In our system of government, we have civilian control over the military. The idea is that we want our elected representatives to decide whether we go to war or not (Congress in fact, is given this power precisely because it is meant to be representative; presidents have too much to gain from opportunistic wars, as we have learned to our grief in the past hundred years since William McKinnley gave us our first presidential war, the Spanish-American War).

What do you think are the pluses and minuses of this system? Government doesn't even have to listen to career officers and generals if they don't want to. They can micromanage military operations, like Bush did in the first raid on Fallujah. On the other hand, Lincoln had to go through several changes of command before he found a general who would actually fight against the Confederate forces. What do you think? I am especially interested in hearing from career military what they think about this. I am and always have been a civilian, so I confess, I need to be educated about how military people view these matters. But being in or having been in the military are not required here. I'd like to hear from anybody concerned about the issues.

Methinks I'll start.

Overall civilian control, something we adopted from the Brits, is vastly superior to the alternative. IMHO it makes any chance of a military coup ALMOST impossible and means the electorate, through their representatives, get SOME say in how their military is used.

The current conflict in Iraq is a case in point as the President and party that were and are responsible for our action were not only retained in power, but the margin of victory and gains in both houses of Congress indicate a true majority of the voting populace supports them. We may not like it, but that be the way it works.

A wise old retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant once said somewhere else in this forum that, in the performance of their duties, the military person doesn't really concern themselves who the President is. We do hope that the President and Congress will give the military the support it needs IOT carry out any missions assigned though.

Methinks we've had presidential wars prior to the Spanish-American War. The war with Mexico that blooded so many officers that would later fight for the Confederacy comes to mind, and maybe some of the Indian wars. I know a few in the South that would also include the War Of Northern Aggression in this category, while Canadians might point to the War Of 1812.

I would say the first presidential war was against the Cherokee; it was fought even against a Supreme Court decision; Jackson simply ignored it. Civilian control is what our constitution demands; it only works as long as the civilians are in control and the arms of war do what they are told. Without civilian control, you have Haiti, Panama, Chile, and all the other junta governments. For us, Iraq is an example of what happens when civilians lose control and the arms of war, under orders of the commander in chief, do what the hell they want.

Thanks for weighing in, flydangler,

I agree that civilian control of the military is much to be prefered to military control of civilians! And in countries where the military does intervene in the political process, it is pretty clear that it little resembles our democracy, although many countries in south america did successfully thrtow out the general and restore civilian authority. So I certainly think civilian control of the military has much to be said for it.

I guess my concern is more directly with how well it works, and how to make it better. The theory is that civilian leaders will be less inclined to go to war than career military, on the assumption that men of blood love to fight. Democracies are reluctant warriors because democracies prosper in peace and not through conquest. Now, you know as well as I that some democracies have had empires--Athens had a maritime empire that dragged her into a ruinous thirty year war with Sparta. And our wars against the native americans, the mexicans, and the candians (in 1812) are probably wars of conquest. (And, as you mentioned, the Civil war may have been viewed from the south as another example). The idea is that kings may get glory from being heads of successful armies, but the people fighting those wars may not view the price as worth the effort. So, democracies, in theory, should only fight wars of defense. By and large, I think there is more right with the theory than wrong with it, although you and I can easily come up with exceptions.

I guess the question here is whether we have thought through how the calculus changes when those ordering the combat are not those who fight the combat. The government in Washington is increasingly insulated from the rest of the country. It is increasingly becoming a millionaires club. The priviledged need never fight. Their kids need never fight.

What is my worry? My worry is that decisions about war (whether made by one man, or by congress) need not be made for reasons that involve protecting our people. I've heard a nasty rumor--there are even books on it now-perhaps you know whther the rumors are true or not--that we are increasingly deploying troops to protect oil piplelines, whether in Columbia or Central Asia. Securing access to oil has become defined as a national security issue. Flydangler, you served for thirty years. Tell me: would you want to be ordered into harms way's to protect oil pipelines?

My thought is that the military's mission has been changing over the past few decades. War was once considered a serious matter. After world war two, we got serious about trying to prevent another war, and supported Nato and the UN. Now, we have had a series of small wars (including Grenada, Panama) which may have gotten us over the view that war is a big deal. And while I've heard stories that the US sent the marines to Guatamala to protect United Fruit Compnay from being nationalized, I guess I never recall appeal to national economic interests so blatantly proclaimed a good reason for going to war. I think we need to have better reasons than this to send our kids to war.

The other worry is that politicians may have different motives for wanting a war than national defense. We all have heard about the wagging the dog scenario. I worry about this. We had good reasons to fight in the first Gulf War. Iraq had invaded Kuwait. This was clear agression. It is harder to find a better reason than that to fight a war. And I supported the first Gulf War. But I have a nagging suspicion that our reasons for going were a mixed bag. Bush senior was baiting Saddam, and was never serious about diplomatic resolution. I wondered about that. I worried that Bush had personalized he conflict, and perhaps was trying to overcome concerns that he was a wimp. I'm worried about that with George W Bush as well. He wants to be a war president. I think no one wants to be a war president- that Lincoln, FDR, LBJ were unhappy to be war presidents but felt they had no good choices but to fight and fight hard.

I think we need the military if we are going to be secure. But I worry that the military is being misused. What do you think? And if you agree, what can be done about it?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The White House did not micro-manage any raids on Fallujah. Where are you getting that misinformation?

People can agree or disagree as to whether Fallujah was handled properly, but if they are going to join the discussion, they should be armed with the facts, not assumptions by people who have no clue about what is or was going on over there, or worst are deliberately lieing about it.

I cannot discuss certain aspects of what’s going on because there are both strategic and tactical operations still underway (and will be on-going for some time), but I can assure you that the President has given local military authority full reign over Iraq and is remaining completely hands-off. He trusts us to achieve the goals he has set for us without having to hear every detail of how to do it from the White House. “The West Wing” is just a stupid TV show, it’s not really how a good President runs the country.

Congress should make the decision as Lincoln said. Congress giving the president the authority to invade Iraq, without making the decision to invade as a group, was like signing a blank check.

Once war is declared, it should be turned over to the generals. When the civilians decide the objections during the course of the war, lives are put at risk unnecessarily. I learned a term in the military called "hurry up and wait". It's what happens when you're moving faster than your boss can plan. Most people hate it. I can only imagine what it would be like awaiting further orders while being targeted by the enemy. The civilians can't know what the short-term objectives are in a war. Civilians only need to let the generals know the long-term objectives before the war starts.

With this fast moving world, most people know how to do their jobs better than their bosses. The same holds true for the military having civilian bosses. Civilians may know better when war is unavoidable. The military knows better how to win the war once they are given clear objectives.

Wrong assault. I'm not talking about the current assault on Fallujah. I'm talking about the earlier assult on Fallujah where Bush overruled his military commanders in order to get revenge for the killing of the four contractors. Here's a blog on it. Is the information incorrect?

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/15/235229.php

While I will agree with you that Fallujah was not a micromanaged military operation, and that West Wing is a TV show (stupid, maybe-but I like it), nothing about this country is being run by a good president.

Here's the original Washington Post article on the mismanaged April raid on Fallujah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep12.html

Is the information incorrect? If you were there (or are there) on the ground, perhaps you know more about this. If not, what is your source of information, ETC1966?

The article suggests that there were political reasons for going in like gang-busters, and political reasons for withdrawing before the job was done, making the situation worse than if we hadn't gone in in the first place.

There are some who are worries that politics was at work in the way Iraq was handled from the start. Rumsfeld overruled the generals who complained the forces were too light for the task. There are even some who worry that the rush to war in Iraq was political.

My point in this thread is: whether we agree on particular cases or not, what it to prevent this sort of nonsense from occuring? And please, let us agree that it is nonsense. Whatever else anyone may think of the military, they are professionals who know how to do their job. They should not be asked to make political decisions, but when we ask them to do a military mission, they should be entrusted to do it. They know how to minimize casualties. They know how to secure ground. I don't know any of that stuff. I think we need to trust the experts here.

I think we overuse the military. I think we need to get serious with diplomacy and earning good will in the world. We should work on being better neighbors. I think we misuse the military. If the military is being used to guard oil pipelines, that is wrong. There are right reasons to go to war, and wrong ones. If people are angry about their lives, and are glad to have a war where we can kick some butt, nevermind whose, then we are abusing the military to feel good about ourselves. Has it ever happened? I don't know. But I suspect our support of the war in Iraq involves mixed motives, not all of them good and praiseworthy.

But I don't think anyone serious about the security of this country is suggesting getting rid of the military. Every country that can afford one, so far as I know, has one. Even the Congo is glad to have a military to stop the raids of troops from Rwanda.

So, I don't want decisions to go to war in military hands. I do want them in civilian hands. But, that still leaves all sorts of important questions unanswered. And it is very important that they get answered, because we don't want troops at risk for the wrong reasons, or at unnecessary risk when they are fighting for the right reasons.

I would like to see a constitutional amendment to the effect that The waging of
war is not an acceptable instrument of foreign policy.

Never happen- there'll be an amendment declaring Christianity the only accepted religion, and that Democrats are all traitors before then.

It is already illegal, as a matter of international law, to wage aggressive war. But surely, we don't want to forbid any nation to defend itself when attacked? I'm in favor of making the work against terrorism become more like the work of police, as a law enforcement effort, than a war. But even here, we need to make distinctions. I don't think anything short of a military operation was going to get into Afghanistan, against the will of the Taliban, to get the al Qaeda cells.

Whether we think in terms of deterence, or in terms of stopping actual invasion, we need a military. I would prefer though to use it only when necessary, to fight wars only when we have to, and to find other ways short of war for handling most situations. I think Kerry and Wesley Clark were right to say we need to regain a sense that military force is an option of last resort.

Well, I guess ultimately it depends on what criteria you require for a president to be considered "good".

Then again, perhaps I mispoke, I don't think the President of the United States of America actually runs the country, that would be a dictatorship. Technically, he's just the head of the executive branch of our federal government.

The more local & decentralized the government is the better it is.

Having such a constitutional amendment wouldn't prevent maintaining a strong military for defense nor would it prevent Congress from declaring war under conditions of just cause. It would prevent the President from making preemptive strikes which can trigger war automatically. The allied forces forced Japan and
Germany to put this in their constitutions at the end of WWII and that seems to have worked out well for them.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 08:50 AM]
Wrong assault. I'm not talking about the current assault on Fallujah. I'm talking about the earlier assult on Fallujah where Bush overruled his military commanders in order to get revenge for the killing of the four contractors. Here's a blog on it. Is the information incorrect? http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/15/235229.php[/quote]

Man, could you find a more biased report than that? There was so much spin I'm a bit dizzy after reading it.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
Here's the original Washington Post article on the mismanaged April raid on Fallujah: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep12.html [/quote]

This article is a lot more objective than the first, but it still contains the mysterious phrase “senior US official”, which usually means the reporter doesn’t really have a source and he’s just guessing. The orders came from LT Gen. Sanchez, NOT President Bush. That’s not to say that generals don’t try to please their masters, but they’re the ones who are in charge of the day-to-day operations.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
Is the information incorrect? If you were there (or are there) on the ground, perhaps you know more about this. If not, what is your source of information, ETC1966? [/quote]

The Washington post story doesn’t contain anything blatantly inaccurate. I’m not in Iraq, but I have a lot of friends over there.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
The article suggests that there were political reasons for going in like gang-busters, and political reasons for withdrawing before the job was done, making the situation worse than if we hadn't gone in in the first place. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s probably about right. We wanted to avoid confronting insurgents in Fallujah at that time because we had specific time-lines scheduled for various areas and that wasn’t the best time. The American public, if you recall, was outraged by the desecration of the bodies of those civilian security contractors, and that probably was a factor in the decision-making. It was a classic case of “do-something syndrome”.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
There are some who are worries that politics was at work in the way Iraq was handled from the start. Rumsfeld overruled the generals who complained the forces were too light for the task. There are even some who worry that the rush to war in Iraq was political. [/quote]

Politics is in everything, but it wasn’t about getting Bush reelected, it was about not pissing off the so-called “Arab street”, even though they’re pissed off no matter what we do or don’t do. The forces were kept at a minimum to minimize the cost in recognition of President’s desire to fight the war while cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. The forces have not been inadequate as some in the media insist. We didn’t get into this with the intention of losing, so the generals’ requests for personnel & equipment have been fulfilled before we engaged in any part of these operations. We certainly didn’t rush into Iraq because of politics. We really did believe that Sodamn Insane was going to use chemical and/or biological weapons on our troops, and as such, the warming weather was the primary driving force on the commencement of operations, because our protective suits would have been unbearably hot even in May when temperatures already exceeded 90F.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
My point in this thread is: whether we agree on particular cases or not, what it to prevent this sort of nonsense from occuring? And please, let us agree that it is nonsense. Whatever else anyone may think of the military, they are professionals who know how to do their job. They should not be asked to make political decisions, but when we ask them to do a military mission, they should be entrusted to do it. They know how to minimize casualties. They know how to secure ground. I don't know any of that stuff. I think we need to trust the experts here. [/quote]

The moral of the story is never let your operations be driven by the media’s demands for action so they can have something to report on.


[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
I think we overuse the military. I think we need to get serious with diplomacy and earning good will in the world. [/quote]

The military should be used guardedly. Some say it should be only used as a last resort. It certainly shouldn’t be relegated to only being an instrument for revenge when we’re attacked because a foe perceived us to be too weak.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
We should work on being better neighbors. [/quote]

We are good neighbors, otherwise we would have invaded Canada and Mexico a long time ago.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
I think we misuse the military. If the military is being used to guard oil pipelines, that is wrong. [/quote]

Where were you when Clinton had us wagging his dog in Kosovo?

The pipelines need to be guarded, and until the Iraqis can do a competent job off it, the task befalls the only ones who can, US. The oil from the pipelines is going to be the life-blood of the Iraqi economy. It is benefiting them. If we wanted to we could take it as we’ve already been accused of doing, but we aren’t.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
There are right reasons to go to war, and wrong ones. If people are angry about their lives, and are glad to have a war where we can kick some butt, nevermind whose, then we are abusing the military to feel good about ourselves. Has it ever happened? I don't know. But I suspect our support of the war in Iraq involves mixed motives, not all of them good and praiseworthy. [/quote]

Sodamn Insane is a monster. Many said “...but there are lots of monsters in the world. Why him? Why not the rest?” The simple answer is that he deserved it more than the rest, and he presented a growing and grave threat to the security of America and her allies (most specifically, Israel). The President’s political foes continue to harp on the lack of WMDs as being some reason why we shouldn’t have attacked, but that was one of a dozen reasons. The WMD issue was certainly the most pressing issue to isolationists who would only engage America’s forces against a “clear, and present danger” to America itself, because those WMDs could be given to terrorists who would gladly turn themselves into human cruise missiles to attack America.

[quote=rogerv,Dec 7 2004, 09:32 AM]
But I don't think anyone serious about the security of this country is suggesting getting rid of the military. Every country that can afford one, so far as I know, has one. Even the Congo is glad to have a military to stop the raids of troops from Rwanda.

So, I don't want decisions to go to war in military hands. I do want them in civilian hands. But, that still leaves all sorts of important questions unanswered. And it is very important that they get answered, because we don't want troops at risk for the wrong reasons, or at unnecessary risk when they are fighting for the right reasons.[/quote]

I like that last line, but I don't want us taking unnecessary risks when we're fighting for the wrong reasons either.

Thanks, ETC1966,

It is hard to get good information about what is going on in Iraq, because the media often don't understand what they are seeing, and we have an administration that is obsessed with secrecy and image management. And of course, even the military has its blunders and embarassments. Like I've said, Ive never been in the military, but I have had military guys explain to me the meaning of 'snafu'.

I may be mistaken, but I think the Washington Post said that Conway was the source of their story. Perhaps I didn't read this too carefully. Be that as it may, we both know reasons why someone in the military would not want their name used when giving information potentially embrarrassing to command.

As for Clinton's wars in Kosovo, I think that was another mixed bag. We certainly had good reasons to want to stop the slaughter there. No one wants to stand by while genocide is occuring. But I have no doubt that motives were mixed. The point is general. Both sides of the aisle enage in sabre rattling rather than sober analyis. So, your point is taken.

I understand your point about the pipelines in Iraq. I think you are right. But I worry because I hear we also had troops in Columbia or Venezuela protecting pipelines there. MY worry in general is that we are expanding our definition of security interests to the point where it may, for all intents and purposes, become 'whatever we think we need'--oil, raw materials--who knows how far this logic will take us. And as the mission of the military expands, so does the number of campaigns. Each one puts troops in harms way. I think that is wrong. It is one thing to ask troops to protect American lives. It is another to ask it to protect corporate interests.

I must admit, I have self-interest here. I have two small boys, one eight years old and one four years old. I don't want them to grow up and be sent somewhere on a whim to die on foreign soil. I'd like the stratgeic equivalent of the rules of engagement better defined. I'd like political leaders to show some of the same discipline they demand of the military. I'd like to see restraint the order of the day.

Sorry. I don't remember my original source. It was either the Washington Post article, the BBC, PBS, the New York Times, or the Nation. I'm not sure which. The blog article was the first I came up with on a web search, but I hadn't read it before today either. I don't usually go to blogs for news. But, as we both know, even the major news media sometimes get things wrong. And as for spin, well, I'm sure the major news media have plenty of that as well. It is not easy to find reliable information, even with the best of intentions.

Wrong on all counts- you've been listening to Dick Cheney too long. First, your post has a lot in it- more than I want to address- but this is why we Dem's are so damned upset.

Yes, he was a monster and he did deserve to be overthrown- perhaps even more than the rest. But why now? Why us? Why did our President feel that it was our business to essentially go it alone- and no BS about a Coalition; Britain is our only other real partner in this. The rest of the group is a joke. So why couldn't he wait another year, maybe two, until the UN could be cajoled into participating? Or, discounting the UN, until NATO could be cajoled. If not NATO, then some meaningful coalition of nations with real tanks and planes and soldiers. And most important, why couldn't he wait until our armed forces were ready to create an exit strategy?

Saddam was paying $25,000 to surviving families of Palestinians blowing themselves up in Israel. That was not our problem; it was an Israeli problem brought on, right or wrong, by their Palestinian policies. Palestinian bombers represented no threat to us- and still don't. And Israel has beaten back the Arabs three times that I can think of in the last half century; they can take care of themselves. There were no weapons of mass destructions that could be a threat to Israel- hell, they hardly had enough conventional weapons to defend themselves. No air force or navy, an army of conscripts using technologically inferior equipment. What threat was there? And to say that we should go to war because of events in Israel is a criminal's convoluted logic. We went to war to destroy weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, and hadn't existed since 1991- that's what we were told, and we were told a bald faced lie.

In spite of the 9/11 Commission's Report, and in spite of the UN Inspector's Report to the contrary, Dick Cheney kept talking about Saddam's threat- and you were one of 59,000,000 fools who believed him.

You don't need to apologize- this isn't a term paper or a Master's thesis.

General Conway was my company commander a very long time ago, and I also knew him when he commanded a regiment my battalion was part of. He was always very blunt and too honest for his own good.

Politicians do best when they give the military an objective and then turn them loose to take it. Any interference in how it's done only messes things up. Vietnam is the best case I can recommend for comparison.

My son was in Fallujah for the most recent battle and they were pretty much given free reign on getting the mission accomplished. After talking to him a few times about what went on it would appear the news media did a poor job reporting on this battle.

If and when the true story ever gets reported you'll see that the Marines and Army troops were able to do what was wanted while being very careful to inflict minimal casualties on the civilians that chose to remain in the battle zone. They also did as much as they could to aid those civilians they found and get the Red Crescent in to help them, notwithstanding what yhou may see in notes elsewhere in this forum.

Thanks, SemperFidelis.

If you had the ear of politicians and citizens across the US, what would be your recommendations for improving the relationship between military and civilian authority?

Gunny, I am sure you are proud of your son's service- as well you should be- and I hope you continue to hear from him for as long as he is in-country. I don't think you will find anyone on this blog who has any problem at all with the military. They have performed extremely well under horrible conditions. I'm a Vietnam vet myself- an Air Force pussy (or so I was called by some of my Marine friends)- and your point about politicians throwing sticks into the military machine is well taken. In April the administration did just that, and it cost us dearly.

Truth is alway relative to the winners and losers, but the truth we are hearing from our soldiers is that they have done a great job of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum while inflicting heavy casualties on the bad guys- great soldiering!

My feeling is that they should never have been sent there in the first place.

I personally thank both you and your son for your service to our nation.

I had General Conway as my battalion commander many years back, and you're right, he was saying exactly what he thought and too honest for his own good, consequences be damned.

I'd also have to completely concur that the civilians in appointed or elected leadership roles interfere too much in military operations. Methinks when the Department of Defense was established the Secretary, and each service secretary, was supposed to handle the administration matters while the Chairman and each of of the Joint Chiefs handled the military matters. This didn't last too long and under President Kennedy we started seeing civilian micromanagement of military operations. Since then the only time this got reversed was in the Reagan administration, but it started slowly changing back to civilian interference under Bush I and really got bad under Clinton, remaining bad under Bush II.The Gunny doesn't get on here much, but he's a good friend and I doubt he'll mind me sticking my nose in on this one.

IMHO the President should recommend, and Congress approve only true warriors for flag promotions other than in the staff corps. Methinks this is especially true for the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This hasn't been the case since General Powell left the position, and the current guy is one of the least effective yet politically correct CJCOS I could ever imagine.

I was really surprised when Generals Chuck Krulak and James L. Jones, the previous two Commandants of the Marine Corps weren't selected for this position. Like General Conway they said exactly what they thought and damn the consequences. Congress appreciated their candid answers in hearings and the Corps prospered under their leadership. The current CMC, General Hagee comes from the same mold. I'm not sure a Marine has ever held the post though General P. X. Kelley seemed headed for it until he screwed it up some how.

Politicians have also got to stop using military procurement to feather their pork barrelling. At the same time they've got to do a much better job ensuring that the commitments given to those who have served and those still serving are lived up to.

I'm gonna stop there and let others chime in here. Hope the fact that I served most of my Navy career with the Marines color my ideas too much.

I think having an experienced CO who is competent is important. But I think what I'm after is a little different. Let's see if I can explain.

I'm looking for good faith in those who make decisions to deploy or not deploy our military. Some of the information on which our elected officials act is sensitive and cannot be shared with the public. That creates an opportunity for unscrupuous officials to hide behind the veil of official secrecy and do what they like. I'd like to change the culture in which that is possible.

To be sure, some situations are emergencies, and action has to be taken immediately. I don't think anybody should be bothered by the fact that people on the ground sometimes have to make command decisions in order to protect us. That is why we trust them with the authority in the first place. We can't always debate these things thoroughly and weigh the pros and cons of acting when time pressure is great. There are times when inaction can be as costly as wrong action. We need people with good instincts to handle these situations, and they need the authority to do what has to be done.

But there should have been a national debate about Iraq before we invaded. That never took place. There are some events that unfold slowly, and we have time to decide what would be best.

Furthermore, even when time constraints are somewhere in between (the Cuban missile crisis?) there is a need to make sure that discussions are open-ended, and all the costs of various options are discussed thoroughly before acting. Acting rashly, in an age of nuclear arms, can be catastrophic. What can we do to ensure people like Richard Clarke and Lt. Commander Conway are free to speak their minds without fear of their jobs if they do not hold the party line?

My view is that if war is not quite hell, it is so awful that we should only invoke it when we absolutely have to. There are things worth going to war for, but precious few. And we need to keep it that way, because in any war people die, in some wars, lots of them. And to me, at least, it doesn't matter that all or most of the deaths are on the other side (not that I prefer them on our side!), because I think human lives matter and killing is never a trivial matter. I'm not a sentimentalist. I know we ask soldiers to kill in war. Sometimes it is the right thing to do. Sometimes we have no serious alternative. But it should never be a choice we make lightly. We ask soldiers to do terrible things in our name. We owe them the duty to only ask it when necessary.

I wonder if the decision would be made more carefully if we expected our commander in chief to lead the troops, like Alexander the Great did, or like Caesar? What if every Congressman that voted for war had to serve in that war, in combat or support units near the front? What if every Congressman or president who chose to declare war would automatically give up bid for re-election, so that no ulterior motives would intrude?

QUOTE(ETC1966 @ Dec 7 2004, 01:26 PM)
...Sodamn Insane is a monster. Many said “...but there are lots of monsters in the world. Why him? Why not the rest?” The simple answer is that he deserved it more than the rest, and he presented a growing and grave threat to the security of America and her allies (most specifically, Israel).


Get real. You say I’m “all wrong”, but then you start your next paragraph agreeing that Sodamn Insane was a monster. And then you ask exactly the sort of questions I was talking about. Looking for any excuse not to confront evil incarnate. So read what I said above again. And no, I am 100% objective, you are not, based on your callous dismissal of what I said.


Because contrary to what the “Bush lied! Bush Lied! Bush lied!” parrots would have you believe, we really did believe Sodamn Insane had produced chemical and biological weapons, and he was likely to give some to terrorists who would use them on us. We weren’t wearing those NBC/CBR suits because they were stylish. Our timetable was driven by the increasingly hot Iraqi spring and impending insanely hot Iraqi summer. Go to a sauna with a hefty bag on and you’ll experience what I mean.


Because with great power comes great responsibility. We are the only superpower left in the world.


Yeah, I’m sure attitudes like that don’t come as incredibly arrogant to anyone in those countries. Real nice. That’s like saying “America’s over there with a bunch of losers. Good way to promote future alliances, insult our allies.”


Obviously the UN was on the take and wasn’t going to enforce it’s own resolutions, so we had to act for the sake of America and our chief ally in the region, Israel.


France and Germany probably would have muddled that up too. The clock was ticking on our ability to effectively defend ourselves against an expected onslaught of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons. If you saw Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN, you’d have to realize the Iraqis did everything in their power to act like they were hiding serious WMD capabilities. Everyone thought Sodamn Insane had stockpiles of WMDs, even his own cabinet, because that’s what he wanted everyone to think. BTW, we have always had an “Exit Strategy”, complete victory, period, nothing less is acceptable, we aren’t fighting to “not lose”, we are fighting to WIN the Global War on Terrorism.


An Iraq-Israel war could have easily started WWIII. If Sodamn Insane put a missile into Israel with a nuclear, chemical or biological warhead on it, they would have nuked Baghdad, and the Arabs would side with him and the entire region would be in chaos. Armageddon is our problem.


Perhaps, that remains to be seen, but it wasn’t President Bush who was lying, the Iraqis were engaged in a complex campaign of disinformation. We believed what they wanted us to believe, and we didn’t have the intelligence resources to ensure we weren’t duped.


Sodamn Insane was a threat, and he was simply biding his time until he could do what he wanted. He was crazy, not stupid. He used dual-use technology that offered plausible deniability, and when the inspections/sanctions ended he was going to rearm. In the mean time he made us look stupid and kept the respect of his Arab neighbors who also thought he had WMDs. So, insult everyone you want to, that doesn't make you any smarter than some ape at the zoo throwing feces around at the people.

Methinks much of what you're asking about was covered in target='_blank'>this note. It's not up to the military to decide the rightness of an action it's ordered to undertake, just to get the job done.

If what you're really looking for is a discussion of whether the current Iraq conflict was properly entered into methinks you really want to join in target='_blank'>this topic which has already covered a lot of ground, but still leaves much ground not yet covered.

Feel better? Fact is: no WMD's. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

Indeed, but that a lack of WMD doesn't automatically equate to lying.


You can find a few analysts here and there who are playing the "I told you so" game, and as it turns out they appear to have in fact been correct that Iraq had dismantled their program. However, those analysts were in the distinct minority before the war, when the general consensus of the intelligence community was that Iraq had an active program. Bush belived it, Clinton believed it, Kerry believed it.

The fact that Iraq was running an active disinformation campaign to convince its own generals (and, incidently convincing us) that they still had chemical weapons didn't help matters any.

It's amazing just how clear hindsight is and the rhetoric and hyperbole that results. Unfortunately the military and its civilian leadership doesn't have the luxury of being able to forsee the future. They can only deal with and act on current imperfect knowledge and opinions. In doing so they must assume responsibility for their decisions.

My daughter serving in Iraq and my son in Afghanistan tell me that the rhetoric and hyperbole they saw during the campaign and continuing today has caused a negative effect on our troops morale. Intentional or not it may have resulted in some needless casualties.

Methinks politicians and their supporters need to carefully consider the potential consequences of what they say before they say it. When exercising their freedom of speech IMHO they need to assume the responsibility for what results their words may cause.

So, you think OJ was innocent, too?!?

As a matter of fact, it's not that there were NO so-called WMDs, we simply haven't found the quantities he lead everyone to believe he had. There is lots of evidence that indicates that he was developing and producing biological and chemical weapons. We are going to continue searching, because to do otherwise would be gross negligence on our part. No one is going to make just one 4L SARIN mortar shell. We MUST find the rest.

Thanks for the links, flydangler. Iraq is simply one example of a bigger problem, the problem being that those making the decisions can have motives other than national security for their decisions to use the military. It is a problem because the decision-makers do not put themselves at risk by their decisions (except maybe their chances of re-election), but they get the benefits of the decisions. It is precisely this problem that worries me: there is room for conflict of interests (big time) when the costs are all or mnostly on one group of people, and the benefits are all ( or mostly) on a different group of people. This is the problem I have with some corporate heirarchies as well: decisions to downsize can benefit managers but not employees, or (sometimes) even shareholders or customers. I'm probably not explaining the problem very well. Perhaps the most provocative way to put the point (but not necessarily the best way to put it) it seems too easy to be brave with other people's lives.

Hell, OJ was- and is- guilty as sin! Which is exactly my point. In spite of being there nearly 2 years now, and in spite of all of the compelling evidence to the contrary, you- and millions of others, including our VP- continue to believe that Saddam actually had (not his wishful thinking) the capacity to manufacture WMD's, or that we are going to find WMD's. That glove will never fit. Is Saddam guilty? That goes without saying. Did he have WMD's? No. Had we waited, eventually that truth would have come out. I have faith that the truth in a true democracy always comes out.

OK. Let me try to explain my problem a little more carefully. I think a decision to go to war should be based on real threats and a real appreciation of the risks involved. Someone needs to understand what they are asking for when they ask for war. And it has to be based on realistic threat asssessment, carefully weighing of options for response, and a realistic evaluation of long term consequences. We need, in other words, to be confronted real dangers and have a realistic chance of being safer after the war than before. And into this needs some consideration of how the intervention will be perceived, and how it will altern the dynamics of the region.

Now, this requires cool minds and analysis. What happens when one cannot count on that? What if a group has motives for going to war unrelated to threat assessment?

Let me say which group I have in mind. I have in mind those who have never experienced combat but want to be perceived as strong on defense. I have people like Saxby Chambliss in mind. I also have ideologues like Wolfowitz, who are wedded to realpolitic models of how the world works, who cook up things like the Iraq war apart from any real experience of what war is like.

I think vets who saw active combat, like McCain, Hagel, Biden and Kerry, who have been there, are less likely to be quick to go to war. People like Saxby Chambliss and other chickenhawks may have another agenda.

Now there is a possible downside to having vets make the call. It is possible that they may be too wedded to military solutions for problems. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. I think it is also possible that someone who goes from a successful career in the military to a successful career in politics, have figured out that problems are not all solved the same way. So perhaps the vets are the best ones to make the call, for just that reason. I suppose we would have to study the voting records these congressmen and the Congressional record of their speeches to get a clear idea of which way to go here. But my suspicion is that vets tend to do a better job on threat assessment, and to consider a wider variety of options than nonvets. Just a theory.

But vet wannabees, like Chambliss, scare me. Anyone who could get out of service, then attack the patriotism of a veteran like Max Cleland, is a horrible person to start with. But add to that his efforts to get points by showing how he would be tougher on terrorism than anyone else on the planet, and you have a formula for disaster, People who think they have something to prove are likely to make these decisions for all the wrong reasons. Any threat assessment that may follow can easily be a case of a conclusion seeking a justification (or in this case, rationalization). And as for weighing of optional responses...well, you get my point. Motives can distort the information gathering and decision making.

I'll read over the thread you posted on the justifications for going into Iraq. But before I do, I do have a question for you to think about: could there be good reasons for doing something, but the decision still made for bad ones? If so, there still could be major problems with the decision to go to Iraq, even if going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

Now you've hit the nail on the head IMHO, as you'll see in the thread I referred you to.

As to the rest of your note, when you start referring to specific people as "chickenhawks" and "wannabes" in the context of this thread then to me you've started down the rhetorical path I previously mentioned. IMHO if that was your real intent in starting this thread it would seem the way it was done was dishonest and you've lost any credibility with me.

First, let me tell you, your son and your daughter, thank you for your service in our military, and for the incredible work you have done. As a Vietnam vet, I know that too often the military is blamed for the failures of its civilian leaders. My point, in all of these discussions and dialogues, is to point out those failures and the people in the administration who created them.

My argument is this: our civilian leadership doesn't have the luxury of being able to forsee the future. It can only deal with and act on current imperfect knowledge and opinions. In doing so they must assume responsibility for their decisions. Because of these imperfections in knowledge and opinion, they must be deliberate in their decision-making process, and cautious in its implemetation. Politicians and their supporters also need to carefully consider the potential consequences of what they do before they do it. Our politicians were neither cautious nor deliberative, and most certainly did not consider potential consequences. As you so eloquently said, "...they must assume responsibility for their decisions."

AMEN! Wouldn't change a word.

Try as I might, I can't figure out what IMHO means. A little help? :D

IMHO = In my humble opinion

Again- they didn't have them.

OK. Let's get rid of the labels. And whether we agree on specific examples is not important. The question really is about motives. And the worry is that, as things are structured now, we can have decisions made that are not based on good analysis. I am happy to read your posted thread because it does contain analysis. But the worry, a serious worry, is that we can have these decisions being made regardless what sober analysis would say. And my unrhetorical point is that truth matters, especially if we are going to entrust people with decisions of life and death.

I'm not here to score cheap points at the expense of republicans. But it is my impression that those who have seen active combat duty talk more soberly and with more restraint about war than those who have not. Do you share that impression?

Why did I start this thread? Good question. I started thinking about this when I observed that the decision making process for going to war looked extremely dysfunctional to me. So the question arises, is this because we are dealing with a bad bunch of people, or are there structural problems here? I think we are dealing with a bad bunch, no question about it. But what worries me is that the structure that facilitates this bunch has been around for a long time. I'm not sure I've sorted out how this all works--which is why I need your help, flydangler. You have seen this decision making process from the military side.

I guess for me assigning blame is besides the point. That is all pretty sterile, and leaves the problem unsolved. We have a problem that is going to persist until we figure out how to change the incentives. Otherwise, we stand risk having the wag the dog scenario replayed by politicians of any party. So, I don't see this as a partisan problem.

Thanks

This is the only part of your post that is worth discussing at this point. The fact is, I don't care- and most Americans don't care- if we offend any of the other countries in this ridiculous farce called a Coalition. With the exception of Poland, Bulgaria, and Britian, their soldiers are not dying and their coffers are not being drained. Screw 'em.

The President's father had a coalition- France, Syria, Egypt, Germany, et al- a real coalition with a lot of real soldiers and real tanks. To call this a Coalition is a slap in the face to the Gulf War I countries that really did contribute. The first Bush also had an exit strategy; it's not one we liked at all, but a strategy none the less. Had sonnyboy read his dad's book, he'd have known why dad stopped when he did. Dad was smart enough to know how to stay out of the mess his son got us into. I liked dad- even voted for him the first time. Son can't walk in the shadow of his dad's shadow.

Didn't have them ever or didn't have them ANYMORE??

Are you saying that Iraq never possessed WMD's?? Because if you are saying that then the Iranian troops who got hit with mustard gas and the Kurds and iraqi citizens who got gassed with Sarin/Tabun would probably disagree with you.

So Lets throw out some FACTS that cannot be argued or disputed. Then we can discuss other aspects.

1) Iraq did at one time possess chemical weapons. (example: chemical weapons were found during the 1st Gulf War, and were used before that on Kurds(Nerve Agents) and against Irainian troops(Iran-Iraq War)

2) Iraq has waged Wars of Aggression against 2 of its neighbors. (Iran1980-1989 and Kuwait 1990-1991)

3) Iraqi leadership has brutally repressed any oposition to government policies and has murdered unknown numbers of its own citizens.

4) Iraq under Saddams Leadership did not make an attempt to prove they no longer possessed WMD's by allowing unlimited and unrestricted access to all suspected WMD storage/production facilities in accordance with UN mandates and resolutions.

If I am incorrect about any of these facts please let me know.

Now for the discussion. If Saddam had wanted to prevent war, he could have said "come in and go anywhere you want". This would have allowed for verification that Iraq no longer had WMD's.
Iraq did use these weapons before, and had produced them. It is hard for me to believe that saddam just woke up one morning and said "well I guess I'll get rid of my WMD stockpiles and make everyone happy". It would not surprise me if in the future we do find stockpiles buried out in the middle of the desert.
Was our intelligence wrong about WMD's? Yes for now. Does that mean we still should not have gone? No. We are just finishing the job that GB senior started back in 1991. It should have been finished then too.

Let me start by saying that no military professional that I know wants war. We want to be prepared to be able to kill as many of the opposition and break as much of their stuff as possible, but this is as much to convince others that if unleashed our military is an awsome force as it is to accomplish any mission assigned. Just the same we know the reality of war is horrible to experience. I base this on personal observations over 30 years and five combat tours, including three in Vietnam.

Having said that, methinks most military professionals feel that war is normally due to the failure of politicians to competently conduct their diplomatic efforts. Sometimes you'll still run into situations where countries and other political entities refuse all reasonable diplomatic overtures and/or third parties interfere to such a degree that the use of military force becomes inevitable.

IMHO the past Arab/Israeli conflicts, attacks on Libya, actions in the Balkans, the clashes between Israel and the Palestineans, the first Gulf War and our current involvement in SW Asia all fall into this category. Some may want to argue this last item in which case I'd ask they go to the " target='_blank'>Background" thread in the Afghanistan and Iraq subforum where it is on topic.

First, you're answering your own questions in an attempt to frame my answer. Of course he had them and used them. You're also right that he could have said those things, but he didn't. So what? The inspectors were still there doing their job. Were they being obstructed every inch of the way? Probably, but they were doing their job; the biggest obstruction to completion of their mission was the war.

Your last sentence cited it the heart of the matter. Dubya wanted to finish the job his dad started, without thinking about why his dad, a master of diplomacy and coalition-building and a man that will probably go down as one of our best presidents, didn't finish it in the first place. No one wanted to leave Saddam in power, but Sr. Bush knew that if the Coalition Forces marched in to Baghdad, exactly what is happening now would have happened then. His dad had years and years of government service when he became president, and knew he had to have the support of the world in order to accomplish his goals. It took a while for him to put it together, but he did, and the coalition he formed did just what it said it would do- got Saddam out of Kuwait. Dubya went in to the White House with the ouster of Saddam on his 'to do' list; 9/11 gave him the excuse to do it.

Thanks, flydangler. My worry isn't about when politicians try and fail. My worry is about when politicians don't even try. But I think your diagnosis is basically right. How do we make this better? How do we keep the problems others have with doing their job from becoming your problem (or your kids, who are currently serving)?

Tough questions with no easy answers. I just finished a tough session with my Girl Scouts so let me decompress, think it over and see what I can come up with in the morning.

You work with Girl Scouts? Good organization. My oldest boy is in Cub Scouts. Our den leader is Coast Guard Reserve, and his boy and mine play baseball together.

I agree, on both counts.