General nuisances
Six retired generals have stood up to denounce the Bush administration and call for Rumsfeld’s dismissal. Charles Krauthammer offers his take on the situation.
Last time around, the anti-war left did not have a very high opinion of generals. A popular slogan in the 1960s was “war is too important to be left to the generals.” …. Another war, another take. I-know-better generals are back. Six of them, retired, are denouncing the Bush administration and calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of defense. The anti-war types think this is just swell.
I don’t.Â
He addresses three reasons why generals might rise in opposition to the secretery of defense:Â He doesn’t listen to military advisors (refuted by the military advisors around him); he disregards settled, consensual military advice (there was no real consensus on how to fight the war in Iraq, and the major areas of resistance involved re-structuring the defense department) ; or he doesn’t listen to those particular generals.
He believes the third option is the most likely, and the most perilous.
We’ve always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Saddam’s Iraq, Pinochet’s Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.
That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America. Some other retired generals have found it necessary to rise to the defense of the current administration. Will the rest of the generals, retired or serving, now have to declare themselves as to which camp they belong?
It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the  anti-war left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.
| More from Karl Lembke
Stumble It!
April 21st, 2006 at 9:57 am
[...] General nuisances [...]
April 22nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Just some more Army “bad apples”, like the Abu Ghraib bunch.
Perhaps soldiers should not cluster together.
The Brits think your generals are Rambo pissant.
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
I suppose some of the reaction from folks like these generals could be likened to the reactions on the part of professionals in any field.
Doctors, for example, see the bad effects of all of our vices, so they argue against them, even to the point of banning them.
Dennis Prager has talked about fire regulations that bar schools from propping classroom doors open for ventilation, even on the hottest days, because of fire danger.
Generals might oppose going to war, or advocate the use of force so overwhelming as to be oppressive, because they see the results of war.
That only six generals have lost their perspective in the way those six have is probably a testiment to their stability and common sense.
As for the Left’s pursuit of anything they can use as a weapon against Bush, no matter how dangerous the implications are for future government… I’m reminded of the comment about the dog who chases cars. What does he plan to do when he catches one?
In a way, it might be fun to watch … until you stop and think about what a bloody mess it’ll be.