Ambassador Richard Holbrooke writes today in The Washington Post that the six retired generals who have publicly called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld are likely speaking for their colleagues who are still in the military:
First, it is clear that the retired generals — six so far, with more likely to come — surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed.
I agree with Ambassador Holbrooke that what we are seeing is indeed the tip of the spear. The United States Military is quietly but surely signaling to their civilian masters that they need to change course.
Many commentators have tried to determine why the generals are speaking out and why they are speaking out now. Most, like Ambassador Holbrooke, have suggested that the frustration over the Iraq fiasco has now reached a boiling point within the military. This is certainly the case. But, I think there may be more to the generals’ timing and motivation than has been discussed so far. I think by focusing on Iraq we are all fighting the last war in trying to discern the generals’ motivations. I think a significant reason why the generals are speaking out has to do with our impending attack on Iran.
Seymour Hersh wrote in his article that the top leaders of the U.S. military are against a nuclear strike on Iran and may have to resign to prevent the Administration from moving forward with an attack. In one extraordinary paragraph, Hersh wrote:
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
I believe we are seeing the beginning salvo in the military’s push to avert a nuclear strike on Iran. The top leaders in the military may have decided that the civilians in the Administration are ignoring their advice in the march to Tehran and have now decided to take their case public. The military understands the grave consequence of an attack on Iran but have failed to convince the ideologues in the Administration to see reality. Having learned the lessons of Iraq that the checks and balances in the U.S. Government have failed to prevent a determined President from acting out his apocalyptic fantasy, the military have taken their case directly to the public in the hopes of averting a nuclear catastrophe.
This is not a revolt. This is the United States Military upholding the Constitution to which they have sworn an oath.
Loser.
Jake came by because he thought “tip of the spear’ was a phallic reference. Naturally he was disappointed.
I speak on this subject as a 10 year active duty Naval Officer. Officers, (both Junior and Senior) take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States aginst all enemies, both foriegn and domestic. The vast majority of us are learned, thoughtful, and cautious individuals who when called upon will lead people to their death. Notice that I said “lead”, not manage. And therein lies the rub.
The American body-politic has become enamored of the “businessman” leadership style of this administration. If people would be thoughtful, and earnest in their choice of political leadership the need for rancor may well be avoided. This war, and indeed this entire administration in my opinion are the logical result of an electorate that has grown pathetic intelectually, as well as morally.
I am an 18-year active duty Air Force officer. I’m not line but I understand civilian control of the military, and I understand that once an order is given it is carried out, even at the cost of one’s life. We don’t have to like the leader, his style or his decision, but we DO have to obey a lawful order. It is within the purview of the POTUS to order a nuclear strike on Iran. He does not NEED to confer with his military advisors (they are advisors, nothing more; remember, civilias control the military, not vice versa, per our constitution), but he is wise to do so. The record clearly reveals the fact that Mr Bush has consulted his military staff extensively. If he takes their advice, fine; if not, that is equally acceptable because HE is the Commander in Chief, not the military staff.
My Navy colleague is right, it IS about leadership. Unfortunately, he fails to distinguish between leadership style and authority to command. We need not like, admire or respect our leaders, but we MUST follow them because it is our duty to do so–that’s what WE swore to do when we accepted our commission: to obey the lawful orders of those appointed in authority over us. Mr Bush has the lawful authority to order a strike on Iran; if he does, I will do my duty. How about you, Navy? The best test of a good leader is how well he is able to follow when others are in command.