Lean Left

Generals Betray Us? Oh, Really . . .?

by KTK

September 24th, 2008

The Wall Street Journal Online is running a startling article by a MacKubin Thomas Owens, a professor at the Naval War College, arguing explicitly that the military command heirarchy actively opposed Bush administration doctrine in Iraq, particularly “the surge”, and deliberately worked to undermine the policy. Quoting Bob Woodward’s new book on the Iraq invasion, it states:

According to Mr. Woodward’s account, the uniformed military not only opposed the surge, insisting that their advice be followed; it then subsequently worked to undermine the president once he decided on another strategy.

In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. “foot-dragging,” “slow-rolling” and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership — the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid’s successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president’s policy.

If Mr. Woodward’s account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln’s war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority.

“Undermine the president”? “Worked against the implementation of the president’s policy”? “Sabotage“!? The article doesn’t quite bring itself to say so, but its unavoidable implication is that the US military command was disloyal to the point of mutiny, and deliberately flouted its constitutional responsibility - that the senior uniformed officers of the military deliberately violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Its general call for firmer civilian control of the military would seem to be a very weak response to a situation that, if these charges are to be taken literally, would have to demand widespread, high-level courts-martial (if the rule of law means anything in the military these days, which the history if the Iraq invasion suggests it does not).

Now, the article is somewhat implausible in a number of respects: it repeatedly compares Bush to Abraham Lincoln and describes his visionary military leadership and “commitment to victory” as having “brought the US to the brink of victory” in Iraq. It also pointedly excepts Bush’s favored commanders - General Petraeus, notably - from the charges of near-treason that it lays against the rest of the heirarchy.

But it is a welcome break with the rightwing sycophancy and myth-making that has warped the military’s role since at least Vietnam - the carefully-nurtured belief that the military must be given a free reign and an unlimited budget in any armed operation, because civilian control is a sign of weakness. Owen, refreshingly, finally speaks the truth about Vietnam: that it was not any “hand-tying” by weak-willed civilians that caused defeat there, but “the U.S. operational approach that contributed to our defeat in Vietnam was the creature of the uniformed military”. And he reiterates the basic, foundational Constitutional doctrine that defines the relationship between the US military, its role as a tool for the public good, and its obligations to its civilian command:

In our republic the uniformed military advises the civilian authorities, but has no right to insist that its views be adopted. Of course, uniformed officers have an obligation to stand up to civilian leaders if they think a policy is flawed. They must convey their concerns to civilian policy-makers forcefully and truthfully. But once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their ability, whether their advice is heeded or not.

Moreover, even when it comes to strictly military affairs, soldiers are not necessarily more prescient than civilian policy makers.

All this is much needed after decades of the right wing exempting the military not only from any considerations of budgetary proportionality, practical usefulness, or relevant and legally applicable codes of decent conduct, but from any political oversight at all. (Guess how long it will take, after Obama is elected, before the military becomes autonomous and unquestionable in their eyes once more?)

But what I really wanted to notice is this: here is an article in an unwaveringly conservative forum, by a clearly conservative author - a professor at the military’s own command institute, no less - that openly accuses the top military command of deliberate and systematic dereliction of duty and planned disloyalty over a period of years, involving combat operations. That should be a bombshell. But it will surely provoke not the slightest outrage, denunciation, calls for boycotts or defunding, or accusations of treason.

Yet how does this article - referring to “uniformed and civilian leaders who were adherents of the failed operational approach” and stating that “the conventional narrative about the Iraq war is wrong”, “the uniformed military . . . worked to undermine the president”, “the actions taken by military opponents of the surge [included] ‘foot-dragging,’ ’slow-rolling’ and selective leaking”, “the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership — the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid’s successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president’s policy”, ” the leadership of the U.S. military . . . blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority”, and “such active opposition to a president’s policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance” - compare to MoveOn.org’s infamous “General Betrayus” ad of barely a year ago? That ad was very mild in comparison: “General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts”, “every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed”, “the General claims a reduction in violence [but only] because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence”, “General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war”. But surely the response to today’s article, by one of the right wing’s own, will be nothing like the shitstorm of screeching accusations and calls for vengeance the right wing ginned up against MoveOn for its utterly reasonable and almost minimal criticisms of Petraeus for his failure to participate in exactly the kind of public oversight of military policy that Owen argues is necessary.

Aside from the difference in basic perspective - Owen thinks Petraeus is the hero of a successful strategy, and MoveOn thinks (thought) he was the mouthpiece for a failing one - the accusations made by Owen against almost the entire military upper command are vastly harsher, more shocking, and, if true, of far greater seriousness than the criticisms leveled by MoveOn against one officer, which do not amount to accusations of crime or dereliction of duty. MoveOn indulged itself in a silly pun on one general’s name (”Petraeus”/”Betray Us”); Owen literally, and explicitly, accused the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level commanders of deliberate and systematic crimes consisting in disloyalty rising to the level of mutiny against the President of the United States. But it is a foregone conclusion that the right will not react to such accusations from consummate insiders in any way like they do to criticisms that are trivial by comparison coming from a liberal source. As ever, truth has nothing to do with it. The right wing noise machine exists only to intimidate, not to enlighten. And they’re not going to try to intimidate the Wall Street Journal.

The conclusion to draw, of course - aside from the continued tendency of the US military to lawlessness and mutiny (hey, don’t look at me! - the Wall Street Journal says so!) - is the utter worthlessness of right-wing complaints about left-wing complaints about right-wing behavior. They demand of themselves no more consistency in their intellectual output than they do legality in their overt actions. We need give them no credit for any.

Categories: Culture, General, Iraq, Media, News & Current Events, Politics |