Article on another website caught my eye tonight since it does pertain to something near and dear to me, the U.S. Military.
Did President Bush disregard military expertise prior to the Iraq war, in effect "neutering" his generals?
That's the question raised in a criticial essay in the Council on Foreign Relations' journal and rebutted by a former Joint Chiefs chairman and others.
It seems every President that comes along believe's he (and I hope never she-you-know-who) that they know a) what the military is really about b) how to fight war. Unless that person has spent a majority of their life in the Military, they have only Hollywood and maybe a nice rear echelon tour of duty to base their decisions upon. The Iraq War, Afghanistan 'campaign', are going to make fine leaders in the future who understand the reality of the U.S. Military.
Michael C. Desch ·who holds the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-Making at Texas A&M's George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service · started the debate, declaring it "defies common sense" to presume the president or secretary of defense would have a better grasp of the tactics needed to wage a war than professionals in the military.
Desch's assertions, published initially in CFR's Foreign Affairs, now have been countered by Richard B. Myer, who was vice chairman, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff between 2000 and 2005 and holds the Colin Powell Chair of Character, Leadership, and Ethics at the National Defense University; and Richard H. Kohn, professor of history and peace at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Meyer and Kohn contend Bush officials did not "overrule" the military and in the end, "all involved supported the final plan regardless of the disagreements along the way."
Desch argued the "best system is one that allows for substantial military autonomy in the military, technical, and tactical realms (how to fight wars) in return for complete subordination to civilian authority in the political realm (when and if to fight them)."
Admittedly, he wrote, "this approach is not perfect, but ·I believe that it strikes the best possible balance between military effectiveness and civilian control."
Ditto...ditto....ditto. Let the warriors fight the war the way a war needs to be fought....this after a). some stupid moron(s) killed Americans and deserve to die b). our politicians failed in their jobs in keeping the peace and war becomes a necessary step in safety and security of the common good.
Although there had been conflicts in the past, the "relationship" between the U.S. military and civilians under Bush "deteriorated markedly since the start of the Iraq war," Desch maintained.
He contended Bush administration officials "did not hesitate to overrule [military leaders] on the number of troops to be sent [to Iraq] and the timing of their deployment."
Desch said there are those who believe civilians should have the final say not because they have any greater expertise but because the political rationale for war should be paramount in guiding state policy.
"This important distinction highlights just how radical a departure the Bush administration's approach to civilian control has been," he continued. "That approach ·is that civilians are more competent than military professionals."
"This latter argument defies common sense: professionals by definition have greater expertise in their particular fields than do those who deal with them in only part of their careers and then only episodically, as is the case for most senior civilian leaders in regard to the military," he said.
Intimidated into silence?
Responding to Desch, Meyers and Kohn insisted no officers were "intimidated into silence" about the Iraq plans and to imply that "is misleading."
"Desch recommends returning to 'an old division of labor' in which 'civilians give due deference to military professional advice in the tactical and operational realms in return for complete military subordination in the grand strategic and political realms," the two wrote. "In fact, that 'old division of labor' never disappeared. ·"
Meyers and Kohn wrote, "Ultimately, there is no such thing as a 'proper civil-military balance.' What is necessary for effective policy, good decisions, and positive outcomes is a relationship of respect, candor, collaboration, cooperation ·and subordination.
"The fact is that the president and the secretary of defense have the authority and the right to reject or ignore military advice whenever they wish. That is the law, in accordance with the Constitution and consistent with U.S. historical practice. Even if Desch does not understand or accept that, the military does ·and so, too, do the American people," they wrote.
Desch replies
Replying to Myers and Kohn, Desch argued, in contrast, there is "not much evidence supporting the proposition that civilians make superior decisions in the narrow military realm than do military professionals."
"Winston Churchill, whatever his heroic political leadership during World War II, pushed more than his share of harebrained military schemes that resulted in disaster (Gallipoli in World War I and Norway early in World War II) or would have had they been implemented (landings in the Balkans instead of western Europe)."
Desch, in his reply in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, said the end result has to be considered.
"If taken at face value, Myers and Kohn's assertion that 'in the end, all involved supported the final plan' is a damning indictment of the competence of the senior military leadership, including Myers himself, who assures us he had Rumsfeld's ear. I see it, instead, as an indication that after enough time and pressure, generals will eventually give their civilian bosses the answers they want.
"In fact, I do not argue that civilian leaders should rubber-stamp military policies, even in the tactical or operational realms, so this charge is a red herring. The problem with civilian meddling in the run-up to the Iraq war was not that [civilians] overruled the senior army leadership on the number of troops necessary for 'Phase IV,' or reconstruction, but that they did so claiming superior military expertise, rather than offering a compelling political reason for ignoring these military recommendations," he said.
Also joining the debate was Mackubin Thomas Owens, the associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College. He said Desch correctly observes a "troubling rift" between the military and civilian leaders.
But he said the "uniformed military" deserves a significant share of the blame.
"In the case of (former Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld, it is clear that he was guilty of errors of judgment regarding the conduct of the Iraq war. However ·Rumsfeld's critics were no more prescient than he. Rumsfeld failed to foresee the insurgency and the shift from conventional to guerrilla war, but so did his critics in the uniformed services. The army's official historian of the campaign has placed the blame for this failure squarely on the army."
Owens said, "Uniformed officers have an obligation to stand up to civilian leaders when they think a policy is flawed. They must convey their concerns to civilian policymakers forcefully and truthfully. If they believe the door is closed to them at the Pentagon or the White House, they also have access to Congress. But the U.S. tradition of civil-military relations requires that they not engage in public debate over matters of foreign policy, including the decision to go to war. And once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their abilities, whether their advice has been heeded or not," he said."
Nuff' said here. Civilians failed from the jumpstart of the 'war'. Civiilan 'control' of the military has caused military personnel their lives and families, their loved ones. I said it before, I'll say it again, and again, in the end....it's either their children or ours who will die....choose.
That, is the reality of war. That is the reality of not acting when action would be prudent. That is the reality of denial. War is hell. There is no glory, just survival. So, when war comes, or the necessity arises to use the military, in the end, it will be their children, or yours who die.
Venezuela....Chavez, Hilter, what should have the French and British done? What should have they done to 'help' the Germans with a cancer? Ignoring cancer does not make it go away.