|
Ralph Peters is a regular columnist with the New
York Post.
Register here for access to the Post's Online Edition.
 Rummy
And The Generals
The critics' credentials...
[Ralph
Peters] 4/20/06
In the current
duel over Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's future, two essential
issues need to be addressed: Who are the officers on either
side of the argument, and should retired generals speak out
at all?
Whatever
one thinks of the SecDef, the professional identities of his
critics and his supporters tell us a great deal. The retired
generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are recent combat
commanders, veterans of Iraq and Middle East experts. They're
the men who led from the front and who signed the condolence
letters to bereaved families (and they didn't use an autograph
machine).
Generals
such as John Batiste, Gregory Newbold, Paul Eaton and Tony
Zinni have something else in common, too: They're leaders respected
by their peers for flawless integrity. Their reputations within
their services - the Army and Marines - could not be higher.
They are not and never have been political generals.
Contributors
Ralph Peters - Contributor
Ralph
Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 19 books,
as well as of hundreds of essays and articles, written both
under his own name and as Owen Parry. He is a frequent columnist
for the New York Post and other publications. [go to Peters Index] |
And these
men have much to lose by going public with their criticism.
They'll never get the lucrative defense-industry jobs in corporations
whose profits depend on the favor of the Pentagon. They're
not going to be offered plum appointments in any future administration,
Republican or Democrat. They'll be frozen out of the Washington-insider's
club. They face organized political attacks upon their personal
reputations.
And yet they
feel it their duty to speak to their fellow citizens, no matter
the cost.
Who are the
retired generals rallying to Secretary Rumsfeld? Check their
credentials, please. When you see those "dead generals" pontificating
on cable or network news, the crawl at the bottom of the screen
doesn't tell you their corporate affiliations or explain their
relationships with the Pentagon. If it did, you'd find that
few are objective commentators.
Backed by
its internal resources, a political party and the defense industry,
the Office of the Secretary of Defense wields tremendous power.
The critics stand alone, without affiliation or financial support,
relying on the media to pick up their statements. The SecDef's
staff can e-mail thousands of retired flag officers, cajoling
them to use its talking points to defend Rumsfeld, with an
implicit threat of exclusion from the magic circle if they
defect to the critics.
The result?
Many retired generals and admirals are afraid to speak out
- worried about the executive slots and boardroom positions
with which the defense industry legally bribes them. The revolving
door is a very powerful silencer.
As for the
generals who rush to defend the SecDef - using those OSD-disseminated
talking points - they fall into three categories:
* Pathetic,
aged retirees who desperately want to believe they're still
Washington players and who will do anything for a scrap of
official attention.
* Air Force
generals - while the Army and Marines fought, Rumsfeld funded
all of the Air Force's toys and can count on its support.
* And, most
troublingly, serving officers selected by the SecDef for the
military's highest offices.
Given the
red-herring debate over whether or not military retirees have
a right to speak out, we've overlooked a shameful and flagrant
violation of the military's code of ethics: Active-duty officers
are forbidden to make political statements.
Rumsfeld's
critics played by the rules and retired before stating their
cases. But what should we make of the Joint Chiefs chairman,
Gen. Peter Pace, his predecessor and their colleagues who've
offered Manchurian-Candidate praise of the defense secretary
in public?
Those were
political statements. By any definition.
If serving
officers can't criticize public figures, neither should they
offer endorsements. Secretary Rumsfeld notoriously cracks down
on internal dissent, but he hasn't chided Gen. Pace for his
on-camera flattery. If you're looking for the politicization
of the officer corps, look no further.
Much of the
pro-Rumsfeld blather has been laughable. A desperate Air Force
general claimed on CNN that, with "only 21/2 years left" in
the administration, it was impractical to change defense secretaries,
since a new man wouldn't have time to master the system.
Utter nonsense,
of course. A senator with a defense background would have a
firm grip on the Pentagon in a few months. As for 21/2 years
being a short time, imagine how different things might be if
Rumsfeld had been replaced in the autumn of 2003.
Invoking
our troops, one print pundit with no military background warned
that dismissing the SecDef would give "anti-war" Democrats
a political victory. In other words, depriving Democrats of
an issue is more important than the fate of Iraq or the lives
of our soldiers. Score a new low for the party hacks.
Then there
are the academics who bemoaned the failure of military officers
to speak out during the Vietnam War. Now that retired generals
are speaking out against a war's inept prosecution, the faculty-lounge
lions warn about a breakdown in civil-military relations.
Let's put
the issue bluntly: Should military retirees - men and women
who loyally served our country - be second-class citizens for
the remainder of their lives, forbidden to state their opinions
on military affairs? Should we penalize those who served in
uniform? Are former politicians forbidden to speak out? Retired
neurosurgeons? Teachers? Over-the-hill pundits?
If former
military officers can't be heard on defense issues, on whom
shall we rely for informed analysis? Politicians? Defense contractors?
Professors?
In these
years without a draft, when most citizens have no first-hand
military experience, retired officers (and NCOs) have a duty
to speak out. Those still in uniform must remain silent (this
means you, too, Gen. Pace), but a man such as Maj.-Gen. John
Batiste, who declined the offer of a third star rather than
serve under Mr. Rumsfeld, has every right to be heard.
As the Washington
machinery attempts to discredit honorable critics of Secretary
Rumsfeld, this is truly a David-vs.-Goliath struggle. And the
truth, as well as the valor, is on David's side. ONE
Ralph Peters'
latest book is New
Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy
This
piece first appeared in the New York Post
copyright 2006 - NY Post
Rush
Limbaugh
§
|
q