May 6, 2006
DEFENDING THE E RING FROM THE CIVILIANS:
Stakes high in battle between Rumsfeld, generals (James Kitfield, May 5, 2006, National Journal)
Given the nearly unprecedented nature of the controversy, what is perhaps most remarkable is how utterly unsurprising it is to anyone who has spent time with senior military officers, in the field, over drinks at the officers' club, or especially on the ground in Iraq. The fact that the Army chief of staff came out of retirement to take the job after sources say at least three active-duty generals declined it, and reports that the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, may retire before his term is up, speak volumes about the frayed state of civil-military relations in today's Pentagon.Practically from the moment they first occupied the E Ring, Rumsfeld and his tight circle of senior aides demonstrated a dismissive attitude that has grated on uniformed leaders. In the view of Bush's civilian team, President Clinton had allowed the generals and the admirals to run roughshod. Rumsfeld and his band of reformers were a rude awakening for senior military leaders conditioned to expect a measure of courtesy from civilian bosses as a privilege of their rank; instead, Bush's team set out to show the generals who was boss.
Rumsfeld's incessant needling of the Army, in particular, to more rapidly reshape itself into an expeditionary force, at a time when the service has been run nearly ragged by back-to-back-to-back deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, added insult to injury. From the beginning, the Rumsfeld reformers have also considered themselves bold revolutionaries who deal only in transformative ideas, and their "roll the dice" spirit in nearly all things has often been at odds with the more cautious nature of a uniformed military pledged to securing the Republic.
It's only natural for the bureaucrats at the Pentagon not to want to transform and not to want civilian oversight, but, that's just tough. With all due regard for Mr. Kitfield, who has an essay in our book, the Iraq stuff is just a smokescreen. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 6, 2006 12:00 AM
[S]enior military leaders [were] conditioned to expect a measure of courtesy from civilian bosses as a privilege of their rank...
That's completely the opposite of what I've read about Clinton admin/military relations.
Bill C. may have liked the capabilities of the U.S. military, but neither he nor his senior staff had much respect for military members, regardless of rank.
[T]he Rumsfeld reformers have also considered themselves bold revolutionaries who deal only in transformative ideas, [often] at odds with the more cautious nature of a uniformed military pledged to securing the Republic.
Senior military leaders notoriously didn't like airplanes or tanks when they first saw them, and they were criminally slow to change standard tactics after the introduction of machine guns.
Also, SpecOps has always been the Pentagon's unwanted and unloved poor relative.
Is Mr. Kitfield implying that the SecDef and his aides are not "pledged to securing the Republic" ??
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at May 6, 2006 7:14 AMIt's early days yet, but here's my nominee for irony-impaired line of the year in a not-intentionally funny essay: Rumsfeld's incessant needling of the Army, in particular, to more rapidly reshape itself into an expeditionary force, at a time when the service has been run nearly ragged by back-to-back-to-back deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 6, 2006 8:58 AMIrony? All bureaucracies see being asked to respond to the needs of the voters as meddling.
Posted by: oj at May 6, 2006 9:04 AMFire every army general officer. That would end this. Plenty of well qualified colonels who would like to jump 3 to 4 grades.
Posted by: Bob at May 6, 2006 1:07 PM