what in the fucking goddamn fuck
In the February 8 edition of the Washington Post, Thomas Ricks wrote openly -- and approvingly -- about the wonderful spectacle of gross military insubordination. General Ray Odierno, Ricks enthuses, "launched a guerrilla campaign for a change in direction in Iraq, conducting his own strategic review and bypassing his superiors to talk through Keane to White House staff members and key figures in the military." Ricks pronounces this an "audacious" move, and writes that it led to the implementation of "a strategy rejected by the full chain of command above him."But it gets better: On Meet the Press that same day, Ricks said that he thinks "we may see a confrontation between Obama and the generals by the end of this year." Why? Take a moment and stare at this quote:
No, they feel they have made huge sacrifices, that they have had friends die and sons bleed, and that they don't want to throw that all away on the--you know, because some guy said on the campaign trail, "We're going to get all these guys out.""Some guy on the campaign trail." The president of the United States. The military doesn't feel like listening to him, so they're going to have a confrontation over it.
And it took me a week to notice, because all of these claims were not discussed for most of the week on most of the blogs and news sites that I read.
ADDED LATER:
New blog.
posted by Chris Bray @ 10:53 AM
10 Comments:
Are you trying to say that civilians should control the military? Crazy talk.
I'm going to suggest that Ricks is serving up some pretty thin gruel here, Chris.
Here's why.
From the "Meet The Press" transcript you linked, we learn that Ricks appearance on the show is "for his first interview on his new book "The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006 through 2008."
This is Ricks' fourth book about the American military, all written during his tenure as a Pentagon reporter for the "Washington Post" and previously for the "Wall Street Journal."
So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that, in his lede, Ricks casts Gen. Odierno as "an unlikely dissident" who "would buck his superiors" ... my, my! Ricks' report of Odierno's actions causes Chris to conclude that this amounts to "gross military insubordination."
Really?
Unlike Ricks, I have attended General Staff meetings. As much as I hate to burst anyone's preconceived notions of those meetings, I have to tell you that they are often characterized by a wide diversity of opinion and, perish the thought, "dissent."
I would suggest that such meetings frequently contain viewpoints representing a wider diversity of ideology and military strategy than the divergent ideology and pedagogy represented at a meeting of say, all 42 members of the University of Iowa's history department, all of whom are registered democrats.
I know the military, but I do not know academia so I would ask this. If I'm a PhD candidate and have a particular thesis that I am advancing which might be contrary to existing thought in my field, and ask a professor emeritus or other professors at and not at my university for their views and perhaps, support, am I guilty of "gross academic insubordination?"
Digressing somewhat, I am reminded of an incident long ago when I was a young Lieutenant. My unit was considering a course of action and everyone knew it. The shit was already in flight to the fan. I had learned that sometimes one could gauge the body temperature of the troops by carefully eavesdropping on the "scuttlebutt." I overheard a very young troop saying this to his Sergeant, "Well, Sarge, I think that..." Before he could finish, the Sgt. cut him off, telling him "You're not paid to think!"
I would suggest that Generals believe they are paid to think, as do their peers and, more importantly, their Commander-in-Chief. The dynamics of such high level discussions are not unlike those of any large organization. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the higher one progresses up the food chain in any organization, the more “political” the process becomes. The US Military is no different in that regard. They may argue, cajole, lobby, bitch, or complain but, at the end of the day, they follow orders of civilians, Fiona, sometimes (unlike other organizations) to their death. If they are not able to follow those orders, they may resign and indeed, this has happened many times throughout history.
And, the new Commander-in-chief is on record for having criticized his predecessor for not “listening to his commanders.” He has vowed to listen to them, as here. in March 2008. Obama shares his most recent views on his talks with his military advisors in this Feb. 9 report here saying in part, “I think there's a general view that we've got to drawdown our troops from Iraq; that we've got to do it responsibly; that we've got to do it carefully. I think the timeframe is closer than it may have appeared during the campaign.”
Obama’s own words do not strike me as “a confrontation between Obama and the generals” but then again, I’m not promoting a book. And, these words were also book-promoter Ricks’ words: “they don't want to throw that all away on the--you know, because some guy said on the campaign trail, "We're going to get all these guys out." Those are Ricks’ words --- not the words of any of Obama’s military advisors.
Ricks report seems to me about as valid as a piece that asserts, “Many Chefs Found To Be Overweight.”
Thomas Ricks is the very most orthodox and inside military affairs reporter that you could possibly find -- he makes Michael Gordon look like an iconoclast. I take this story as Petraeus and Odierno sending a political signal through a familiar and reliable proxy.
I'm familiar with the culture of dissent and discussion in the military, and I agree that it's a far more robust and interesting culture than I think outsiders would tend to assume. But we have a long history of insubordination behind us, from Charles Lee and the Newburgh conspiracy through the military revolt against Eisenhower's New Look and etc. in the twentieth century. Some military leaders forget how the deal works -- it happens with reliable frequency.
Perhaps we're in a semantic discussion of "insubordination."
I would argue that if "some military leaders forget how the deal works" they end in the "Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away." mode.
Then again, rather than fading away, some embarrass themselves and their profession by becoming spokesmen or "consultants/experts" on CNN and such.
Few folks realize how useless and irrelevant former generals become ten minutes after they depart from a world where they were briefed everyday on what's actually happening.
Chris: I entirely agree (though I'm not a military historian, I can bring some non-US military-civilian history to bear, if necessary) but This seems like a positive bit of countervailing rumor.
The good news is that this article is mostly lies by Odierno trying to take credit for things which happened more despite him than because of him. His only claim to official disagreement with the earlier policies is directly denied in the article by the other party. Some of his subordinates say he wasn't on the same page as his bosses but there's no evidence he ever told his superiors that he disagreed. His story about how he worked with Keane to bypass the military leadership and go straight to the White House isn't backed by anybody in a position to know and contradicts dozens of other, better-sourced stories. And all that backdoor dealing allegedly occurred while Rumsfeld was in charge but the change in strategy occurred after Gates took over.
In the end, the only part of the strategy change which Odierno (claims he) championed was the least significant - the small increase in the total number of troops for a short period. The more significant factors, some of which Ricks finally mentions on page four, were Sadr's cease fire, the fact that ethnic cleansing was complete, buying off the tribes and a rejection of tactics such as those Odierno used during his first tour. Even the decision to deploy the bulk of the Baghdad forces outside the city was actually driven by the fact that they couldn't be deployed inside Sadr City as originally intended because that would have ended the Sadr cease fire and resulted in heavy US casualties.
The good news is that this article is mostly lies by Odierno trying to take credit for things which happened more despite him than because of him.
That's an astute observation Mojo. I owe you a pint of stout for that one.
Awesome.
And strangely comforting.
Redtube
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home