The Ollie North award for stupid: Weak Civilians and a Fired General

[unhappycamper]

Weak Civilians and a Fired General
Patrick Brady | June 28, 2010

Civilian control of the military is as essential to our Republic as is a free press. But does anyone believe that the dynamic between office dwellers from Foggy Bottom and academia and political cronies with authority over snake eaters, captured through the prism of the media (more office dwellers), will result in something productive?

I once was introduced to the Secretary of the Army: "Sir, meet Major Brady." The secretary then turned and shook hands with a private standing next to me. The incompetence of political appointees is no secret -- and to be expected. They are often not there for their competence but for their politics. Most are over their head but the smart ones listen as carefully to their military counterparts as a second lieutenant does to his sergeant.

In order to keep friction to a minimum article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits commissioned officers from using "contemptuous words" against their political chain of command and a few other political types. I did not find ambassadors on the list however. Considering the quality of many politicians and the honesty of many officers, if private were public, it would thin out the officer corps. If the same standards were applied to politicians, it might eliminate them.

One would have to go to great lengths to find anything General McChrystal personally said in the Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings that meets the criterion of Article 88. I am sure that much of Hastings' article will be challenged ("Pentagon was Determined to Embarrass the President." "Gates is an Obama clone!"). I find it hard to believe that any officers would discuss how he voted with subordinates -- and even harder to believe that McChrystal voted for President Obama. The language is what it is, not for public consumption, and Hastings knew that. We don't know how much of the criticism of politicians by his subordinates (mostly unidentified) was in McChrystal's presence, or even if it happened, but it should not have been allowed.

~snip~

In the military we have a very simple measure for leadership. Would I want this man with me in combat? Who would you want with you in combat -- Obama, Gates -- or McChrystal? Here is what a leader would do. "Stan, this is the president. How is the war going? By the way, volcano or not, you should know better than to let a reporter from Rolling Stone into your camp. If I were you I would fire the PR guy who led you into this. Tell your guys to be more careful in the future. Now let's get on with winning this war. We need to spend more time together. I need your military expertise and you need my media savvy."

[saigon68]

1. Less openness More secrecy

In the future NO ONE FROM THE PRESS will have any access to the military

Except for the Five O'Clock Follies with General Mark Kimmitt and Daniel Samuel Senor

[Lasher]

2. And no one from the military will have access to the press.

That can be a good thing.