Sunday, August 26, 2007
'There is a specter haunting the debate ...'
Here's a NYT article about a now famous American Armed Forces article by U.S. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, who doesn't mince words:
He's a little too harsh on the general staff, who were browbeaten into submission by the civilian leadership regarding tactical and strategic decisions in Iraq. But he makes good points about those generals who didn't stand up to civilian demands. I especially liked these two paragraphs in Fred Kaplan's NYT piece:
I don't know where you draw the line when it comes to generals digging in their heels or clicking their heels. But when there's an overwhelming consensus about what is required (i.e. "more troops'' in 2003), I think the line becomes clearer. ... Now back to the last hours of my weekend trip. ...
Update -- Did MacArthur threaten to resign or did he threaten to go around Truman? That's where the line may be. ...
Here's a NYT article about a now famous American Armed Forces article by U.S. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, who doesn't mince words:
For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency.
He's a little too harsh on the general staff, who were browbeaten into submission by the civilian leadership regarding tactical and strategic decisions in Iraq. But he makes good points about those generals who didn't stand up to civilian demands. I especially liked these two paragraphs in Fred Kaplan's NYT piece:
There is a specter haunting the debate over Yingling’s article — the specter of Gen. Douglas MacArthur. During World War II, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower threatened to resign if the civilian commanders didn’t order air support for the invasion of Normandy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill acceded. But during the Korean War, MacArthur — at the time, perhaps the most popular public figure in America — demanded that President Truman let him attack China. Truman fired him. History has redeemed both presidents’ decisions. But in terms of the issues that Yingling, McMaster and others have raised, was there really a distinction? Weren’t both generals speaking what they regarded as “truth to power”?
The very discussion of these issues discomforts many senior officers because they take very seriously the principle of civilian control. They believe it is not their place to challenge the president or his duly appointed secretary of defense, certainly not in public, especially not in wartime. The ethical codes are ambiguous on how firmly an officer can press an argument without crossing the line. So, many generals prefer to keep a substantial distance from that line — to keep the prospect of a constitutional crisis from even remotely arising.
I don't know where you draw the line when it comes to generals digging in their heels or clicking their heels. But when there's an overwhelming consensus about what is required (i.e. "more troops'' in 2003), I think the line becomes clearer. ... Now back to the last hours of my weekend trip. ...
Update -- Did MacArthur threaten to resign or did he threaten to go around Truman? That's where the line may be. ...
