The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave an interview today to NPR's Morning Edition. His comments should shame him into an immediate resignation.
I will be here on the 21st of January, and just like this president, my expectation is I'll give the next president my best military advice.
I've indicated more than once that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq — one that would create a chaotic outcome — would be of great concern to me.
Let us examine this more closely.
Of course, the phrase 'precipitous withdrawal' has become a dog whistle; used as a substitute for the attack of 'retreat and defeat' aimed at those on the political left. So for the moment, let us look beyond the adjective. He talks of a withdrawal that would "create a chaotic outcome".
It seems to me that all of us would like to avoid creating a chaotic outcome. I have been against this war since before it was launched. I think President Bush has failed at the Commander-in-Chief role, just as he has failed at every undertaking of his adult life. But, even I would strongly desire avoiding a "chaotic outcome".
My question to the Admiral would be, with as much respect as I could muster, "Who, exactly, would be in charge of planning the withdrawal of the United States military forces from Iraq?" My best guess as to the answer of this question would be the 'Combatant Commanders' (Patreaus) ... is that correct? And to whom does General Patreaus report in his chain of command? .. Isn't that the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
<< For the record, I do not have military service, and my assumptions as to chain of command, and responsibilities may be amiss here. If so, I am always pleased to gain new knowledge.>>
Admiral Mullen, wouldn't you have a strong and powerful voice in the actual plan for the United States Military withdrawal from Iraq? Wouldn't your peers, the Joint Chiefs, have recommendations for the Combatant Commanders, and to the Civilian Authorities, on the plan for withdrawal?
Admiral Mullen, would you actually recommend, or authorize a military withdrawal plan that would result in a "chaotic outcome"? This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be responsible for a withdrawal that "would create a chaotic outcome?
Of course, you wouldn't. You've earned that seat by not taking part in such foolish exercises.
Surely, you could recommend to the combatant commanders a plan that would result in a speedy and careful withdrawal of military forces from Iraq, that would not result in a chaotic outcome.
Surely, the United State military, can remove itself, safely from Iraq.
For, certainly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Combatant Commanders would not have allowed a plan to be executed, from which the United States Military had no opportunity for a safe withdrawal. Certainly, Admiral, a commander that placed troops into harms way, without having sufficient alterantives; including withdrawal, would be derelict in their duty, wouldn't he? Would it not be criminal to order a man into a situation from which there was no exit?
Now, I understand, that sometimes, in war, orders must be given that cause soldiers to die. But can an ethical officer ever give an order from which there is no alternative? Isn't there someone, high in the chain of command, who is responsible for ensuring our military can not only fight, and win, but also get out?
I posit, Admiral, if in fact there is no plan that can be drafted for a speedy withdrawal that does not avoid chaos for the American military, you should immediately stop serving the Commander-in-Chief; either the current one, or the next one.
For if there is a withdrawal, precipitous or otherwise, I would assume you would have strong hand in its planning. If there is no choice but a 'chaotic outcome', then you have failed before now.