Sunday, April 23, 2006

Six or Thousands?

The drumbeats to overthrow Don Rumsfeld are becoming incessant. The nightmare of the pacifists, peace-mongers, cowards and anti-American Americans is that Iraq might actually become democratized and stability might develop in the Middle East because of US intervention. There’s no way they can get elected if that should happen. That’s why it is important to bring stronger voices to bear than Cindy Sheehan. Poor Cindy, who entered the fray with such sympathy for her loss, has become too much of a caricature to be taken seriously. She’s stretched her fifteen minutes of fame into several hours and the glow is off that candle.

Now, we’ve got “the Generals” speaking out for purging of the SecDef. But, is this really a huge outcry of the military against Dilbert-style management? Hardly! So far, we’ve got six—count’em six—generals out of literally several thousand retired and active duty flag rank officers. That’s a long way from a landslide.

Yet, the mass media mavens flog the idea. One voice crying in the wilderness takes issue and speaks the truth: Generals and "Generals"

Krauthammer is quickly becoming one of my favorite commentators both in print and during his regular visits with Brit Hume on Fox News. He is rational and reasoned with seldom a bit of the hysteria that accompanies the likes of Eleanor Clift for example.

Most telling about the clamor for Rumsfeld’s scalp is the trotting out of Zinni and Shinseki again. These are a couple of senior military folks from the Clinton administration’s legacy who simply wouldn’t march to the new drummer. Make no mistake about it; generalship is a very political occupation. I spend a bit of time in the concluding chapter of my new book, “Palace Cobra” talking about careerists and warriors.

Ideally the military leadership should be composed of warriors. Success in war takes the ethic, the spirit, the courage of the warrior. It is a profession that some are not suited for, but if success is to be achieved, these leaders must be developed and promoted.

The careerist, on the other hand, is the square filler. This is the officer who attaches himself to those above him and seeks the pull to the top of the heap. He or she will gravitate toward aide-de-camp and executive officer positions assisting generals. They will jump from assignment to assignment, school to school and headquarters to headquarters gathering the credentials to qualify for a spot at the right hand of God or at least the President. They can sometimes be warriors, but it isn’t required. When it happens, that’s good. When it doesn’t that’s a disaster.

I’ve known some warriors who made it to the top of the heap. Gen. Ron Fogleman became Chief of Staff of the USAF. He was a combat warrior and a great leader. He also had the integrity to resign from his position when then President Bill Clinton demanded something which Ron wasn’t comfortable with. He remains a man of integrity and respected by all the folks that I know.

Similar general officer warriors are found if you look at the battles of the last twenty years. The Pentagon generals who show up at the embassy soirees aren’t always the ones called upon to lead in combat. Take a quick look back at Desert Storm, now fifteen years ago. Where did Norman Schwartzkopf and Chuck Horner come from? Not the puzzle palace across the Potomac, but rather from some back-water headquarters in Florida. Warriors, each, not careerists. Similar situation for Tommy Franks in Iraqi Freedom.

Now, the six iconoclasts getting all the press depend upon us to forget the distinction between warriors and careerist. Like spoiled little children, they strike out at the force in authority and in doing so they endanger the effort of those in harm’s way and undermine the policy of the current administration. Personally, I’ll be happy to listen to General Peter Pace, the current chairman of the JCS and his predecessor Dick Myers. They support the SecDef and confirm his leadership qualifications. That’s good enough for me.

No comments: