This could be a title for a movie, for sure a TV program. Recently, I was watching one of the Congressional hearings on C-SPAN. A parade of generals testifying. I was entranced. At that level, there's a "cookie cutter" image that made me smile. The politicians were respectful-no acrimony.
At one point, one of the senators read from a NY Times story about safer vehicles for soldiers and procurement problems. It was a statement, hardly a question, but the four star Marine general, Pace, had the answers. My observations...
| |
Since, most of the Congress has no military experience, they don't ask good questions. And, there's a lack of realism to the process. The Generals know all the right answers and have been to all the "schools." They are so very solicitous.
What the politicians don't understand as well as the American public who care is: When you get to this level with the military, you are also talking politics. Instead of a politician and a general talking, you have two politicians talking. These guys don't get to be the Vice Chief of Staff because of their good looks. They get there through the politics of the military. They have sponsors- people who look after them as they advance. It doesn't mean they are not good leaders; it merely means that it is a "process" in itself that the politicians would be better off understanding; and, if they understand, then they could ask better questions.
| |
 |
I'm not totally sure this is the best process: generals appearing before Congressional committees. There's a type of incestuousness that occurs at the top level of the military; and, in the final analysis, I don't think it helps the country.
For instance, the military is geared to the chain of command. For example, the President and Secretary of Defense are in the chain of command and there's a natural tendency for the generals to tell them what they want to hear. Can you imagine the Marine Vice Chief saying to Rumsfeld, "Mr. Secretary, I don't think you know what you're talking about." He is more likely to say, "Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full." Is this good for the county? I call it the "suck up" mentality. I've heard so many generals who are cheerleaders for the policies of the President. And, I understand, the generals, like soldiers, have to believe in what they are doing. But, Is that good for the country for them to be HoooooAhhhhhhhhh for Presidential policies? I don't think so in the long run.
| |
 |
In the hearing the other day, the question of numbers of troops in Iraq surfaced. The generals said they gave the commanders in the field what the wanted. This has been the President's comment over and over. And, they gave explanations. It made sense. Did we expect them to go against their chain of command? Of course not!
The problem is that the politicians don't know enough to ask the best questions like: "General, I understand your comment with going with what commanders on the ground want. What about the idea that the troops merely react to the insurgents and there's not enough troops to police the hotspots of the country? The evidence is that the insurgents operate at will. Once you get one fire out, bombings, checkpoints, etc; trouble breaks out in other spots and we don't have enough troops to react or police those areas. Right or wrong?- I've heard that sometimes, soldiers will go on patrol and then go back to their safe areas and not do anything for days. Is this true? - What generals are the drawbacks with more troops? Forget the politics, General, what are the best military options?" These are hard questions, not softballs.
| |
|
This makes me smile and watching the generals reminds me of that cartoon that was so popular during Vietnam. This Major, I think, has medals from the top of his shoulder down to his feet and someone says to him, "Major, what was your job in the war?" "Oh, I was in charge of awards and decorations." I smile because to see these generals with all their stars and medals everywhere, ostentatious to say the least. One of the rules for the generals as I understand is that they can decide what kind of uniform they want. How about a simple uniform, maybe with just paratrooper wings (I'm biased) or a few personal medals; show some simplicity. I would be more impressed.
| |
This is not meant to take away from the great service of our generals; but, at one time they were lieutenants. They have obviously worked hard and made their way up the chain of command and now they are at the top. Have they forgotten when they were that lieutenant with a platoon? I hope not.
But, in this era of celebrity generals, created by the media, i.e., someone like Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf, unknown and unheralded before the Gulf War, appears in front of the cameras and becomes a celebrity general.
| |
|
And, it is my job to point these intricacies out about the military: simply stated, the best military officers rarely get to the top. The best officer I've ever known retired as a Lieutenant Colonel merely because he was uninterested in playing politics. In fact, my experience is that the best either retire or quit long before they become celebrities. Congress would get a better picture of the true facts of Iraq if they heard less from generals and more from lieutenants. My view. KT
| |
|
|
VIETVETS WILL LOVE THIS
Boeing has just signed a four plane deal for it's 787 Dreamliner : you guessed it--the customer, Vietnam. Looks like all that hanging out in the rice paddies paid off. |
|
|
