remember, that all threads led to Terri Schiavo.
"The real issue, as Krauthammer ultimately points out, is civilian control of the military. All very well for a few retired generals to express disagreement with the incumbent SecDef. But when they are recent retirees, and the suggestion is seriously made that more active flag officers are going to retire and join them, it raises the issue of the political persuasions of the active members of the officers' corps."
Apolitical officer corps?
Prominent Soldiers Who became presidents:
1. George Washington
2. Chester A. Arthur
3. Ulysses Grant
4. D.W. Eisenhower
5. Zach Taylor
6. John F. Kennedy
Ill bet theres so many more... no offense to any that Ive forgotten.
What effect, if any, do you think your statements will make on the following involved parties?
1. The soldier and his commanders in the field.
2. The political advisors of the terrorist factions, in Iraq.
True. But during the Korean War McCarthur wanted to cross the Yalu into China and kick commie butt. Truman wouldn't let him.
The left has always stood against American assertiveness.
Apples and oranges.
He was relieved of his command and recalled.
Yes, something STINKS when the Generals start getting involved in politics... This is NOT GOOD.
McArthur did NOT fire Truman!
LOL!!! Most of the retired generals that I have met are insufferable boors. They don't understand why nobody genuflects before them now that they're no longer on active duty.
Loosen up that tin foil hat Gonzo! :^)
What infuriates me is that retired Flag/General officers are still part of the military, though on the retired list. They can be recalled and tried under the UCMJ.
These guys think they're doing the country a favor, but their actions are diminishing the President's authority. They should be tried for aiding and abetting the enemy. The penalty is quite severe.
OOPS. Right...Truman fired McArthur.
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.