Anti-Rumsfeld General: Questioning Command Healthy For Democracy
From crooksandliars.com

Major General John Batiste (ret), who has called for Rumsfeld’s resignation, tells Katie Couric: “I think there’s a lot of people now starting to ask questions, and I think that’s healthy in a democracy.”

He also says the book “Cobra II” gets the story of the Iraq War right.

Crooks and Liars:



Link
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/ite...msfeld_general/

Bit of a hypocryte methinks for not toleratin' then what he should've been doin' then himself. If he was truly interested in the well bein' of the troops and their families at the time he held a command billet why didn't he act then, eh?

'Tis a puzzlement!

For a former military man I'm surprised that you gloss over the hieracharical, subordinate yourself, just follow orders deeply entrenched culture of the military.

I hope you don't take offense, but that's one thing I don't like about the military -- the way dissent, individuality and thinking for oneself is drummed out of you or at least suppressed in order to function in the military.

Might be 'cause for people servin' in the American armed forces that military only exists in the minds of those who choose to let it exist, eh? Methinks if you take what's been written in this thread, here and a couple others in the past (like here) where we discussed what the rights and responsibilities of American military personnel really are if they choose to exercise and protect them.Again methinks I'd respectfully disagree with this. If you were in the military and thought this way 'twas probably 'cause you chose to be that way and/or never learned what your rights, responsibilities and privileges really were and how to protect them.

Even as an enlisted person I was encouraged to think for myself, but also how to act and behave as a member of a team, eh? My commanders wanted to hear different viewpoints as plans for an operation were bein' formulated, but theirs was the final decision on what the final plan would and wouldn't entail just as they assumed responsibility for them.

In combat even the best plans seem fine 'til the first shot gets fired. Then things start to go awry and folks at all levels've got to be able to improvise. Unlike the armed forces of other countries our military taught even very junior folks how to assess, act and lead. At the same time we were taught to accept the responsibilities for our decisions and actions. We were never taught to be automatons!

Come on flydangler. Please forgive me but you sound like Bush and Cheney when they're talking about Iraq with this totally rosey picture you paint.

Isn't part of the purpose of basic training to turn the recruit into a subordinate? From your description the military sounds like a liberals arts institution where everyone is taught to always questiion authority and think outside the box. Methinks military institutions are primarily about teaching people to follow orders and to do as they're told. To function as a fighting force isn't it essential that military personnel conform to a hierarchical structure? You may be encouraged to think for yourself -- but I submit it's think for yourself within the confines of the established hierarchy. That's the nature of systems set-up in this way.

I suspect you and I may never see eye to eye on the basic nature of the military.

That is also my understanding of how the military is supposed to work. With that in mind I sure wish those who orchestrated the mistreatment of prisoners would step up to the plate and take responsbility for their plans instead of letting the grunts take all of the blame.

Well, at least methinks I don't hafta wonder where you're comin' from or whether you're even tryin' to consider anyone else's point of view, eh? You've made it pretty evident!

So, havin' given you links to threads containin' resources on this you could check out, where exactly did you find fault? Please be specific.Not exactly, methinks you're tryin' to over simplify things a tad too much. The other possibility is that you've got our military confused with the Red Army, which it is not.

I can only speak for my own experiences, and methinks you gotta remember I went through boot camp near on 40 years ago. Just the same my Navy and Marine instructors taught us to think more 'bout the "we" and less 'bout the "me" in everything.

Even 40 years ago we learned 'bout how our individual constitutional rights were protected by Chapter 47 of Title 10, United States Code. We also learned how to best apply our individual strengths as members of a cohesive unit to solve problems and accomplish tasks. 'Twasn't that we ever ceased to be individuals, but instead learned how to act collectively as an effective team. Don't know if you ever served in the military, but from this my guess would be you didn't. If I'm wrong then methinks you never learned the very important lessons others were tryin' to teach you. Ah ha! When you said "You may be encouraged to think for yourself -- but I submit it's think for yourself within the confines of the established hierarchy" methinks I see a bit of a change in your stance.

To a large degree you're correct here, but as it seems you've done elsewhere methinks you over simplify it. Again I can only relate from my own limited experiences, eh? Of my 30 years in the Navy 2/3 was with the Marines, only spent one short two month stint with the Air Force and I never served in an Army unit. Could be some differences there I was never exposed to.

Also methinks you've got to remember that each service has its idiosyncrasies. A couple good examples:

1. When, as an E-7, I was the Leading Chief Petty Officer for a Marine battalion's Aid Station the battalion commander, a Marine LtCol, would most often talk to me rather than either of the two officer (Navy doctors) that, in theory, were my superiors to pass on orders and get things done. Although I wasn't the Officer in Charge, in fact I ran this unit and the corpsmen attached to the rifle companies.

2. Aboard a couple ships that carried Medical Officers they were the Department Head, but as an E-7 & E-8 I ran the department while tryin' to develop them into good naval officers. The ships' Commanding Officers and Executive Officers explained to every new doctor reportin' in that this was the way 'twas gonna be until I felt they were ready to take over the Department Head duties and responsibilities.

3. While on my last staff duty I was temporarily assigned the job of Staff Secretary (Administrative Officer) due to the replacement not arrivin' for over six months after his predecessor left. This was a LCDR (O-4) billet that I, an E-8, was fillin' for a long while. Even though a senior enlisted I was expected to be able to take charge of and perform those duties satisfactorily, and for all practical purposes put me near the top of the power totem pole comin' right after the Admiral (O-8) and his Chief Staff Officer (O-6).

As an enlisted you normally spend the time, probably 1 1/2 to 2 years, in the bottom three pay grades becomin' more technically proficient and learnin' to be a better follower so that when you make E-4 you'll be better prepared to become a leader. Durin' this time you're still receivin' frequent leadership trainin' where you're encouraged to think for yourself and be able to do so effectively, but still recognize that your opinions don't count as much as those of your superiors.

As one progresses up the promotion ladder your leadership train' changes and one very important thing that gets stressed is communication skills. You've got to be able to talk with, not at those who serve under you and be able to accept good ideas that come up from below.'Twould seem that way, and on this we seem to finally agree. IMHO you've made some faulty assumptions 'bout people in the American armed forces, mainly due to oversimplification. Methinks IOT better understand it you're gonna hafta remove them blinders.

Whilst meanderin' hither and yon found a little somethin' that y'all might find pertinent to this here discussion. It comes compliments of Cornell Law School, but's directly from United States Code TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 6, § 164:

§ 164. Commanders of combatant commands: assignment; powers and duties
Release date: 2005-07-12

a) Assignment as Combatant Commander.—
1) The President may assign an officer to serve as the commander of a unified or specified combatant command only if the officer—
A) has the joint specialty under section 661 of this title; and
has completed a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment (as defined in section 664 (f) of this title) as a general or flag officer.
2) The President may waive paragraph (1) in the case of an officer if the President determines that such action is necessary in the national interest.
Responsibilities of Combatant Commanders.—
1) The commander of a combatant command is responsible to the President and to the Secretary of Defense for the performance of missions assigned to that command by the President or by the Secretary with the approval of the President.
2) Subject to the direction of the President, the commander of a combatant command—
A) performs his duties under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense; and
is directly responsible to the Secretary for the preparedness of the command to carry out missions assigned to the command.
c) Command Authority of Combatant Commanders.—
1) Unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, the authority, direction, and control of the commander of a combatant command with respect to the commands and forces assigned to that command include the command functions of—
A) giving authoritative direction to subordinate commands and forces necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command, including authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations, joint training, and logistics;
prescribing the chain of command to the commands and forces within the command;
C) organizing commands and forces within that command as he considers necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command;
D) employing forces within that command as he considers necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command;
E) assigning command functions to subordinate commanders;
F) coordinating and approving those aspects of administration and support (including control of resources and equipment, internal organization, and training) and discipline necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command; and
G) exercising the authority with respect to selecting subordinate commanders, selecting combatant command staff, suspending subordinates, and convening courts-martial, as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g) of this section and section 822 (a) of this title, respectively.
2)
A) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that a commander of a combatant command has sufficient authority, direction, and control over the commands and forces assigned to the command to exercise effective command over those commands and forces. In carrying out this subparagraph, the Secretary shall consult with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Secretary shall periodically review and, after consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of the combatant command, assign authority to the commander of the combatant command for those aspects of administration and support that the Secretary considers necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command.
3) If a commander of a combatant command at any time considers his authority, direction, or control with respect to any of the commands or forces assigned to the command to be insufficient to command effectively, the commander shall promptly inform the Secretary of Defense.
d) Authority Over Subordinate Commanders.— Unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense—
1) commanders of commands and forces assigned to a combatant command are under the authority, direction, and control of, and are responsible to, the commander of the combatant command on all matters for which the commander of the combatant command has been assigned authority under subsection ©;
2) the commander of a command or force referred to in clause (1) shall communicate with other elements of the Department of Defense on any matter for which the commander of the combatant command has been assigned authority under subsection © in accordance with procedures, if any, established by the commander of the combatant command;
3) other elements of the Department of Defense shall communicate with the commander of a command or force referred to in clause (1) on any matter for which the commander of the combatant command has been assigned authority under subsection © in accordance with procedures, if any, established by the commander of the combatant command; and
4) if directed by the commander of the combatant command, the commander of a command or force referred to in clause (1) shall advise the commander of the combatant command of all communications to and from other elements of the Department of Defense on any matter for which the commander of the combatant command has not been assigned authority under subsection ©.

Unfortunately CGCS forum software causes some of the subparagraph designations to come through as smilies and methinks there's no way to keep it from happenin', but you should be able to figure it out okay. If not just go to the link and read it, eh?

p.s. If you're ever lookin' for legal references methinks Cornell Law School has the easiest online law library to use.

Sorry, methinks I must have missed it somehow. Could someone point me to Robin's answer to the question I asked here? Specifically what I asked was "So, havin' given you links to threads containin' resources on this you could check out, where exactly did you find fault? Please be specific." and was sure I'd see a speedy response to it, eh?

If my memory serves me correctly the Brigadier who was in charge at Abu Grahib got demoted and reprimanded. Also seems I remember about 15 other officers getting punishment ranging from reprimands to court marshals.

Everyone of them kissed what ever career they had or wished for in the United States Army goodbye out of that single episode. Seems to me those responsible stepped up to the plate and stuck out swinging.