As Policy Decisions Loom, a Military Code of Silence Is Broken

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: As Policy Decisions Loom, a Code of Silence Is Broken


From left, Major General Paul D. Eaton, General Anthony C. Zinni, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Major General John Batiste, Major General John Riggs and Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr.

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: April 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 15 — The call by some retired generals for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is more than an effort to assign blame for the problems that the United States has encountered in Iraq. It also reflects concern that military voices are not being given sufficient weight in the Bush administration's deliberations, as well as unease about the important decisions that lie ahead.

In going public with their criticism, the generals have broken an informal code of silence among officers that is rooted in the longstanding reluctance of the military to openly challenge the civilian leadership of the Defense Department. That tradition has been questioned since the Vietnam War, a conflict in which generals who doubted Pentagon leaders did not oppose decisions that they thought were ill-advised.

Some of the generals challenging Mr. Rumsfeld have said they regret not speaking up while they were on active duty.

In defending Mr. Rumsfeld, President Bush has asserted that the defense secretary relies on his commanders in the field. And yet the retired generals include two former commanders of Army divisions in Iraq and an officer who trained the Iraqi military — generals who argue that the military's assessments have been discounted or ignored.

The retired generals, in effect, have declared Mr. Rumsfeld unfit to lead the nation's military forces as the United States faces crucial decisions on how to extricate itself from Iraq and what to do about Iran's nuclear program....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16assess.html

[KeepItReal]

1. How can *RETIRED* generals "break the code of silence"??

That code is for ACTIVE DUTY military forces.

[Neil Lisst]

5. Given that it is UNPRECEDENTED, the code of silence is self evident

[mcscajun]

7. It's an informal code carried over from their days in the military.

What was, when they were on active duty, forbidden, is (or was until this month) still deemed improper and inappropriate after retirement. So while they cannot be held to be breaking the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they are still breaking with tradition. The choice of words is media play, and very dramatic.

[TygrBright]

2. Frankly, this whole thing has no good side to it...

...although perhaps it had to be done. I'm still of two minds about that.

But it scares the living bejeezus out of me when really high-ranking military leadership "goes political" no matter WHAT side of the aisle they are on.

The easiest way to topple a representative government is some kind of military coup. It's never happened here partly because we've been so successful at keeping our highest-level military leadership out of political frays. Yes, some retired generals have entered politics as candidates, and I'm alright with that.

But even though these guys are retired, some of them are quite recently retired and the timing and content of their remarks lends a tone perilously close to stating they 'retired' for political reasons. Which may/may not be a "real" retirement at all.

A man convinced agains his will, is of his own opinion still, and all that.

Am I glad that they're 'telling truth to power?'

Sort of, I guess. The obtusity level of the current administration is such that I don't think anything short of full-scale rioting in the streets plus a military mutiny would have any real effect, and I DON'T WANT THAT. Not at that price. MUCH better to wait it out, take back the legislative branch, and start the process slowly.

Unless, of course, blivet & co. are really, seriously, honestly planning to nuke Iran, without a declaration of war and Congressional authorization. In that case, and only in that case, it's not only justified but required that responsible military leadership joing with legislative, judicial, and civil service leadership to yank the rug out.

I don't know which is creepier, honestly... The thought that military leadership would politicize like this WITHOUT that justification, or the thought that blivet & co. are already providing that justification.

Either way it's awful. Just awful.

soberly,
Bright

[SoCalDem]

3. 2 more today..now there are EIGHT....n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. Is that in the linked article, or elsewhere?

[mcscajun]

8. Here's one more: Clark.

On Saturday, Gen. Wesley K. Clark became the latest retired officer to call for the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld. General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=80490becc6fc560d&hp&ex=1145246400&partner=homepage

On Saturday, Gen. Wesley K. Clark became the latest retired officer to call for the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld. General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=80490becc6fc560d&hp&ex=1145246400&partner=homepage

I don't see any roundup of the generals or any mention of another here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4913414.stm

The lead-in to the article reads: "Another two US generals have weighed into the row over whether Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should quit." This does not mean two more have weighed in against Rumsfeld. The article goes on to mention "ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Richard Myers, said the calls were inappropriate." Myers and Clark are holding opposing positions. So, without more information, I think the total stands at seven.

[MikeNY]

4. So...

When are the talking heads going to stop spinning this into a good thing? Oh yes, its so wonderful that generals can speak openly about the mismanagement and corruption in civilian government and not simply following the party line. OK, great. We established that about 200 years ago. What is it going to take to make someone in this administration lose their job?

[cantstandbush]

9. Is it Rumsfeld they are protesting or is it Bush. It should be BOTH!! nt

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Given the fact that Bush appointed Rumsfeld and is defending

him still, I think it amounts to the same thing. To criticize Runsfeld alone is quite a break from military tradition. Maybe they just can't bring themselves, yet, to openly criticize the CIC. Just saying.

:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Well, part of the thing mentioned in the articles is that the CIC can't be

fired (at least without impeachment), the SecDef can.