The Generals Against Still Speak

I just returned from my old stomping grounds around Washington, D.C. My one commenter, Ahab, expressed a hope that other military types would speak out about the Iraq War. I did draft a post on just that topic but never posted it. I thought the post might be too self-serving, but I’ll try a shorter response.

Several retired senior military officers began speaking against a war with Iraq some time before the invasion began. At that time our local chapter of the Military Officers Association of America was split about evenly for and against the war. But even at 50/50 we were far more against the war than the general public. I was against the war even though I did believe Saddam still had biological and chemical WMD. I did not believe he had a credible means of delivering those weapons to the U.S. unless he was in league with al Qaeda, a possibility that I believed was absurd.

Retired officers do speak out, but active officers do not. Why? On the one hand there is job security just as with any civilian job. General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, spoke out about troop levels to Congress in 2003 and he lost his job. Lt. General Brent Scowcroft was retired but he also held advisory positions to Nixon, Ford, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. He spoke out against the war before the war and his advisory position was lost in the process.

More importantly, there is a code of conduct within the military about public speaking. Contrary to the belief of many civilians, the military chain of command is not totally authoritarian. Any good commander wants conflicting opinion from his junior officers and a commander usually listens to all sides of an issue. But the decision is the commander’s and he expects his officers to fully execute his orders when he makes a decision and to execute without regard to their personal opinions. The running joke is that you can say about anything to your superior as long as you end it with, “Sir.”

Military officers are generally more aware of history and politics than most civilians and they are active in voting and related political actions. They also discuss politics but never speak in public on those issues. This rule is followed throughout a career, so when one becomes a general or admiral, the rule is not forgotten. In fact it is even more important because of the seniority of position. The military is schooled in and believes in the Constitution and that the military is subordinate to our civilian leaders, especially the Commander-in-Chief.

An officer who publicly speaks out against senior officers, civilian leaders, or public policy will face rejection from members of his own service, no matter how right he might be. It is just not acceptable. I guess that General Petraeus is in this situation now. He is the architect of the new counterinsurgency operations and he is in charge of executing the operations. Yet he must know that we cannot achieve a military win. He also knows that any kind of a win must be political (that’s in FM 3-24 also).

I believe that the September 15 report to Congress was Petraeus’ idea. I guess that he will be honest in that report but he might also sugar-coat his report in the interest of the Commander-in-Chief. It appears to me that there is sufficient progress in Anbar and Dyala provinces to claim progress in all of Iraq, if any of the insurgent groups choose not to increase their tempo of operations in the days before September 15.

The code of public silence doesn’t apply to retired officers. If anyone has kept track, a great many of those who did speak out against the war were generals and admirals who had recent, intimate experience with commands in or near CENTCOM which is the Unified Command which directs the Iraq War. These included General Anthony Zinni (commanded CENTCOM,1997-2000), General Wesley Clark (SACEUR and commander of NATO forces, 1997-2000), Lt. General William Odom (he retired as a 3-star general and then served as director of NSA under Reagan), General Tony McPeak (Air Force Chief of Staff, 1990-1994, co-chairman of Oregon Veterans for Bush in 2000), General Joseph Hoar (commanded CENTCOM, 1991-1994), General John Shalikashvilli (Chairman JCS, 1993-1997). These are only the first six names in my research database. The list goes on.

Is this silence good or bad for America? I have to side with the good option, although I do have reservations in the case of the Iraq War. It is good that our military believes in subordination to our civilian leaders. It is good that our military does not publicly support any one political party or theory.

There is also the question of who would have listened if the generals did speak out. The Bush Administration, along with a complicit Republican Congress, was extremely effective at squelching opposition through calls to patriotism. Many of us who did try to speak out were called unpatriotic by a public that had little knowledge of the war and who remain largely ignorant today.

I am certain that senior military officers did speak against the mismanagement of the war but not publicly. However, we all know how Rumsfeldt and his neocons theorist ignored and belittled those generals. I have to believe that Bush knew and condoned this action. When Bush says that he relies on his commanders’ advice, history shows that to be a lie.