COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

The Moderate Voice has a terrific roundup of blogger reaction to the recent spate of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Remember, though, that America has hundreds of retired flag officers - and scores of them have retired since Rumsfeld took over as SecDef.

Look, there is always a broad spectrum of opinion within the military. And reasonable people differ over innumerable policy decisions. Reasonable arguments can be made, for instance on whether it was sound policy to disband the Iraqi army, on whether troop levels were optimal, on the extent to which the U.S. taxpayer should resource reconstruction projects, CERP projects, and hundreds of other questions.

And where there is a spectrum of informed opinion among Generals, the SecDef and Commander in Chief are entitled to make a policy decision. And no matter what policy decision they make, half of the generals are not going to get their way.

But from what I've seen so far, the policy desicions specifically objected to by these officers are entirely and legitimately within the realm of the Secretary of Defense to make.

Furthermore, the military is a community, and within that community are a number of professional journals. Proceedings, Military Review, Infantry Magazine, Logistics, and literally scores of other policy journals. Any officer with an idea can push the idea behind the scenes, through the chain of command, through personal contacts, through blogs (though blogs work better for us company level dorks at the pointy end of the stick), and there's a professional dialogue which informs military decisionmaking and military advice to civilian authorities.

But military advice is just that - advice. As long as this republic subordinates the military to civilian authorities, that's all it can be. And the civilians at the top of the chain command are free to accept it or reject it. That doesn't mean civilians should meddle in or micromanage the operational details best left to military professionals. But on broad decisions of policy, and on matters that require an extensive interface between State Department functions and large budgetary issues, and on matters that involve prioritizing resource between the different MACOMS, then those decisions properly belong to the Service Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense, and the President.

Rumsfeld may be a demanding boss. But we should remember that it is not the SecDef's job to make generals happy. It's not the SecDef's job to rubber stamp every general's pet weapons system or pet project and then go back to Congress and ask them to make the taxpayer pay for it. Many generals are still peeved over not getting their shiny new Paladin artillery system, and that was Rumsfeld's doing. And while reasonable people disagree over the necessity of the Paladin system, that was a legitimate decision for the SecDef to make, in that commanders at all levels must carfully allocate limited resources among competing priorities.

I haven't seen any serious charges that Rumsfeld does not have a grasp of detail. No one seems to be arguing that he's corrupt, or has broken the law. None of these generals is arguing that Rumsfeld has done anything unconstitutional. It all comes down to these generals not feeling like Rumsfeld listens to them. General Baptiste hints that in his opinion, Rumsfeld doesn't understand the principle of war, or is insufficiently ruthless in applying them. Unfortunately, the press accounts I can find don't expand on that opinion in sufficient detail to make it useful. (It's as if all they were interested in were scoring a political point, and informing the public or advancing the debate just is not a consideration.)


Well, just because Rumsfeld didn't take the advice of these generals doesn't mean he didn't take the advice of any of them. Rumsfeld listens to a lot of people every day. But he's not obligated to take the advice of any particular constituency, or anyone else other than the President.

In the absence of evidence that Rumsfeld has broken the law, acted unconstitutionally, or is simply incompetent, as opposed to unpopular, then the blasts from these generals against the proper and reasonable exercise of civilian control over the military strikes me as slightly unseemly.

But only slightly. We are still a democracy, and retired officers (and cantankerous reservists like me) do get to make their voices heard, and I'm glad we have a wide spectrum of opinion within the military, and that we do get to hear some different ideas from officers who have recently retired - though I don't think this crop has done much to advance the football.

Now, one thing that strikes me about these four is how utterly inarticulate they have been at explaining their reasoning. Liet. Gen. Newbold, in particular, couldn't even organize his thoughts into a coherent essay on why we boloed the war.

Now, take a look at this defense of Rumsfeld by retired USMC three-star Mike DeLong, who was CENTCOM's deputy commander under General Franks:

Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," DeLong told CNN's "American Morning" on Thursday.

"When you walk into him, you've got to be prepared, you've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."

DeLong was the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command from 2000 to 2003 under Franks.

Now, if Newbold, with years to reflect on the issue, couldn't organize his thoughts for a coherent Time Magazine essay, is it surprising if he had a hard time organizing his thoughts for a Rumsfeld briefing?

Meanwhile, the three generals whose opinions matter most - Former CENTCOM boss Tommy Franks, his Deputy Commander DeLong, and the current Chairman of the JCS General Peter Pace, are vocal in Rumsfeld's defense. Apparently, they didn't have a problem with him.

Splash, out

Jason