Thank God for Tom Davis (R-Va.) He fully understands the constitutional role of the Congress. Davis has sent a letter to Henry Waxman, chair of the House Oversight Committee, with a very sharp demand. The Committee needs to set aside all other work and immediately take up a matter so gripping that it supersedes everything: Why, he asks, did the organization Moveon.org get a more than 50% price break when it recently ran an advertisement in the New York Times attacking the Administration’s plans to continue its “surge” in Iraq?
I understand Rep. Davis fully. Why should the Oversight Committee be looking into the roughly twenty billion dollars that have disappeared down mysterious rat holes in Iraq; why should it be looking into the festering open wound called FEMA; why should it be considering the operating rules governing security contractors who are running amuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, endangering U.S. soldiers and destroying America’s reputation? The people aren’t concerned about this trivia. And heaven forbid that Congress should actually examine and discuss Iraq policy itself, or the increasingly obvious disaster in Afghanistan. No, what Americans want is for Congress to get to the bottom of the internal advertising practices of the New York Times. How did this group of lefties get such a good deal; how did they land a page at the stand-by rate?! (But, by the way, let’s ignore Fox News, which operates as a G.O.P. campaign soapbox 24/7, using ever less care to disguise its political pimping-of course, it’s a broadcaster and actually subject to Congressional oversight).
Rep. Davis is reading from the last set of cue cards that Karl Rove left behind before making his exit from the White House. What did they say? Americans don’t trust George Bush and the Republican leadership when it comes to the war. Americans trust and respect their military leaders. Therefore the way forward is clear: identify a serving general to serve as a sock puppet. Use him as the voice of the Administration. As Roll Call reports (subscription required), conservative columnist Morton Kondracke was recently at a meeting with President Bush at which “the Decider” laid out the strategy in plain terms: “The people listen to Petraeus, not to me.” So the plan was simple: pretend to be undecided about this, channel the message through General Petraeus, and then viciously challenge anyone who criticizes Petraeus. They’re un-American, that’s the line, they disrespect our generals and our men and women in uniform.
This is one of the more amazing acts of political cowardice in recent American history. And what’s the result? After the brain-dead chattering class of Potomac pundits declared the week a resounding success for Petraeus and the Bush Administration, the polls came out. No, it seems, Americans are not nearly as stupid as the Potomac punditry. Support for the Bush Plan (let’s be honest about it, Petraeus has painfully little to do with it) fell from 35% to 31% following a week of sustained media barrage. Americans saw through it.
What amazed me about this entire spectacle was not that the Rove plan was implemented so flawlessly, nor that the American public refused to buy it. Both of those things were, at this point, predictable. No, the amazing thing is the way the mainstream media dishes it all up without criticism or commentary. It makes itself a willing tool in the Administration’s propaganda war. And Rep. Davis’s request is another, particularly absurd, extension of that propaganda war. Don’t think about the Iraq War issues, it reasons, keep on the attack against anyone who criticizes the Sainted General we have made the new vehicle for our message.
The Administration has a right to put out its message and the media should transmit it. But the media should be circumspect and critical about the way the message is packaged. And in this case, the fraud in the inducement was the whole idea that the plan that the White House was offering up was in fact General Petraeus’s plan.
There are some basic rules to keep in mind. The exercise of the powers of war and peace involve essentially political decision-making. On these matters, the political leaders should receive the professional advice of the uniformed military on how military objectives are best accomplished. But the determination of political objectives is for the political leadership, not the military. This is not a trivial point. And at this point nothing could be more obvious than this: America’s military objectives have been consistently met in Iraq. The problem is the political objectives, which were ill-conceived from the outset and which have, if anything, gotten murkier and less clear as time has progressed.
But the current exercise in political theater is an assault on a bedrock principle. The notion of civilian control of the military is a fundamental aspect of our democracy-a foundational principle that every U.S. president has insisted upon, and indeed, that George Washington insisted upon when he was a general and not a president. Making that system works requires having a clear distinction between the roles of the professional military in mind and adhering to it.
When the career military are seen as involved in the political decision-making, then the military as a whole is tarred when those decisions turn out to be wrong. But it’s the politicians and not the military who should be held to account.
The Bush Administration’s position has, from the outset of the war, been that it knows better than the career military about how to wage the war. When General Eric Shinseki said the Iraqi occupation would require 325,000 troops, the reaction was swift and simple: he got sacked. His name now stands at the top of a list of a dozen or more flag officers canned because they insisted on their professional analysis of the situation.
The current game of kabuki theater involving General Petraeus involves a continuation of the disastrous policies that led us into Iraq. How do I know that? Because I listen to the generals. Not the generals who are still serving, who are bound (for good reason) to do the bidding of the president. I listen to the generals who have just taken off their uniforms and are therefore free to say what they think. And I apply the measure that the wise Miguel de Unamuno gave us for discourse with generals: I can be persuaded when they use not the glamor of their uniforms, but reason and right in the struggle.
Like the former Iraq ground commander, General Ricardo Sanchez. In a speech in Corpus Christi this weekend, Sanchez said this:
My assessment is that we have a crisis in national political leadership. When will America recognize the danger we face? When will the corrosive partisanship of American politics end and allow for a bipartisan solution to arguably the most dangerous threat our nation has faced in over 60 years?
And when pressed to explain what he meant-which part of our leadership has failed us-Sanchez said “the most senior political leadership,” the White House. For three months now, Sanchez has been making off-the-record statements. He eventually came to the conclusion, he says, that Republican politics had trumped the national security interests of the United States in the execution of plans in Iraq. The Bush Administration had not planned to win in Iraq, but simply to keep a war running so Bush could run around and play “war president.” That is as devastating a criticism as any general has made of a president since the days of Douglas MacArthur. Unlike MacArthur’s criticisms, however, it has the advantage of being accurate.
And General Sanchez is not alone. He’s part of a swelling group of generals and admirals who’ve decided to come clean and speak the truth about the Bush Administration’s shocking and on-going misadministration of the war.
Mark Sauer of the San Diego Union-Tribune looked at the phenomenon and had this to say:
The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush Administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq. What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history. In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change. When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers. “The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”
But now consider how the mainstream media has dealt with this. We saw saturation coverage of the Petraeus-Crocker briefings for a week. And what did you see of the twenty (actually by my count it’s far more than twenty) generals and admirals who criticized the Bush Administration’s exercise in marionette theater? Barely a mention. And that’s an extremely revealing fact.
I’m not settled on what the best course is for the war in Iraq. The questions are very complex, and there are no obvious answers. But I am convinced that the best solution will involve taking the advice of the generals. And by that I mean men and women who have taken off their uniforms and are free to speak their minds. And yes, I’d be happy to take General Petraeus into account too, as soon as I can hear from him and not the Rovian puppet who keeps bobbing in front of the TV cameras. I’d probably be even more interested in hearing from his boss, Admiral Fallon, who has a reputation for being more of a straight-shooter and is less concerned about a future race for president.
Yes, I respect the general. But is it too much to ask that Bush and his supporters offer some respect and attention to the generals?
Scott Horton is a contributor to Harper’s Magazine and writes No Comment for this website.
© 2007 Harper’s Magazine
It’s really very simple. Senator Tom Davis is yet another leadership example of the New World Order. He’s no different — just another model. He reflects the same agenda and the same mentality.
Despots get rid of Generals that don’t agree with them.
Hitler took good care of his ‘generals’ too.
Franz Halder was fired and imprisoned in 1942 for opposing the German war plan.
Erwin Rommel opposed the war and was forced to commit suicide.
Ludwig Beck was forced to commit suicide after opposing Hitler.
Military leaders and generals fall into several categories. Lt. Gen.William Odom, former head of NSA under Reagan, said the rationale for going into Iraq was all wrong and that Iran and Al Qieda were the only beneficiaries of an invasion/occupation.. General Shinseki, narrowing focus to what was needed for “the mission” gave Congress an honest appraisal of the number of troops needed and was shown the door unceremoniously. Several, including Eaton, Batiste, Johns voiced their concerns through back channels vs. public statements while in uniform. General Taguba, who was directed to investigate the military police role in Abu Graib, said afterwards, “(at that point in the investigation and its political mechanations, including dealing with Rumsfeld)that’s when I realized I was in the Mafia.”
Even Zinni saw that the path taken by Bush & Cheney was causing this country harm.
Sanchez only started to make criticisms when his career trajectory was halted by scandals. After Abu Graib had been a public phrase for a long time. And after under his command, there was the leaving blank the cause of death on death certificates to hide the scandal of women soldiers’ well-grounded fear of being raped and sexually assaulted by fellow troops. Those scandals had his fingerprints and command responsibility all over them. He is a fat rodent leaving the sinking HMS (He thinks he’s king) Bush.
Bush chose Petraeus because he is an ambitious. political person happy to be the water boy for Bush & Cheney. He’s cupable for the lies and distortions about the surge and general situation in Iraq. Can a character statement be more damaging than CentCom (Central Command Chief) Fallon’s remark, “Ass kissing little chicken shit…” about Petreus’ attempt to ingratiate himself with Fallon, his superior?
Back to the rest of the Generals. The vast majority of these guys are card carring Republican-Conservatives to very conservative. (Gee-Surprise!) That they are criticizing Bush and the Iraq Occupation shows how beyond the pale Bush, Cheney and their regime is.
That those who have come forward because of their sense of duty, I’m fine with that. But it is the critics of the war/occupation from the get-go that we need to focus on because many of the criticism and disasters within the war/occupation, GWOT (GWOT should become an invective, an epithet, a supreme “your momma”).
That Bush and Cheney should have been removed from office and tried for crimes in the national and international courts is a given.
If the generals want to step up their criticism to call for the removal of the COC, that’s great. They should continue to get in media when the MSM let’s them.
The generals’ criticisms should be used by the peace movement along with earlier criticisms by people within the peace movement to show how wrong the policies and actions have been and to criticize those who continue to fund and support this horror.
“The Bush Administration had not planned to win in Iraq, but simply to keep a war running so Bush could run around and play “war president.” That is as devastating a criticism as any general has made of a president since the days of Douglas MacArthur. Unlike MacArthur’s criticisms, however, it has the advantage of being accurate.”
No comment really, just thought it bore repeating.
Playing the “war president” is the role Karl Rove assigned to Dubya. Cheney and Condi are providing the real leadership roles in assuring the military industrial complex an eternal revenue stream and orchestrating the extortion of Iraq’s oil and eventually the oil of other Asian nations. The military’s role is similar to the role of the Aussies and Kiwis at the battle of Gallipoli.
Well, let’s hope at least 20 generals WEARING UNIFORMS decide that risking the lives of soldiers already stationed in Iraq is not worth the provocation in the form of premeditated airstrike against Iran. Let’s hope they SPEAK UP NOW, or HOLD THEIR FIRE! The karmic implications of “Just following orders” was not a one-shot deal. Any in the US military today who witnessed the bogus run-up to war with Iraq and AGREE to use arms against the sovereign thus far peaceful populace of Iran will one day be on the receiving ends of those bombs, missiles and bullets. Of course the whole insane tango can come to a stop now… we hope and pray.
The right claims that the press is biased. Here’s proof.
“Americans saw through it.”
Which is why it’s time to seriously amp up the street protests. Notice how the Jena 6 March was more widely covered than any End The Illegal Occupation Of Iraq NOW protests? The more we turn up the heat right now, the more will join us and the MSM will have little choice but to point the cameras at THE MAJORITY in the streets. Weekly! Not twice a year.
We have the momentum, folks. And here’s the plan: instead of waiting for ANSWER to organize a one-off, start forming small groups - five to ten or so - all working off the same calender. For example: every Saturday from 12 to 4 at the White House. All the groups show up and you have yourself a march. No wondering about when and where - every Saturday, 12 - 4, at the White House. Or local Fed building. Or Main Street. No permit needed, because you’re just a group of friends walking along carrying signs in America - it’s not your fault millions of others happened to show up, too. One week, a group might offer a guest speaker, or music, or whatever. Doesn’t matter - what matters is mass numbers with signs in the streets as often as possible.
Myanmar: Monks marching eight days straight and taking the hit. Imagine an eight day march in D.C…
TheLorax wrote:
“Despots get rid of Generals that don’t agree with them.
Hitler took good care of his ‘generals’ too.
Franz Halder was fired and imprisoned in 1942 for opposing the German war plan.
Erwin Rommel opposed the war and was forced to commit suicide.
Ludwig Beck was forced to commit suicide after opposing Hitler.”
They have to be more subtle these days. The article mentions Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff who was on the Joint Chiefs back in 2003 when the war began. He gets called before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees right before the war and is asked how many men it is going to take to win. He said “on the order of several hundred thousand men.” He went on to explain that Iraq is a “fairly large piece of real estate” with many different factions that were not inclined to work together. He also explained that it was not the invasion phase that would cause problems, but the occupation and nation-building phase. Right on all counts.
Did the Bush Administration types listen to him? Fuggetaboutit! First, Rumsfeld’s lapdog, Paul Wolfowitz, comes out and says “those numbers are way off”. Then Rummy blasts Shinseki — didn’t name him by name but said that anyone who claims we need a huge ground force is not dealing in reality. They didn’t exactly fire Shinseki; they just named his successor a full year before his term on the Joint Chiefs ended, effectively turning him into a lame duck. When Shinseki did finally retire, Rumsfeld didn’t even go to the retirement ceremony, which is customary for an officer of the highest rank.
They can’t shoot you or court martial you now, they just publicly embarrass you, diminish you, make you irrelevant. But it says here that Shinseki has had the last laugh, partially because he is the kind of man who never responded to any of this nonsense. He served two combat tours in Vietnam; Rummy served in the Navy as a pilot but never saw a single day of combat, just like his boss. But they were the ‘experts’ and Shinseki was the know nothing. That’s what happens when the yuppies, whiz kids, corporate geniuses, and numbers crunchers run the government.
There is an old saying that you either have the guts to walk away from a fight or have the guts to finish it. Bush can’t do either.
The Congress is responsible for national defense, and so the crisis in national political leadership is the fault of the members of Congress. Giving senators and congressmembers a bye and blaming everything on Bush is not realistic.
The officers who are complaining share the blame as well. General Sanchez was a failure in Iraq, giving us chaos in Baghdad and Abu Ghraib among other problems, and is now talking about “the most dangerous threat our nation has faced in over 60 years”. That would be — what? Sanchez and the others are reacting, too late, to unsuccessful aggression. They and others learned nothing from Vietnam, repeated the same mistakes and now blame Bush. They have to blame someone, other than themselves.
These people have nothing worthwhile to tell us. The American people know what to do–leave–but the people aren’t represented in Washington by the Congress and certainly not by retired generals.
Sorry but I am sick and tired of hearing from Generals.
I want to hear from Peace Activists, Human Rights volunteers, religious advocates for non-violence.
Where is our voice in the media?
How come Peace Action is never asked to comment or Medea Benjamin or numerous Nobel Peace Prize winners?
Bush’s own claimed Church, the Methodists, roundly condemned the War when he started it and convened a special conference a year later for more in-depth investigations of its morality in terms of the
alleged “Just War Doctrine” and condemned it even more
strongly.
The Pope condemned it.
Walter Cronkite condemned it , George McGovern, even Greenspan’s staunch Republican pal, Paul O’Neill, former Bush Treasury Secretary, wrote in “The Price Of Loyalty” of how he was shocked from his first Security Council meeting long before Sept 11th to see maps unrolled of Iraqi oil fields for capture.
Enough with the Generals.
Get out and let the Arab League and UN try to negotiate some sort of peace to the Civil War Bush has started.
It is very important that we quote the generals who are Americans too. They have special expertise with wars. It does not discount what peace activists and religious leaders say. It points up that the generals are saying the same thing. To bring along Americans who have been war-oriented, you need to let them listen to these military experts as they will never listen to the peace activists. The very fact that the MSM has all but blacked out what the generals are saying proves my point.
Just so you all know, Shinseki lost part of a leg on his first combat tour in VN, was discharged and fought his way back into the Army by proving he could still function. He then went back for his second combat tour and was wounded again. This man is a “Real Hero and Warrior” Has anyone else noticed too that the young Lt at Fort Lewis who refused to go to Iraq saying it would make him a war criminal, is also a Japanese American.These are two brave men like the men of the 442 Inf Regt in WW II, “The Nesei” who made that Regt the most highly decorated of the Armys Regiments to this day, I believe.Good night.
Have we forgotten that this crew “creates it’s own reality”? We used to have special institutions for such people.
This is a prime example of why a lot of us former Republican’s stopped voting for them. The GOP have become extremely venomous, hypocritical, fascist, petty, and infantile. All the years Clinton was in office the right wing pundit’s bashed both (Bill and Hillary) of them daily. There is a whole generation out there who hates Clinton (and most of them aren’t really certain why they do except some right wing pundit told them they should hate him) because they were spoon fed the right wing’s hate rhetoric daily. It got to the point where it was utterly disgusting. It did me up on Republican’s for a good long time. I won’t vote for even the moderate ones because they are still part of that ‘Slime Machine’ that is run by the GOP. They have to be the most sickening group of people to come out of politics.
Another well written article, but nothing new! We post article after article and nothing changes. To much talk not enough action. The present “we the people” are not the same “we the people” that drafted, fought and died for our Constitution. Bottom-line, we need a good old fashion revolution, but thats going to take good old fashion people. Good luck with that!!!!
Why did the New York Times give Moveon.org a 50% discount? Jeez, for a Republican this guy doesn’t understand that business-owners can do whatever they want in pricing their goods and services.
The generals and admirals have been steeped in the myth of the noble US military for decades. Smedley Butler went only so far; he did not address the role of the US military in inciting British attacks on the US in the War of 1812, or how the US military split in two in 1861 resulting in the second “Civil” war killing over 1/2 M US citizens, or its role in killing even more US citizens during the longer “Civil” war (against native people). The deliberate incitement of, and failure to defend, the Pearl Harbor attacks occurred after Butler’s famous speech.
Generals have criticized the conduct of the war, but not its rationale, morality, or its negative contribution to the safety of US citizens. In short, not one has yet shown himself to be a loyal US citizen.