Authority
by KevinApril 24th, 2006
Digby has a very good post up about the recent attempts by Republicans and right wing commentators to label dissent as criminal. The entire post is, as usual, worth your time. But he mentions a particularly vapid piece of work. Tony Blankley thinks retired generals’ speaking out is mutiny. Blankley says this:
Certainly, generals and admirals are traditionally given more leeway to publicly assess war policies than is given to those in lower ranks. But with that broader, though limited, discretion comes the responsibility not to be seen to in any way contradict the absolute rule of civilians over the military in our constitutional republic.
The president has his authority granted to him by the people in the election of 2004. Where exactly do the generals in “revolt” think their authority comes from?
For any right-wingers out there still confused about this: we don’t elect kings or “deciders”, we elect presidents. And Presidents are not spared criticism; criticizing a President is a requirement of good citizenship. So the retired generals get their authority from the same place that the lowliest street sweeper does: the President works for them. And that little fact is all the authority anyone needs . That used to be understood on every side of the political spectrum.
Categories: Politics |
We also elect a Commander-in-Chief. When one spends a career in a work environment where questioning one’s superior as at least strongly discouraged and at worst grounds for dismissal, it is understandable to me how some retired Generals are squeamish about questioning the President. I doubt too many active military feel that the President works for them. 35 years ago, when the military was perceived as driving the war in Vietnam, the accepted liberal stance was the military had too much influence over the President and military strategy belonged squarely in the hands of civilians.
Ted
Those are good points, but they are kind of secondary to Blankely’s argument. He is arguing that retired generals criticising the government is an attack on the legitimacy of civilian rule. He wants the generals to give up their obligations and rights as citizens even if they have choosen to leave the service. That is not right.
And I realize that the culture of the military quite properly muzzles public political expression by uniformed and reconizable members of the armed services. And I can understand why some might be hesitant to break that silence, even if they are retired. But that doesn’t change the fact that their position as citizens is primary to their position as soldiers. They agree to temporaily limit their use of the position of citizen while in uniform, but once they leave the service, those limitations can no longer apply.
And no one disputes that strategy belongs in the hands of civilians. But nothing in that position requires retired service members to not exercise their obligations as citizens.