Remember all the hub-bub and much discussed situation with the retired Generals speaking out about the SecDef (Rumsfield)... well now we have an active duty LtCol speaking out about the war in Iraq -- specifically criticizing the Generals in charge and their decisions.
Read about it here. Apparently the story was also covered on national news this morning (on NPR and other sources).
What do you think? Is this acceptable behavoir? Is this not the same because it was in the context of an academic/professional article in a professional journal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is ridiculous. As a LTC in the Army, he has a duty to his commanders. He can completely disagree with there actions, but he has to faithfully follow them. It is not his call to actively judge his commanders. By going to the press, he is shorting the chain of command. His role is to follow orders, not judge them. As a soon to be officer, I am appalled at his actions. It also violates the trust between the civilian authority and the military.
I agree with sijan smurf. What does the LTC believe he is going to accomplish by openly criticizing his commanders to the press. It isn't going to solve anything, in fact, it will only make things worse. His fellow soldiers and the men working under him will be demoralized. The publication makes our military look unstable and inefficient. Even if the commanders made mistakes, there are better ways to handle it than going to the press. Most of the time, the press makes things worse and gives a negative image of our military to the civilian population. Stories like this just gives them more ammunition to undermine the good things we are trying to do overseas.
I will agree with most people on this blog that the LTC's actions were unnacceptable. He undermined the United States military by giving ammunition to critics of the war and by demonstrating dissention to the insurgents that are no doubt reading the news. However, I think the overwhelming number of military personnel speaking out should be indicative of a need to change. There are very few opportunities to submit criticism within the military outside the rigid chain of command. Unfortunately, the chain of command and military authority are often barriers to honest feedback. We should allow for more criticism from lower ranks within the military to give frustrated personnel an outlet and to allow for suggestions that may improve tactics. So, while I disagree with public dissent, the military needs better methods to get suggestions to the top.
It is certainly wrong for any military member (especially on active duty) to publicly criticize the upper leadership. Any criticism should be done privately or internally with the upper leadership. Perhaps the generals did not create a situation were subordinates could give some feedback on plans. Developing plans (that require more time) in a war situation should probably be checked by more than peers but also subordinates who are charged with executing the plans. It appears that there may have been a breakdown in communication that resulted in a LTC speaking out publicly, which was not a good idea.
The military is civilian run, and theoretically the civilian leadership represents the view of the American people. This however is no longer the case. The civilian leadership has gone against the wishes of the American people and are running a military outside the desires of the country they are supposed to be representing. There is a loss on control at this point in the actions of the military. The only way this can be changed, and changed to represent the political desires of America, as it’s supposed to be, is if people continue to speak the truth.
I believe having this LTC speak out is helping to keep the powers at be in check, because right now there is no check. Congress is currently trying to be that check and balance, but has so far been unsuccessful. Speaking out against the policies in Iraq by this LTC is exactly what America needs to gain the support they need to override an out of control civilian leadership and military. Good on him.
I had lunch with a high ranking retired Air Force general last week, and he was constantly receiving calls on his cell phone requesting an interview with him regarding a new "advertising campaign" some of these "vocal" officers are coming up with. Interestingly enough, he spoke about several other generals he worked with and how the majority of them did not have a clue about senior leadership decisions. I cannot imagine that a single O-5 can be nearly as cogniscent of senior decisions made in the Pentagon and White House everyday. I feel a majority of these officers have additional agendas that they are pursuing, either legal or illegal. Unfortunately, this breakdown in professionalism loosens the ties between the civillian and military ends in our government. It is plausible that the American trust of the military will also suffer in due time because of this bickering between sectors. With support and trust for the military at a record high, let's hope that the actions of several mouthy officers does not ultimately hurt our forces.
spectresunrise makes a good point. Even very high ranking members might not understand the intricate politics that are involved with decision making. However, perhaps the higher commanders, including civilians, should be seeking more feedback from those officers that are actually in the field. Commanders are now much farther from the fight then they were in past wars. Technology allows them to have control from very safe areas. It seems like they might be able to come up with ideal plans that simply do not translate to progress on the ground. It is definitely important to receive feedback and evaluations from field level officers which might be the issue. Policies that make sense in the board room do not always equal success on the battlefield.
Looking at what Samuel Huntington said would be needed for a standing military, professionalism, apolitical and civilian control, it is safe to say that by speaking out as an active duty officer against his commanders, this LtCol has violated the aspect of civilian control. However, Huntington wanted civilian control because he feared, much as the founding fathers did, a standing army that would become too powerful. He did not foresee civilian authority using the military as its own personal play toy. Therfore, it may be true what the LtCol is saying however, deomcracy is not protected by people practicing it. The military can not stand having a commander on active duty speak out in such a manner and break the chain of command. Additionally, his subordinates can now feel that it is OK to challange any orders he gives since he obviosly approves openly challenging superiors. However, it could be argued using Rousch's article that the LtCol loyality laid first with the constituion before his commanders and that it was his duty to speak out if his commanders were violating any of his higher loyalties.
An active duty LTC knows better than to vocally criticize his leaders. He knows that such action is punishable under UCMJ, but the only reason he is not prosecuted is out of the military's desire to retain public support. The army does not want the negative publicity from such an action.
Morally, his conduct is wrong and is in direct violation of his oath as an officer. Regardless of what path the army may take, he is not acting professionally.
I favor a return to the old days when it was professionally taboo for an officer to voice any opinion on political matters even when it came to voting. Though I believe military members should vote in political elections, that should be the absolute extreme of their participation in the political arena. Besides, the appropriate manner for protesting a known and very serious ethics-violation is publicized resignation and not simply vocal criticism.
It all comes down to that he is still in the military so he can't do it. It is demoraliazing to every troop under him, and can cause discontent up and down the chain of command.
Post a Comment