Richard Holbrooke, WP op-ed: "Behind the Military Revolt"

[DeepModem Mom]

Behind the Military Revolt
By Richard Holbrooke
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B07

The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct -- MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.

First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak."

These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing.

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire....This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations -- perhaps soon -- from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401451.html?sub=AR

[Mojorabbit]

1. WOW!

That will set DC ablaze.

[cantstandbush]

2. Could there be a military coup in this country? WOW!!!

This shit is getting serious.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. 'Could' there be a coup? Yes. 'Will' there be a coup? ......

Could there be a coup? Well, technically, yes. But that seems an unlikely prospect, particularly in this country and with the culture of our military, which, from its very start, was fashioned in a way that keeps it well (and safely) subordinated to the civilian leadership.

On the other hand, there are some who say, not without very real evidence, that the net result of the dubious 2000 selection of George Bush, the events on September 11 of that year, and the subsequent dubious election of 2004, that a coup has already taken place.

But all that aside, and looking only at the actions of these general officers, I don't think a coup is at all likely. Instead, they are following the lessons - as Holbrooke so rightly points out - learned in Viet Nam. That officers have a fundamental duty to speak out when they think the civilian leadership is heading down a dangerous path.

Were there a thirst for power on the part of these men, the coup may well already have started. Indeed, rather than do what they could to engineer a coup, these men removed themselves from positions in which they could exercise military power to effect a coup and instead chose to end their careers and use that occasion to speak out.

Say what you will of the military - and much can be said in both its praise and its disparagement - these are honorable men who clearly wrestled with the most gut wrenching decisions of their lives.

And with men like these, a coup is probably the last thing we should anticipate.

[Dan]

14. an assumption that I wouldn't make...

strangely, I never would have used the term 'coup' when referring to our government. But, if the Congress does not step up it constitutional duties and oversight - then one has to question, who will? Very interesting, when the retired boys in the corporation start to talk about the owners of the corporation... November 2006 will tell us a lot, an invasion or assault on Iran might tell us a lot; but I would not take anything off the table, because as a result of Bush (and his belief in his divine right), electronic voting machines, illegal spying, the failures of this congress, and never-ending war, ... we live in interesting times...

[mopinko]

19. a coup and a mutiny are not the same thing.

the military could well say "hell no we won't go", but not then go on to take control of the country. they can refuse to follow unlawful orders and go no further. personally, i think that is what is happening. they do not want to move on iran.
that is why the talk has been of nukes from the start. i believe the generals have already said no. * thinks he can push a few buttons and be done. no pesky generals in the way.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. That is what they are trying to avoid

That is why they are resigning instead.

[Voltaire99]

25. Harper's Magazine: Cover story for April

"Coup D'Etat: Military Thinkers Discuss the Unthinkable"

Highly recommended.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Strong stuff here. I hope it is heeded.

[Lochloosa]

4. Kick

[Kolesar]

6. LOL-- & Create a culture of reason and reality-based policy, too I suppose

Holbrooke was absolutely in favor of the war on Iraq as was the Republican officer corpse. They worked that god damned war for electoral victory in 2002 and 2004. We should bust those fuckers down to private and put them in the god damned infantry in the 111 degree sun of Mesopotamia.

[KittyWampus]

10. there's quite a bit wrong with your post. Perhaps you might look into

-Holbrooke and his positions
-the apolitical active military officer corp
-the damage removing a number of experienced generals from the field would do to our troops

[Kolesar]

13. Holbrooke was prowar. The officers are republicans. eom

[Voltaire99]

26. "the apolitical active military officer corp"--ha ha ha!

The officer corps is overwhelmingly Republican.

Go read the current issue of Harper's.

[Olney Blue]

7. This article actually brought tears to my eyes.

These generals had vowed when young not to repeat the
mistakes of Vietnam made by their elders, and now they are admitting that they have.

[NNN0LHI]

8. "Peace with honer" in Iraq is not far off n/t

[Joe Fields]

9. The most dramatic point of Holbrooks story.......

"They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing."

This is exactly what I meant in the thread that I wrote two days ago which was so highly criticized. Holbrook and these generals just made my point. They had a duty to speak out when it counted and did not. Now they hope that their comrades, who are still commissioned will have the courage to do just that.

This is what we need to get Rumsfeld the hell out of office.

[ieoeja]

28. I was taught the exact opposite.

"having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson"

At Quantico in 1981 I was taught that LBJ and McNamara did everything the US Army and Air Force asked of them in defiance of the recommendations of the Navy/USMC despite little experience by the former two services in guerrila warfare compared to over 100 years experience by the latter two in fighting (and winning) such wars. The Army/Air Force told LBJ and McNamara they could overwhelm the enemy. The Navy/USMC said you can never overwhelm a guerrila force, you can only hold your own and let them whither. The former strategy sent our boys on Search-and-Destroy missions in the jungle. The latter strategy called for staying the heck out of the jungle where the guerrilas can pull off the occasional successful ambush keeping their revolutionary spirit alive.

[immoderate]

11. If Rumsfeld goes what will change?

Nothing.

Something more radical needs to change. Who would Bush appoint that will not carry on the same Neocon policy? It's Bush who must go.

--IMM

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. psssst...

Some folks are trying to throw a monkey wrench into plans to launch attacks on Iran before the November Elections. Bush won't be forced out of office in that time span. Attacks on Rumsfeld now play a very important function in keeping this Administration on the defensive, and undermine the ability of Bush to mobilize acceptance of his pending war plans.

[immoderate]

16. OK, that sounds reasonable.

:)

--IMM

[eppur_se_muova]

18. War fever delayed is war fever denied...I've been hoping the same thing.

This may be the approach that has the best chance of preventing an attack on Iran. Create doubt and delay in the WH, rather than aim for a dramatic reversal of policy. Keeping fingers crossed.

[Memory Container]

24. Which may seem to work...

Right up until there is a 'terrorist attack' we can blame on Iran.

[RedEarth]

17. Kick

[YDogg]

20. Too bad it was on page B7, not A1.

[drm604]

21. I'm trying to imagine what can come of all of this.

If generals resign won't Bush simply replace them with his own yes men?
If they don't resign and instead refuse to follow what they consider to be illegal orders, won't Bush simply fire them and replace them with his own yes men?
I can't see where this is going.

[JPZenger]

22. 7th General - Lets Not Forget Wes Clark

Let's not forget 4 star general Wesley Clark, who has called for Rumsfeld's removal.

[emald]

23. so okay, the "generals" (retired) are speaking up now

after they have had their tour in Bushits unholy war. Maybe the time to have effected power would have been before Iraq? I am not at all sure whats happening here but it seems disingenuous to complain about the war plans of this administration after helping it to attain the first step on it's way to PNAC glory.
I'm also quite sure that changing generals would have no effect on Bushits plans. Iran is going to get the bomb, dumbya doesn't change his mind, like a foolish toddler hell bent on shitting his pants instead of using the toilet. Goddamned idiots. Seditious fools. Little men with small penises and even smaller minds.(rant over)

[Voltaire99]

27. Well said. Send these war criminals to the Hague with Rumsfeld.

While it's nice to see Rumsfeld under attack, you'd think from the excitement of some Democrats that these complaints were coming from angels. But a uniform always makes some knees go weak.

Let us try to remember: some of these men were only too willing to architect the invasion of an innocent country, now in ruins thanks to their "professionalilsm" and "service."

Well might they wish now to be seen as critics of "Rumsfeld's war," the hypocrites!

[Supersedeas]

29. the target is not Rumsfeld, but the two higher ups (Network "News" are u

reading this?)