Permission to Speak Freely, Sir

[dogday]

Those who have never served in the military don't understand how extraordinary it is for career military officers to say the things they're saying.

I am sorry that high school and college kids no longer have to face a couple of years of mandatory military service. That may be a strange thing to say for a guy who protested the draft back in the '60s. Maybe it's the inevitable aging process. Or maybe it's the perspective you get from the higher altitude of experience.

What got me thinking about this were the extraordinary statements being made by recently retired U.S. generals. Those who have never served in the military don't understand how extraordinary it is for career military officers to say the things these guys are saying about their former civilian superiors.

I hit Marine Corps bootcamp on July 7, 1965, a wimpy kid from suburbia. The first thing we were told was that we were the lowest forms of life on earth -- and that meant lower than civilians. I was to learn as time went on that this was not just drill instructor blather. It was a genuine, deeply ingrained belief that permeated the highest ranks of the military for civilian control. We were repeatedly told that the lowest civilian we met on the street outranked the highest grade military officer. And that was not show. They believed it, not just as a principle, but a sacred trust.

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_041406_story2.jpg

http://www.alternet.org/story/34937/

[Neil Lisst]

1. Absolutely. For 2, 3 and 4 star generals who served in the war to ...

... to come out like this is unheard of, especially MARINE AND ARMY Generals.

There have been six who have called for Rummy's resignation.

Truly astounding. I don't think it's ever happened before.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. I don't think anything like this has EVER happened in the history of the

U.S. military. I spent most of my adult career as an officer in it, and I don't remember ever hearing of anything like this, not during my career or any time before it.

[sarge43]

15. Nope

All during Nam and well afterwards, I never heard anything to compare. There was plenty of private talk about the jerks (expletives deleted) who were running the show, but nothing public, even from the retired flags who could speak out.

[Neil Lisst]

16. I've never heard of it happening before, either. It certainly hasn't

... happened the past 40 years, because I've been paying attention to the past 40 years!

Some of these guys were recently in the theatre. Truly amazing and shocking. I really believe there are many, many career officers who have to see the folly of Bush's nation building fantasy.

[BlooInBloo]

2. I haven't served, but I FULLY understand the danger of the military...

... speaking out against its civilian supervisors.

While I agree on the fact of the matter with the generals, I also think that the next President (presumably Dem) would be well advised to replace every single top level general.

It simply isn't the military's place to take a stand against its civilian supervisors - the military needs this fact - a basic foundation stone of our nation - to be drilled into it one more time.

Note: It's not that I think the 6 generals today have any malevolent intent - I don't think that. But it's the slippery-slope PRECEDENT that's getting set that I find unacceptable. It needs to be abundantly clear that this is a CIVILIAN run government.

And it's also not to say that them speaking out isn't a good thing. It's a good thing, that I would immediately fire them for later.

my $.02

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. Those generals are RETIRED so it is fully their right to speak out.

Their speaking out, as civilians, in no way challenges the civilian control over the military.

[babylonsister]

5. Who better to understand the mess Rummy has made than

the military? Murtha and Kerry both called for his resignation and no one listened. Perhaps this time they will.

[mcscajun]

6. You'd see the current generals tossed out because retired generals

used their right of free speech to oppose the federal administration?

You don't punish those who Have Not Acted for the actions of others; the retired generals are beyond punishment by their government.

I just don't get where you're coming from with this.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. I think there is a willful failure to recognize that the generals are

civilians, since they have retired from military service.

[BlooInBloo]

10. No. I recognize there is SOME difference....

... just not enough to satisfy me.

Similarly, lots of Americans are disinclined out of hand to vote for a general for POTUS - the fact that he's retired being considered "not good enough". People who think like this - and I'm one of them - believe it's important to keep the executive FULLY civilian.

Fine to disagree, tho I admit to not understanding the vitriol about it...

And yes, I think it's perfectly respectable to not back Clark for POTUS for the simple fact that he's a general. Nothing bad about him, I just want my military run by civilians IN THE FULLEST POSSIBLE SENSE, not merely "legalistically".

[BlooInBloo]

12. I'd toss them because I wouldn't allow any hint of the military....

... acting against its civilian leadership.

Not a single hint.

There are four formal branches of political power, and THE MILITARY AIN'T ONE OF EM (I do count The People though).

Again, if it wasn't clear before: it's not that I disagree with them on the substantive fact of the matter (rummy blows, etc) - it's that I don't think it's wise to permit even a whiff of disobedience from a civilian-led military. Well, not if you want to KEEP it civilian-led, at any rate - lol.

They got the guns folks. By definition that makes them the biggest possible threat to us. That's WHY the founding fathers opted for civilian-led military. I only seek to reinforce this. Is that really so bizarre?

[mcscajun]

22. So much for innocent until proven guilty in that case.

Again...where's the evidence (you need more than a Hint) against any serving general?

Guilt by association is not a standard I'm comfortable with.

[mcscajun]

25. The way you're reinforcing it IS bizarre

because you'd seek to create a second-class citizenry of our retired military personnel.

They'd never be able to serve in public office by your standard, they'd never, ever be considered fully civilian on their return to civilian life, which they have every right to expect.

Certainly, no one sane wants our government led by ACTIVE Military Officers, but I'm not going to oppose someone who wants to enter public service because they've previously served their country in a military capacity.

There's a slippery slope for you.

[BlooInBloo]

28. All of what you said "according to me" is completely false...

... I said nothing of the sort. That's just you making shit up.

I suggested absolutely NOTHING be be done to ANY retired personnel. Just because I wouldn't vote for Clark doesn't mean no one else will - is that what you're talkin bout? The response seems too obvious.


Does every genuflect to the military so much that they absoultely refuse to read what I wrote?

Where did I say that retired people should lose their rights? guffaw!

[mcscajun]

35. Nobody here is Genuflecting to the military...and we really Can Read.

"I also think that the next President (presumably Dem) would be well advised to replace every single top level general."

"People who think like this - and I'm one of them - believe it's important to keep the executive FULLY civilian.(snip) I just want my military run by civilians IN THE FULLEST POSSIBLE SENSE, not merely "legalistically"."

"Legalistically" -- Interesting choice of words...civilians ARE civilians ARE civilians, whether you like it or not, even former soldiers, sailors, Marines, even former Generals and Admirals.

Mocking those who point out where your thought patterns would lead doesn't change the truth. Pointing out where your thought patterns would lead isn't putting words in your mouth.

Keep having fun, though.

[Greyhound]

9. The fact that you haven't served is obvious, and you've missed

the point entirely. Military command criticizing civilian leadership is not new, in fact it is a time honored tradition, but to do it in public is an indication of just how much worse the reality is than we know. For men like these to take these actions is unheard of, and frankly, scares the shit out of me. This is equivalent to the executive board calling a press conference to expose the corruption at Enron before the collapse and subsequent investigation, IOW it is so bad, they are risking their reputations (and future employment prospects) to try to bring attention to something they feel threatens the very fabric of our society.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Sorry. I forgot the word "public". Sheesh.

[Greyhound]

19. I think I must have been unclear, this is another canary dropping

dead on its perch in the coal mine that is amerika, not a portent of a future military coup.

[BlooInBloo]

20. It's slipperyslope-precedent in the eyes of some...

I simply think it's advisable to avoid ANY issue with such a thing.

[Lars39]

14. The top generals right now are those that have been kept in place

thru at least 2 purges since bushco took office.

[sarge43]

17. BlooInBloo

Those men are retired. The UCMJ no longer applies to them. They have as much right to criticize public servants as you do. Would you silence all veterans?

[BlooInBloo]

18. Did you even read what I said?

EDIT: I suspect you did read what I said, but wished SO BAD I had said something a "little bit worse" - to justify your idiotic question, that you decided to answer AS THOUGH I had said what you wish I had. But didn't.

[sarge43]

21. You didn't answer the question which isn't idiotic, btw

One more time: Is it your contention that former members of US Armed Forces forfeit their constitutional rights? Yes or no. For the record, Rummy is not those men's civilian superior, no more than he's yours.

Now as long you're getting snotty, allow me to return the favor. You might want to learn how to express yourself more clearly. If you do so, you'll no doubt find that people won't ask for clarification.

[BlooInBloo]

24. ROFL!

I never said, suggested, nor implied that former members of the US military should forfeit their rights. That's all you making shit up swiftboat style.

It's all you makin the shit up. And just because I favor a strongly demarcated civilian leadership of the military.

Maybe my worries are closer to reality that I thought.

[sarge43]

26. Oh please

Did those men state, imply, even hint, that they wanted an active duty type to take Rummy's place? If you think they did, then please reprint that statement or at least prove a cite. Because if they did, they should be hauled back on AD and busted down to E-1. If they didn't, then what is your frigging problem with what those men did?

[BlooInBloo]

27. Ok. It's plain you didn't bother to read what I said...

cya!

[sarge43]

30. Cover your own

It's clear you've talked yourself into a logic trap and don't how to talk your way out.

[BlooInBloo]

34. "cya" = "see ya"!

The only trap I got into was believing you'd read what I ACTUALLY said, instead of MAKING SHIT UP for me to say, and attacking that.

cya!

[Joe Fields]

8. Maybe the realities of how the military is structured make it...

hard to speak out, but the fact of the matter is that it's their duty to speak out, if they feel that a military strategy places the soldiers they are in charge of in harm's way. There are regulations in military manuals that dictate the right to speak out under such circumstances. I am not saying that it is not risky to do so, and probably a career ender. It would take considerable courage to do so. I would really like to hear from the hundreds of still commissioned colonels, generals and admirals who the retired generals say share their sentiments about this administration.

I am of your generation, and I would not want ANYONE to serve in the armed forces under this lunatic administration.

On edit, to make my point clear, by "harm's way, I mean under hopelessy dangerous circumstancesby imposing orders which are destined to fail with no possible positive outcome.

[leanin_green]

11. I concur.

Having served as a Navy Hospital Corpsman with the Marines, I think it would be a good thing for every U.S. citizen to serve a mandatory two year hitch. When I was in Germany for NATO exercises in '79, the Germans I talked to had such a program in place in their country. You could choose when to serve that mandatory hitch, but everyone had to serve at one time or other. Everyone should have to contribute to the security of their nation at some time in their lives. Call it part of a well-rounded education as to what it means to be a citizen.

[DS1]

23. Really?

When I went through Parris Island, we were taught thata civilians are untrained, undisciplined nasties who should be kissing the ground we walked on.

And to a point, it's correct.

[cynatnite]

29. It is astounding...

These men lived and breathed military most of their lives. They are completely devoted to it and the men who serve under them.

We were pretty much told the same thing in basic. I went in '86 and even though the DI's may not have used the most colorful of language they would normally use with men, we were lower than the dirt under the dirt :) I find it funny now.

During my time I was lucky enough to meet several generals and they have a lot more respect for the enlisted than most of the officers. One of the aides told me it was because the enlisted do most of the bleeding and dying.

I did see one general snap two captains in place for how they treated a PFC. He called them arrogant and spoiled. A rumor went around that those two guys got put in the kitchen scrubbing pots and pans with the rest of the enlisted.

I really hope more people understand that these men speaking out like they are is extraordinary.

[Montagnard]

31. It is rare

for the military to publicly question the civilian leadership. You would have to finely search history to find where this has happened.

[TahitiNut]

32. Yep ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/206

[FlaGranny]

33. Sorry, but my first impulse

is to answer "Go ahead #1." I watch too much Star Trek.