The article, by Lieut. General Greg Newbold (US Marines, Retired), speaks volumes.
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.
What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.
My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.
To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress--from both parties--defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views.
Another bush-hater, Scotty?
Posts: 16662 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Why didn't he 'more openly challenge' the warmongers three years ago? Going public in 'Time' now just looks like jumping on the bandwagon; now it turns out that almost everyone in the establishment thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, badly planned on a strategic level.
(In about ten years time even Scotty will be pointing out the mistakes, the wrongheadedness, and the exaggeration of the intelligence.)
"Why didn't he 'more openly challenge' the warmongers three years ago?"
Lifers just don't do that. Even most guys who joined for shorter hitches more often than not just don't criticize the service. Look how long it's taking Scotty to see what most of the country has already seen.
Another factor - Consider what Rep. Murtha was called when he spoke out. Here was a decorated Marine officer ( Bronze Star,Combat "V") who joined and served in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars and he was called a coward, not only by that incredibly stupid woman, but others as well.
Posts: 16662 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
It's true: having been in the military, I can confirm that those who rise thru the ranks are not, in general (no pun), those that rock the boat. And it's been clear from the beginning that the guys in the White House not only quashed differing opinions, they were quite vindictive about it. However, I agree that something this big might have called upon the deepest character to speak up, and damn the consequences. It would undoubtedly be hard for a "lifer" and a high-ranking general to face being called a traitor and a coward, however.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
In the military the concept of "military might, civilian rule" is very strong. I remember reading Dwight D. Eisenhower's book "At Ease, Stories I Tell to Friends", he said that he never even voted in an election unitl after he had retired from the Army. He wanted to maintain the separation between his military duties and the civilians who ruled the military.
"IN T H E O R Y A N D C O N C E P T, civilian control is simple. Every decision of government, in peace and in war -- all choices about national security -- are made or approved by officials outside the professional armed forces: in democracies, by civilian officials elected by the people or appointed by those who are elected. In principle, civilian control is absolute and all- encompassing. In principle, no decision or responsibility falls to the military unless expressly or implicitly delegated to it by civilian leaders. All matters great and small, from the resolve to go to war to the potential punishment prescribed for a hapless sentry who falls asleep on duty, emanate from civilian authority or are decided by civilians. Even the decisions of command--the selection of strategy, of what operations to mount and when, and what tactics to employ, the internal management of the military in peace and in war--derive from civilian authority, falling to uniformed people only for convenience or out of tradition, or for the greater efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces." Richard H. Kohn
Posts: 4290 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
WASHINGTON, April 9 — The three-star Marine Corps general who was the military's top operations officer before the invasion of Iraq expressed regret, in an essay published Sunday, that he did not more energetically question those who had ordered the nation to war. He also urged active-duty officers to speak out now if they had doubts about the war.
He is the third retired senior officer in recent weeks to demand that Mr. Rumsfeld step down.
Though some active-duty officers will say in private that they disagree with Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of Iraq, none have spoken out publicly. They attribute their silence to respect for civilian control of the military, as set in the Constitution — but some also say they know it would be professional suicide to speak up.
"The officer corps is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but not their careers," said one combat veteran who says the Pentagon's civilian leadership made serious mistakes in Iraq, but has declined to voice his concerns for attribution.
Many officers who served in Iraq also say privately that regardless of flawed war planning or early mistakes by civilian and military officers, the American public would hold the current officer corps responsible for failure in Iraq. These officers do not want to discuss doubts about the mission publicly now. General Newbold acknowledged these issues, saying he decided to go public only after "the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership" and in order to "offer a challenge to those still in uniform."
A leader's responsibility "is to give voice to those who can't — or don't have the opportunity to — speak," General Newbold wrote. "Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."
His generation of officers thought it had learned from Vietnam that "we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it," General Newbold wrote.
The "consequence of the military's quiescence" in the current environment, he wrote, "was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, Al Qaeda, became a secondary effort."
General Newbold's essay follows one on March 19, by another retired officer, Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi security forces in the year after Baghdad fell. General Eaton wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times criticizing Mr. Rumsfeld's management of the war, adding, "President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once."
On April 2, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who previously led the military's Central Command, responsible for operations in the Middle East, said in a television interview that Mr. Rumsfeld, among others, should be held accountable for mistakes in Iraq and that he should step down.
General Newbold has been quoted previously describing his concerns about Iraq planning, including in "Cobra II," a book by Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for The New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general who is a former military correspondent for the newspaper. In the book General Newbold is described telling fellow officers that he considered the focus on Iraq to be a strategic blunder and a distraction from the real counterterror effort. He is also quoted as expressing concern about Mr. Rumsfeld's influence on war planning, in particular his emphasis on assigning fewer troops to the invasion. (Bold mine - DG) -------- As soon as more officers remember the oath they took, the better off everyone, including the military, will be.
Posts: 16662 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
