[lit-ideas] Re: The US Army in mutiny?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:37:40 -0400
The irony is that civilians were put in charge of the military by the Founding
Fathers to prevent historical abuses by the military, such as military
dictatorships. Congress was intended to oversee the civilians. But, with an
estimated 35,000 lobbyists in Washington
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101632.html),
Congressional oversight is all but nonexistent. The public was intended to
supervise Congress, but the public is clueless and gullible (the Founding
Fathers anticipated the limitations of the public and instituted the Electoral
College). Now it seems there's a new twist on this
democracy-turned-corporate-welfare-state and the military have become the ones
speaking up against civilian abuses. It's too soon to know what reception they
will get, but so far it looks like they'll be either unheard or sent packing.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 4/15/2006 9:04:45 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The US Army in mutiny?
I didn?t think my words would permit the construction you place upon them,
Irene, but then (I suppose) I often think that. In May 2003 I read The
Mission, Waging War and Keeping Peace with America?s Military, Dana Priest,
2003. She was a great fan of Zinni and seems to admire him more than any of
the other CinCs. Her chapter three is entitled ?The CinCs: Proconsuls to the
Empire.? The CinCs had enormous power and influence in their regions, and
Zinni?s included the Middle East before he retired and was replaced by Tommy
Franks. Zinni was a bit of an Arabist in that he loved to work with the
various leaders. They respected him and he respected them. He made up his own
mind about things. On page 110, for example, Priest writes ?But Zinni saw
Pakistan?s leader, Gen. Musharraf, as a force pressuring the Taliban toward
moderation. Acting on that opinion, the Pentagon, led by Zinni and the Vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Raltson, had single-handedly kept the
door open to Pakistan.? I don?t question that it was good that we kept the
door open to Pakistan, but ?as a force pressuring the Taliban toward
moderation?? One needs to be ignorant about Islamism or to have moved fairly
far along the Arabist trail to imagine that.
In regard to the recent in history of the Military vs Government, ?Clinton and
the military never got along. For such a smart politician, Clinton had been so
dumb in the beginning regarding his relations with people in uniform. But at
the same time, on Clinton?s watch the military slowly, without public scrutiny
or debate, came to surpass its civilian leaders in resources and influence
around the world.? [p. 42]
[p. 47] ?predictably, the military learned to operate in civilian realms, while
their civilian counterparts in every agency were more isolated, less
knowledgeable, and less comfortable with the military world.?
I shouldn?t need to explain that when Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense, the
military was no longer going to be permitted to run things to the extent they
did under Clinton, and many resented Rumsfeld for this change. I can
sympathize with the Generals having been in Aerospace long enough to see
generations of bright but inexperienced young managers brought in to sweep our
endeavors with new brooms. None of them had the experience I had nor were they
(in my humble opinion) as bright; so our relationships were invariably stormy.
Zinni had been running things in the Middle East for years and had kept them
running fairly smoothly. He was probably viewing Rumsfeld about the way I
viewed my young managers.
Did I ever bad-mouth any of my young and inexperienced managers the way Zinni
et al bad-mouthed Rumsfeld. Alas, I confess that I did, but only to friends
who pretty much knew my opinion anyway. I never bad-mouthed any of them if
anything important (like an Air Force contract) was on the line. So I?d like
to think that if I were Zinni I wouldn?t risk giving succor to the Islamists by
bad-mouthing Rumsfeld in public. Some (besides Andreas) have suggested that
Zinni and the others may fear that that Rumsfeld intends to bomb Iran?s nuclear
facilities. Now anyone who feels that the Taliban can be induced to be
moderate may well feel that the same thing is true of the Iranian leadership,
but many (including the administration) think such a view faulty.
No one can be an Arabist that hasn?t lived with them for years. [see Robert D.
Kaplan?s The Arabists, the Romance of an American Elite, 1993.] A great number
of such people function as though they have gone over to the enemy. They take
on the cause of the nation in which they are living. This problem has been
endemic with our ambassadorial staff. I doubt that is true of Zinni, but he
seems to think the Islamists are far more malleable than I think they are. In
regard to recent discussions he is perhaps more in sympathy with Fukuyama, Roy,
& Kepel than with authors I find more credible. But a great number of other
very knowledgeable people such as Amir Taheri, Kenneth Timmerman, Jonathan
Fenby, Bruce Bawer, Mohammad Mohaddessin, Ilan Berman, Claire Berlinski, Jean
Bethke Elshtain, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Samuel P.
Huntington, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Henry Munson, Jr., Victor Davis Hanson,
Robert Kagan, Richard Miniter, George Friedman, Paul Berman, Be
vin Alexander, and David Selbourne believe the administration is (more or
less) on the right track.
On page 248 of How America Got it Right, Alexander writes ?Skeptics of the U.S.
efforts in the Middle East say that the difficulties encountered in trying to
set up democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq ? along with Somalia?s inability to
create even a functioning government, much less a democracy ? show that
equitable societies cannot exist in Muslim lands. George W. Bush believes just
the opposite, that democracy is possible throughout the Middle East. But even
if true democracy fails, we will still be partially successful if we create
governments that are merely less oppressive. Such governments are unlikely to
harbor terrorists. And eliminating terrorism is our principle goal.?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
