Generals trying to stop new fiasco

April 28, 2006

BY ANDREW GREELEY
original



May military officers for reason of conscience criticize the political leadership of the armed forces, even after they've retired, on the grounds that the behavior of the leadership is immoral? As Marine Gen. Gregory Newbold said, the "decision to invade Iraq was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who never had to execute these missions or bury the results." This judgment does not differ from that of George Packer, an early supporter of the war in his extraordinary book, The Assassin's Gate. Two men with different backgrounds and perspectives come to exactly the same judgment and use the same word, "casual."

One may be prepared to agree that the protesting generals should have resigned from the services if they thought that the war was being run by civilian cowboys. But, should they not, like Colin Powell, have maintained a stoic silence about their discontent? One hears two arguments in favor of this position: regard for the morale of the troops and respect for the American tradition of civilian control of the military.

It seems to me that if an officer is convinced his civilian leadership is reckless with his soldiers' lives, then he must resign and speak out. Otherwise he is cooperating in evil and is as much a war criminal as the "casual, swaggering civilian leadership."

The "support our troops" theory is a much weaker one. If "our troops" are in an impossible situation, devised by arrogant, incompetent leadership, the best support is to demand they be removed from the situation into which folly has placed them. Taken literally, ''support our troops'' means the same thing as ''our country, right or wrong.''

The issue becomes not whether it is right to criticize the leadership but whether the criticism is valid. If it is, then there should be a resignation, but of the president instead of the secretary of defense. Another book on the war -- Cobra II by military historians Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor -- addresses the same issue. Their craft requires a careful and detailed description of the battles, major and minor, of a campaign that future generations of cadets will study in the service academies. Such men have no particular ideological bias. They are diagnosticians whose duty it is to describe what worked and what didn't work.

There can be no doubt after reading the 500 pages of battlefield reconstructions in Cobra II that American soldiers and Marines fought with tenacity and courage and that their noncommissioned officers and lower level commissioned officers were resilient and ingenious, even up to regimental, brigade and divisional commands, as they always have been in American military history. The problems were at the very highest level -- Franks, Sanchez, Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz.

Gordon and Trainor sum up their work at the beginning: "The Iraq War is a story of hubris and heroism, of high-technology wizardry and cultural ignorance. The bitter insurgency American and British forces confront today was not pre-ordained. There were lost opportunities, military and political, along the way. The commanders and troops who fought the war explained them to us. A journey through the war's hidden history, demonstrates why American and allied forces are still at risk in a war the president declared all but won on May 1, 2003."

The hubris and devotion to high technology and total ignorance of the enemy are not the problems of the officer corps or the troops. They are problems at the very top level of the country, from the president on down. Why have the generals spoken out now? Doubtless because they see the same group that created the mess in Iraq preparing to incite a war against Iran, using the same techniques of stirring up fear and pseudo-patriotism. They actually seem to believe they can carry it off again, despite their failures in Iraq. It is almost as though there is a Karl Rove scenario. As part of the War on Terrorism we begin to create shock and awe in Iran during October. The Republicans are the party of victory and patriotism. We must keep them in power to support our brave troops and our brave president, and to avenge the heroes of 9/11.

As Vice President Dick Cheney is alleged to have argued to the president, "If we don't finish Iran now, no future administration will be able to finish them."