Even though many of his political operatives are surely anxious for presidential candidate Obama to shore up his national security credentials by selecting a retired general as his running mate, he should not choose one. The reason is simple: the ones available simply do not have the requisite moral character and professional acumen. Today’s June 30 issue of Defense News is running a new commentary by Straus Military Reform Project adviser Col. Douglas Macgregor arguing the case.
Read this commentary and below.
More important, nowhere in the Constitution or in any other public document that frames the government of the United States is there mention that the president, a senator, a secretary of defense or any other federal official should have served in the armed forces. Military service can be ennobling, but there is no evidence that military service confers greater moral authority on a soldier over matters pertaining to war and peace.
Perhaps this explains why Americans automatically blame politicians for whatever is wrong – and politicians are rarely blameless. However, the record shows that whereas bad political judgment in war can often be rescued through effective military leadership, the reverse is rarely true. It’s why high command in wartime requires people of the highest caliber and character. Such people, like Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman in the Civil War, John Pershing in World War I, and George Patton and Douglas MacArthur in World War II, tend to be demanding, sometimes difficult for politicians to control, and often unpredictable; but without such people, regardless of the resources available, success is impossible.
Unfortunately, the George W. Bush administration always exhibited a marked aversion to advancing men of character to the most senior posts in a way not seen since the days of President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. If they had, events might have turned out very differently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps it’s because such men would have fought the administration over its culture of torture and abuse in relation to Muslim detainees, behavior that has betrayed American values, cost us our moral authority and done us incalculable damage internationally.
Instead, the Bush administration opted for biddable corporate men who followed orders, pushed the party line, lied and dissembled where necessary.
The most disturbing example of moral gutlessness occurred when Ambassador Paul Bremer announced the decision to disband the very Iraqi Army which the top U.S. Army generals had planned to reconstitute and use to restore order. A minority of generals – John Abizaid, for example – who composed the U.S. Army leadership in Iraq knew it was a disastrous decision that virtually guaranteed the most appalling consequences. But did he or any of the generals stand up and oppose the decision or threaten to resign en masse, and speak out publicly? No, they folded – and eagerly accepted the promotions that followed.
Such moral cowardice is inexcusable. In the final analysis, the generals turned a limited military intervention to remove the corrupt leadership of a weak, incapable despot into a destructive war of occupation waged against Iraq’s Sunni Arab population. Then, they replaced Saddam Hussein’s regime with a corrupt Shi’ite Islamist Arab government with ties to Iran.
No less disappointing was the readiness of the retired generals to defend the incompetence and failure of their chosen successors by misinforming the American people about the true conditions on the ground in Iraq. Thanks to their disinformation campaign on television and radio, the disaster was concealed from the American public until the strategic consequences were so negative the only way to reduce U.S. losses was to buy off the insurgent enemy with bags of U.S. cash under the guise of the surge.
Despite the desperate need in our republic for accountability from everyone, including generals, the demand for accountability has been frustrated. Journalists who covet access cannot write stories if the generals and the Bush administration bar them from doing so. And politicians find it easier to attack each other. But the truth is, if the active and retired generals were corporate officers with a track record like Iraq, the shareholders would be up in arms, and the generals would have been fired en masse long ago.
No, Obama needs no help from former generals or from anyone sporting medals to win in November.
Douglas Macgregor is a former U.S. Army colonel and a decorated Gulf War combat veteran who writes for the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, Washington.
[...] You can read the rest of this blog post by going to the original source, here [...]
Very true, but there are powerful trends motivating the public preference of military to civilian leaders. Because civilian politicians have been discredited in the last thirty years due to a host of scandals, the public is turning to the military to fulfill their craving for an idealized, unbiased leadership. Gen. Dunlap wrote about this trend in Parameters a while back, and saw it as dangerous.
I think the public is going to have to get used to the fact that the perfect, pure leader they are looking for–military or civilian–doesn’t exist. Instead, they should exercise skepticism and start to take responsibility for ensuring that our elected representatives fulfill their duties.
The much maligned “profit motive” has the affect of forcing accountability.
I was struck, but not particuarly surprised recently
with the emergence of General Patreaus, and how
some in the mainstream media instantly made reference and connections where they’re was really little in the way of solid reasoning IMFO, that he’d someday, and not too distantly be a credible
candidate for the US Presidency.
Just say ‘anything,’ I guess,,,.
Good grief, I guess it really pays to be a yes man,
afterall.
And as the war drags on, so do the lies.
US wars of conquest, when the nations survival and/or continued prosperity maybe on the line, maybe one thing, but for God’s sake, cut all the crap, and the lies, so we can analysise do cost benefits, and then vote on it honestly.
How many times has America been lead down this road ?
M
Max,
Thanks for the input. Our once great nation is in a demise due to our strategic, operational and tactical (translated, national, state and local) leaders have become self serving, vice servants of the state. It is all about profit, and who can get ahead even if the means is unethical behavior. US Wars of conquest in the name of spreading democracy, are in fact wars of putting our corporations in foreign lands in order to exploit the local population and resources for our use.
The sad fact is, Iraq was over oil, and a way to put our contractor (big corporations such as Haliburton) there to exploit them and us, the taxpayers. But, sadly, there was no need for it. IF we had listened to the warnings, facts and plain common sense in 1973, as well as since then; and as well as have the moral courage to talk openly about the cost of overpopulation (it is not about everyone forgone right to have children, but a civic obligation to family plan based on the ability of our environment and resources to support people), then we would have solved our dependence on oil, levelled our population, as well as encourage the world, to sustainable levels, then the world would be better for everyone. But, instead we have gotten, fat, greedy and live a fantasy world.
IT is going to get tougher instead of easier. Where have all the leaders gone?
Don
“Our once great nation is in a demise due to our strategic, operational and tactical (translated, national, state and local) leaders have become self serving, vice servants of the state. It is all about profit, and who can get ahead even if the means is unethical behavior. US Wars of conquest in the name of spreading democracy, are in fact wars of putting our corporations in foreign lands in order to exploit the local population and resources for our use.”
True, but EXCEPT for all that though,
we’re doing just great.
(sarc)
;0)
;0(
MaX