In their editorial "The Generals' Revolt" dated April 18 The Washington Post took several of the disgruntled general officers to task for telling tales out of school. It seems to be their position that by speaking publicly of their displeasure with Donald Rumsfeld they somehow do a disservice to present and future civilian commanders in chief and defense secretaries.
"If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?"
Well, of course they will, just as they always have. The ugly precedent of which they complain is well established. The first question asked when appointing senior staff, be they military or civilian is usually, "Is he a team player?" Political backgrounds are carefully scrutinized for transgression against party loyalty.
It’s wonderful that from time to time we somehow manage to gain talented, able and courageous leaders in high civilian or military positions, a feat that is more often achieved in spite of the selection process than because of it. The methodology of selecting high level appointees owes more to cronyism, pay off and political pay back than it does to meritorious service to the people, whether in government or the military.
In the Post editorial, retired General Anthony Zinni is dismissed as "having opposed the war all along. The Post finds much of what the Generals have said to be "solid" but says that "the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty."
Speaking as a charter member of the "civilian control" I am comforted by the fact that there are general officers who have the courage to speak out against the kind of corrupt and incompetent civilian leadership they have had to serve under these last six years. I would be more comforted if there were more such Generals or if they had come forward sooner and resigned in protest. If we can’t trust the administration to tell us the truth then we must be thankful that some of our military leadership still ascribe to a Code of Honor.
Rumsfeld’s dismissal of the dissenters as a few among the thousands of generals and admirals is an obvious exaggeration. Unfortunately, the two primary rules for promotion at that level are
1- make sure you're kissing the right asses and 2- make sure that your own ass is covered.
We can’t blame the Generals for the poor choices of the electorate and the Post must remember that members of the military take an oath to support and defend the constitution not the president or his political party or agenda.
All military officers and civilian leaders whether elected or appointed must finally be held accountable to the real civilian leadership that is so often forgotten by the media, the government and everyone else these days.
That’s me, and of course ...you.
Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust
http://sawdust.eponym.com/...