American Praetorian Guard?

[oddlots]

Interesting take on the significance of the McChrystal affair from Bacevich:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062502160.html

"The fate of any one general qualifies as small beer: Wearing four stars does not signify indispensability. But indications that the military's professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms."

C/o Paul Kedrosky

[BigBagel]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

I'm sure that generals have been complaining about their civilian masters since the founding of the republic but I do think the author of the column makes many good points about our abuse of the military.

It must be a hard task to be respectful of someone like Joe Biden.

McChrystal's firing got the most press but the more significant departure was that of the budget director Peter Orszag. In the end our failure to deal with our budget problems will have very negative national security consequences.

[bpr]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

Ripper: "Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?"
Mandrake: "No. I don't think I do sir, no."
Ripper: "He said war was too important to be left to the Generals. When he said that, fifty years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought."

- Dr. Strangelove

As hard as it may be for a military man to respect a politician, you don't become a four star general by dodging bullets while rescuing your wounded mates on the field of battle. McChrystal built his career not on the battlefield, but in the darkened strategy rooms of the Pentagon and war colleges, with occasional stints at command posts on friendly soil (S. Korea, Saudi Arabia).

In short, the general is very much a politician himself, kissing the babies and shaking the hands of well-appointed military men.

One final quote from Dr. Strangelove:

Ripper: ...It looks like we're in a shooting war.

[c1ue]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

I find the article to be pretty weak and one sided.

The reference to the Vietnam War in particular emphasizes the contortions Bacevich undertakes in order to make his point:

The wisdom of Marshall's axiom soon became clear. In Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson plunged the United States into what became its Seven Years War. The citizen army that was sent to Southeast Asia fought valiantly for a time and then fell to pieces. As the conflict dragged on, Americans in large numbers turned against the war -- and also against the troops who fought it.

Uh, the 'conflict' in Vietnam was not a declared war for 7 years (See Gulf of Tonkin resolution). The citizen army had a significant, if not majority, of drafted and unwilling participants. The draft furthermore had clear class differences: the rich and connected got service in the National Guard, US, or Europe - the rest got fed into the meatgrinder.

Secondly my understanding is that McChrystal is a Special Forces general - quite a different affair than a more mainstream military branch.

Lastly the point about Petraeus is also weak. Sure, Petraeus has political capital due to his being used by Bush then Obama as a winning general.

But Petraeus doesn't have campaign staffers. He doesn't have campaign contributions or PACs. He doesn't even have a platform.

His political capital can be leveraged by one of the existing political parties in the sense of name recognition, but this isn't the 1800s where a slogan like Tippecanoe and Tyler Too is enough to win a major national elective post. For that matter, he doesn't have a 'win' - the surge hardly qualifies as a shining success.

For that matter we've had a general put up for election - he didn't get anywhere (Wesley Clark in 2004)

[GRG55]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

Interesting take on the significance of the McChrystal affair from Bacevich:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062502160.html

"The fate of any one general qualifies as small beer: Wearing four stars does not signify indispensability. But indications that the military's professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms."

C/o Paul Kedrosky

Yes it should set off alarm bells. However, that military officers [and others serving in the forces] should have less confidence in our elected officials than in the past should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone...tell me who has not lost at least some confidence in our politicians and political systems over the past few decades?

[bpr]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

...tell me who has not lost at least some confidence in our politicians and political systems over the past few decades?

As one who was born after the Vietnam war's end this is a dangerous question. I, and many from my generation (and later generations), have never had faith in our politicians, and an outright fear of the military.

Being born after Nixon, I have a general distrust of politicians (at the age of eight it struck me as odd when the President was testifying before the Senate and repeating "I don't recall" after every question). After Kent State, there has been no reason to trust an idiot with a rifle just because he's wearing a uniform.

Politicians are at least answerable to the people come election time.

The military has no such responsibility to the people, as evidenced by their lionization of Oliver North.

If I have a distrust of politicians, I have an outright contempt for military leadership, who have almost no long term oversight over their operations, and are not answerable to anyone except themselves in what is often a kangaroo court. Generals can command for decades; presidents get four to eight years to "fix things."

When a general badmouths a commander in chief it's like satan cursing mephistopheles.

EDIT: I guess my question is, have you ever had confidence in our politicians? Would you, if you were born at a later time? My argument is that there is an entire generation of folks who never experienced competent or trustworthy leadership and, yeah, bad things are to come.

[don]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

A more productive avenue of pursuit on this topic may be the C&C of Paris over its generals when the wars in France's North African colonies went south.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

......and an outright fear of the military.

The military has no such responsibility to the people, as evidenced by their lionization of Oliver North.

I have an outright contempt for military leadership, who have almost no long term oversight over their operations, and are not answerable to anyone except themselves in what is often a kangaroo court. Generals can command for decades; presidents get four to eight years to "fix things."

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Also, US law limits the number of flag officers(General/Admiral) allowed on active duty.

All prospective Generals/Admirals nominated by their respective armed forces branch can only be promoted with the approval of the elected Executive Branch and a majority vote of the Judge Advocate General.

General officers(as well as ALL other officers) face mandatory retirement after only X years in grade/rank.

Commands for officers(junior through to the most senior) typically last up to 3 years(with some exceptions).....then up, over, or out.

The last Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was only in position for 2 years..........and the funny thing is that at that lofty height, the CJCS doesn't even have operational command over a single "idiot with a rifle....wearing a uniform."

And the level of oversight authority citizenry elected politicians possess over military leadership and operations.......redefines the phrase all-encompassing micro-management...and that extends to completely include the "uber secret black ops deniable" stuff as well.

While I respect your right to have an opinion.......I will express my own by stating I strongly believe yours, as you vividly described in your post, is based largely on inaccurate misconceptions and dramatic hyperbole.

Just my 0.02c

[lakedaemonian]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

A more productive avenue of pursuit on this topic may be the C&C of Paris over its generals when the wars in France's North African colonies went south.

What happened in France in the very late 50's and early 60's unfortunately seems to completely lack any gravitas or even basic awareness amongst even 20th century historians.

While I can easily see your connection between France/Algeria and US/Iraq/Afghanistan........personally I think the Smedley Butler/Business Plot of the 30's would be a bit more relevant to the US today as it was a US based event, occurred halfway through the last Depression, and it included powerful special interest that would equate to the predecessors of the FIRE special interests.

Coincidentally, that event is little known, discussed even less, and certainly not in any textbook I ever read in history class from 1st grade through university.

The good news is that both events were ultimately unsuccessful.....particularly with double Medal of Honor recipient General Butler possessed the character and moral courage to uphold his oath and spilled the beans before the plot could gain any momentum...whereas in France unfortunately things got a little bit more "exciting".

[ASH]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Also, US law limits the number of flag officers(General/Admiral) allowed on active duty.

All prospective Generals/Admirals nominated by their respective armed forces branch can only be promoted with the approval of the elected Executive Branch and a majority vote of the Judge Advocate General.

General officers(as well as ALL other officers) face mandatory retirement after only X years in grade/rank.

Commands for officers(junior through to the most senior) typically last up to 3 years(with some exceptions).....then up, over, or out.

The last Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was only in position for 2 years..........and the funny thing is that at that lofty height, the CJCS doesn't even have operational command over a single "idiot with a rifle....wearing a uniform."

And the level of oversight authority citizenry elected politicians possess over military leadership and operations.......redefines the phrase all-encompassing micro-management...and that extends to completely include the "uber secret black ops deniable" stuff as well.

While I respect your right to have an opinion.......I will express my own by stating I strongly believe yours, as you vividly described in your post, is based largely on inaccurate misconceptions and dramatic hyperbole.

Just my 0.02c

+1!

[jiimbergin]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Also, US law limits the number of flag officers(General/Admiral) allowed on active duty.

All prospective Generals/Admirals nominated by their respective armed forces branch can only be promoted with the approval of the elected Executive Branch and a majority vote of the Judge Advocate General.

General officers(as well as ALL other officers) face mandatory retirement after only X years in grade/rank.

Commands for officers(junior through to the most senior) typically last up to 3 years(with some exceptions).....then up, over, or out.

The last Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was only in position for 2 years..........and the funny thing is that at that lofty height, the CJCS doesn't even have operational command over a single "idiot with a rifle....wearing a uniform."

And the level of oversight authority citizenry elected politicians possess over military leadership and operations.......redefines the phrase all-encompassing micro-management...and that extends to completely include the "uber secret black ops deniable" stuff as well.

While I respect your right to have an opinion.......I will express my own by stating I strongly believe yours, as you vividly described in your post, is based largely on inaccurate misconceptions and dramatic hyperbole.

Just my 0.02c

excellent post!

[bpr]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

And the level of oversight authority citizenry elected politicians possess over military leadership and operations.......redefines the phrase all-encompassing micro-management...and that extends to completely include the "uber secret black ops deniable" stuff as well.

While I respect your right to have an opinion.......I will express my own by stating I strongly believe yours, as you vividly described in your post, is based largely on inaccurate misconceptions and dramatic hyperbole.

Just my 0.02c

You're right. I did not know any of the restrictions on post terms or limitations on officers you mentioned. And yes, my opinion is driven largely by the bad news that makes headlines, not the good news that nobody hears about.

But we've had 40 years of bad news since My Lai. The only "good news" that has come out of the military over those years have been lots of borderline-illegal "black-ops" -- military coups and juntas where the side we backed won. Or re-building schools that we were responsible for destroying.

An oath is only as strong as the character of the individual that upholds it. The rank and file of the military, I believe, has outstanding character. As you move your way up through the officer class, however, I think there is a deterioration of that character. By the time you get to Generals or the Commander In Chief, I think that character has eroded to the point of pathology.

Problem is, the strong men and women at the bottom have to do the bidding of the lunatics at the top.

That McChrystal article depicts it perfectly, and if he were a private or possibly even a lieutenant he wouldn't have had the luxury of resignation and retirement. It'd be a dishonorable discharge.

[flintlock]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

I was somewhat surprised to hear what Gen McChrystal said about the President. While I can certainly understand that sort of talk goes on, to do it around a Rolling Stone reporter tells me it was done for a purpose. Like someone else said, most high ranking General officers don't get to where they are by shooting off their mouths. What did he hope to accomplish? Or was he just sick and tired of it all and decided to go out with a bang, embarrassing the administration in the process? If it was simply a case of loose lips then that would cast doubt on the judgment of Gen McChrystal. But I tend to believe it was done with a purpose in mind.

High ranking Generals have always been very political. This is nothing new. Though in the past perhaps people were more aware of this. Upon taking over command, General Weygand in 1940 France asked to have his few remaining fresh divisions held back to quell any leftist uprising. This despite the fact that Panzers were approaching the English Channel, cutting off half his Army. Some say he'd rather have seen the Germans win than the lefties. France had the epitome of politicized military during the 20th century. With disastrous results.

[Slimprofits]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

Or was he just sick and tired of it all and decided to go out with a bang, embarrassing the administration in the process?

I think so.

[reallife]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I agree with most of what you said in your post, partially quoted here. There is a major error in the above Oath however. The Oath you quote is the Enlisted oath not the Officer oath. I have been both an enlisted man and an officer and I have administered the respective Oaths to enlisted and officers. The Officers' Oath leaves out the part about obeying the orders of the President and officers appointed above. Military officers are Constitutional Officers just like the Congress and the President and every officer is sworn to support and defend the Constitution. A United States military officer swears the exact same Oath that the President and Congress swear, word for word. Obviously, Congress doesn't swear to obey the President, and neither do military officers.

The original writers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of a corrupted Congress or President who might threaten the Constitution or even act in concert with foreign or domestic enemies against the Constitution and citizens. Military officers are expected to act according to their Oath to support and defend the Constitution even if that means disobeying the President and other officers. Military officers take the Oath very seriously. The Oath is not time-limited. It does not expire when the officer leaves the service. The huge numbers of military officers who are currently serving is dwarfed by the number of officers who have been discharged or retired and they all have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. We are the last bastion of defense for the Constitution. I have 29 years of military experience and didn't really fully understand the ramifications of my oath until it was explained to me by a Marine Colonel in 2002.