Generals Gathered in Their Messes

In the past week, six flag officers have come forth to express the desire that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld be fired, or, failing that, forced to resign. These generals come from the Army and Marines. All served honorably, several with distinction. Between them they served for a total of more than 200 years. They number among their ranks the former commander of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni, Lt General Greg Newbold USMC, the former Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs, Army Maj General John Riggs, formerly the Pentagon's Objective Task Force director, Army Maj General Paul Eaton 2003-2004 commander of Iraqi troop training, Maj General Charles Swannack Jr, former commander in Iraq of the storied 82nd Airborne Division and finally, Maj General John Batiste, former commander of The Big Red One in Iraq. They are all patriots, and they are all wrong.

The liberal legislators, and their attendant members of the press, touting these former servicemen have forgotten two things: first, being a general does not make you a gentleman anymore than being elected to congress makes you honorable, and second, prior service, even above average service, does not make you infallible. Of the six only Maj General Batiste has any true credibility. It has been widely reported that he turned down a third star to protest the Secretary of Defense's strategy, or lack thereof to be more precise. He told USAToday that Rumsfeld should step down because, "he ignored sound military advice about how to secure Iraq after Baghdad fell." If his words had come as he retired, and suggestive of conscience, they would have carried possibly significant worth. Coming after the words of longtime critics, his animus comes off as merely expediency towards some as yet unnamed goal.

Longtime critic General Anthony Zinni's goal is anything other than unnamed. He has been a vocal opponent of the streamlined military Secretary Rumsfeld has long proposed, and now has a book to hawk. Maj General Swannack has suggested the Secretary should resign because "Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war." Maj General Paul Eaton, echoing general Batiste, wrote in The New York Times last month that Rumsfeld was, "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Lt. General Newbold voiced disdain for the Secretary of Defense because he considered Iraq an "unnecessary war." Maj General Riggs only suggested that "Rumsfeld and his close aides should be cleared out." Seemingly tough words from truly tough guys when first they are heard, but empty rhetoric when inspected closely. That's because these men do not exist in a vacuum, contrary to CBS News, and their ilk. Over 4,ooo other flag officers, including Colin Powell, have offered no comment, and those best able to judge, Generals Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers and Lt General Michael DeLong, have made unqualified statements of support for Secretary Rumsfeld.

The major news outlets have acted as if this small percentage of generals is unheard of in recorded history. In fact, world history, not just American history is littered with such examples. In just the last 50 years of the last century multiple high-profile cases made headlines. General Curtis LeMay feuded with JFK, while President Truman relieved Medal of Honor winner General Douglas MacArthur of command. Even the media darling Wesley Clark was removed from command by President Clinton, albeit more diplomatically than MacArthur, for voicing displeasure with his civilian bosses. The military, especially generals who are used to getting their own way understandably, always believes they can manage a war, any war, more effectively than their civilian overlords. Read 1776 by David McCullough and you will see generals and their civilian masters feuding even before we were a country. President Lincoln removed General McClellan for much the same offenses, and Custer was demoted and sent west to meet his destiny for exactly the same infraction. This is not new, nor is it, in this case, systemic or coordinated. It simply is what it appears to be: a group of disaffected men expressing displeasure that their brilliance was not better recognized. If these six generals felt so strongly that the Secretary of Defense was incompetent wouldn't their honor demand that they resign publicly? It would, but tellingly none did.

Secretary Rumsfeld has made mistakes, to be sure, but he has also done an admirable job fighting two wars simultaneously. My gripe is that he has not allowed the military to fight the war that needs to be fought, on the "no quarter asked, none given" terms by which it needs to be fought. That too, is not his fault, or rather not his alone. That is the fault of the culture of a government that does not have the stomach to suffer the attacks that would come if we were to fight a war that means killing the enemy and destroying his land until he can no longer fight, or forces his civilian leadership to surrender. Dresden and Hiroshima, or even Omaha Beach are politically unacceptable today. That is fodder for another column though. Secretary Rumsfeld's transgression, at least in the eys of the "flagged six" truly is that he rocked the proverbial boat. He took over the Department of Defense as an executive, not a legislator, and the military, which abhors change, balked. These generals are just the vocal manifestation of that. When Colonel H.R. McMasters writes his next book you can be sure he will make note of this period of time, and the "flagged six" are merely using the political acumen they acquired to seem to be on the right side of it. Time will tell, I am sure, that the Secretary of Defense was trying to fight the next war, and the "flagged six" were stuck in the last.