The Strib’s political blog “The Big Question” has a great post up about Al Franken and Iraq.
U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman says the decision to withdraw troops in Iraq ought to be made by generals in the field, not politicians in Washington. But that’s not the way our system works, says Coleman’s DFL opponent Al Franken, who enlisted a retired brigadier general today to help make his point.
Gen. John Johns, a combat arms officer who was a counterinsurgency specialist during the Vietnam era, said it was the Bush administration that made the decision to invade Iraq and stay there to fight insurgents. Some generals approve of the war and some don’t, he said, but it doesn’t matter; to suggest that Washington went into Iraq on the advice of generals and was leaving war policy up them, Johns said, “is pure poppycock.”….
“He tells you he wants generals on the ground to make decisions about if and when we change course, as if it’s presumptuous for a senator from Minnesota to have an opinion about that,” Franken said. “In our country … the generals on the ground execute [the government’s] policy to the best of their considerable ability.”
(emphasis mine)
And in thinking about the war in Iraq — that’s really the point. Our military policy isn’t defined by Generals — but instead by the civilian leadership of the country, the advice of generals is just that, the advice of the executors of our plans and policy, but it is the responsibility of the civilians in charge of the military to set its course. Norm Coleman has been nothing more than a rubber stamp for the idiots who set us on this course in the first place. The responsibility to get out of Iraq doesn’t rest on the shoulders of generals (which is what it seems like Coleman is trying to argue) it rests on the shoulders of the civilian leadership.
Let’s elect some new leadership.
Loading ...
Franken is completely wrong on this. The generals do not carry out policy set out by the President. No President since Eisenhower would’ve had any idea how to conduct a war (and I would say, Eisenhower was an amazing war-time President). The generals are left in charge - they have the expertise that nearly every politician lacks. They make suggestions to the Pentagon, to the Defense Dept, etc. They decide the course of action, and that’s something to be happy about — because generals are not elected officials who pander to their constituency to get re-elected.
Sean2-I think you are confusing the terms “policy” and “strategy”
I think you’re deluded.
Lets start with your second declarative sentence. “The generals do not carry out policy set out by the President.”
Really, because last time I checked the Constitution is explicit on this. Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution states:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
When the President says “Do” they do.
“No President since Eisenhower would’ve had any idea how to conduct a war (and I would say, Eisenhower was an amazing war-time President).”
Poppycock, it’s not the responsibility of the President to conduct the war, it’s the responsibility of the President and the civilian leadership of the Government to establish the mission, the objective and policies that define the war. And, without question most every decision made by the civilian and Republican leadership in this country regarding the War in Iraq has been wrong. In many cases, abjectly wrong.
The generals are left in charge - they have the expertise that nearly every politician lacks.
This shows a clear lack of understanding of American policy and of history. Such a giant lack of understanding that I won’t even get started on it.
They decide the course of action, and that’s something to be happy about
This statement is 1. factually false — they do not decide the course of action. In a microscale maybe but in policy, mission and procedure the civilian leadership have the final say, and the imperative responsibility for it. and this statement is 2. dumb. That anyone should ever be happy about an increase in military control of the military’s mission is absurd. The civilian control of the armed forces is one of the clearest safeguards against tyranny and the strongest defense against a military state. The day that anyone is happy that the Military has more power over it’s mission is the day that they should take a good long look at Pakistan and Indonesia and then get back to reality.
because generals are not elected officials who pander to their constituency to get re-elected.
This is something that I wanted to take some time to knock down.
Stop watching John Wayne movies. This last statement of yours is delusional and exists outside of reality, or shows ignorance of the human condition.
To start with, from Douglas MacArthur, Curtis LeMay, Ed Almond, to Wesley Clark American military leadership has always had a keen eye on public perception and an interest in gaming that perception. Everyone who serves deserves our respect for that service, but to imply or think that, espescially at it’s highest ranks that service is altruistic is simply crazy. Like anything the Army and all the armed forces are a politically charged environment, while many generals who will never be heard of by the general public don’t pander to the general public, they do pander to elected officials, the civilian leadership at DoD and to their superiors to get promoted, to get a better command, etc. etc. etc.
One of the failures of this administration and the civilian leadership at the DoD has been their enabling of sycophants at the highest levels of military leadership and their chilling effect on the generals who gave clear headed thoughtful assessments of our needs in Iraq.
You are simply deluded if you don’t think that Generals have a constituency who they need to please. It may not be as obvious or as simple as going to the polls in November, but they do have constituencies who they need to please. Sean