April 16, 2006
In the Shadow of MacArthur
General Douglas MacArthur, a man used to winning wars, was deeply dissatisfied with the limited Allied goals in Korea. He bitterly resented sending men to die for such goals, and, while still Supreme Allied Commander, spoke out publicly about his frustration with the way Harry Truman was conducting the war.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Truman's response:
With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government and of the United Nations in matters pertaining to his official duties.The President's hand was forced. Regardless of the relative merits of Truman's strategy versus what MacArthur believed was right, the American military must submit to civilian authority. We are not, after all, the Soviet Union. General MacArthur knew this, and spoke out anyway, knowing that it would lead to his relief from command, and the end of his long and distinguished service. Perhaps he considered the lives of the men he led more important than his career.
What then, to make of the six American generals who have publicly demanded the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Their statements about the conduct of the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror would suggest that things are quite dire indeed. Men are dying needlessly, they say.
Why then, did not one of these generals feel that these men were more important than his own career?
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:25 PM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
1
>>>Why then, did not one of these generals feel that these men were more important than his own career?
I don't know what you mean by that. Presumably you mean that they should have spoken up while still in active service? Well, we don't know that they didn't do that. And had you heard they spoke up during their active service, would you now be calling for their firing due to insubordination?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 10:57 PM (8e/V4)
2
I am kicking this very topic around right now at Blogger Beer. I found an article from the Naval War College Review written in 2002.
The author comes down clearly against the six generals speaking out. In fact, he talks about how Generals used to not vote in order to not become embroiled in politics and perhaps having to execute orders that offended their political sensibilities.
This all changed throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s when the Democratic Party became overtly hostile to the military. The Republican party filled the vacuum and the Military realized the political situation and as we see the military generally votes for Republicans.
Rumsfeld is referred to as being secretive. At first the secretness is taken as a bad thing but later the author goes onto explain he must be secret so the Pentagon Generals don't get wind of Rummy's ideas and then work to defeat them. It is also noted that Colin Powell is extremely effective at getting what he wants and managed to get quite a few of his policy preferences into official govt. policy during his tenure as the head of the JCS, this is one reason the current administration needed Rumsfeld in office to be able to counter Powell.
One Pentagon general was quoted as referring to the civilians in charge of the Military as the enemy. Not a good thing.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 16, 2006 11:08 PM (43BLH)
3
JC,
Military officers are supposed to advise and counsel their superiors. However, in the end their superiors give the orders and the subordinate officer's job is to execute those orders.
The idea of those generals speaking up and criticizing their superior is bad. It is bad now, it was bad when they were calling their Commander in Chief a philandering, draft-dodging, dope-smoker.
In fact, what does much of the criticism center on? The fact we did not invade with 300,000; 400,000; or 500,000+ troops. Something popularly known as the Powell Doctrine a policy Colin Powell finagled into national policy when he was a general.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 16, 2006 11:16 PM (43BLH)
4
DPB; This is an odd argument...MacArthur was fired because of a unilateral challenge to civilian rule, i.e. he wanted to begin the invasion of China immediately after their entry into the Korean war. No more, no less.
Far from a hero who did what he felt he needed to do despite the consequences, MacArthur was a military man who forgot the role of the military in the US; he challenged not Truman, but the office of President, in direct contradiction of his duty to uphold civilian government.
I myself have seen nothing to support the thesis he took these steps and sacrificed his career for his men.
On the other hand, the current six recalled their place in civilian government, and supported its leadership until they could not and retired or resigned. These fellows did the right thing at the right time, at least by the measure of the Constitution.
Again, speculation they sat in silence to further their careers is just that. What's to say those who have not retired or resigned are more deserving of that speculation?
Posted by: Glenn at April 16, 2006 11:21 PM (oxMjD)
5
JC, if these former generals felt that their complaints were so urgent that they needed to publicly attack the secretary of defense (and undermine civilian control of the military), then they SHOULD have done so while still serving and taken the consequences, as MacArthur did.
If you thought people were dying needlessly and you might be able to address the situation by taking an action that would likely get you fired, wouldn't you do it anyway?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 12:17 AM (RHG+K)
6
By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil you have placed us on the bad side of our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ.
http://www.deanberryministries.org/index3.html
Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 17, 2006 05:15 AM (h/YSB)
7
Don't you love how people who can't be bothered to make a legitimate argument think it's funny to create a script to post ignorant garbage for them?
Ooooh, so clever. They must have picked up a Basic book and think they're awesome because they read the first 2 chapters.
Posted by: RanbaRal at April 17, 2006 07:44 AM (GyNTD)
8
Bluto,
maybe those generals did speak up during their active service, but in a way that wasn't public and political. I'm willing to bet they did. And I don't see a problem with that.
Now, because they're retired and because the lives of their men are that important, they're willing to make it political. I don't see the problem.
The issue is whether what they're saying makes any sense. Will changing Rumsfeld make any difference now? I've heard that it won't.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:28 AM (8e/V4)
9
>>>By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil
When do we finally get to see some of that oil?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:52 AM (8e/V4)
10
Glen,
I don't agree with you. As former military commanders their voices still counts quite a bit as military commanders. After all McArthur did say something about old generals.
These six are still out of line even though they are retired.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 08:59 AM (43BLH)
11
No, JC, they're claiming they knew from the start that there would be problems. If so, and they feel this strongly about it, they should have risked their precious careers to speak out. Otherwise, they're not generals anymore, they're just politicians.
I'm willing to bet that Rumsfeld is one of those my-way-or-the-highway types; a managment style that I personally find needlessly abrasive, but common nonetheless. And even more common among high-ranking military officers, who have the full weight of the UMJC behind them.
Therefore, the reason they didn't speak out is that this is more about bruised egos than anything else.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 09:02 AM (RHG+K)
12
Bluto those generals swore an oath to defend the constitution which places our military UNDER the control of our elected leaders. They resigned and gave up their promising careers with multiple stars so that they could speak freely. This was something that General MacArthur chose not to do. In this country our military should not publicly criticize their superiors neither civillian nor uniformed. It is part of the tradition called "chain of command" deemed esential to morale and discipline. I think that it was for their troops that they did resign and then go public.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 17, 2006 09:20 AM (TcoRJ)
13
John--yes, it is possible they out of line with their comments; perhaps they should remain silent in retirement rather than armchair quarterbacking after the fact. My response was more to Bluto's posit that MacArthur's anti-democratic insubordination was somehow noble and selfless in comparison to those recently speaking out against Rumsfeld -- an argument many if not most would find a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:33 AM (UHKaK)
14
Oops--comment above directed to Marcus...hello Monday.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:35 AM (UHKaK)
15
"No, JC, they're claiming they knew from the start that there would be problems. If so, and they feel this strongly about it, they should have risked their precious careers to speak out."
Yes, they are and yes, they did, especially Shinseki.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:38 AM (UHKaK)
16
The reason we have not seen any oil yet is because of the bigger picture. The big business plan is to remain there as long as possible. That is good for business. In the meantime the oil sits, no one gets it. Not China nor India. We win!
That's why Rummy remains even though he states that he doesn't know if there are 3, 4, 5, or 6000 generals. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the fat cats keep getting fatter!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 09:53 AM (FCC6c)
17
Iraq at 75 % production at double the price is hardly sitting.
Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 10:13 AM (D3+20)
18
>>>In the meantime the oil sits, no one gets it. Not China nor India. We win!
Larry,
advanced dementia is a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Seek therapy.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
19
I stand corrected on the oil. Happy day Exxon!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:26 AM (FCC6c)
20
Glenn: I'm not arguing that MacArthur was correct, only that he had the balls to speak out despite the consequences. These generals didn't.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 10:31 AM (RHG+K)
21
Bluto
JC was right coming out the gate - you can't have it both ways.
There is "disagreement" throughout the ranks - including myself. Hell, its natural! There is also plenty who don't - or have yet to make their opinion clear.
I would love a discussion on the points involved - but not here on Jawa - it would only attract the anti-admin, anti-war rabble.
There are three words to remember - MISSION, CONCEPT, EXECUTION.
What you are hearing today is complaints about CONCEPT AND EXECUTION ..... NOT MISSION!!!!
There is no discension on MISSION - they all believe in the purpose, original goal, victory etc. Because of this, the lib/left Dems CAN NOT really embrace them .... nor will they rally to a Dem ... a gung ho victory in Iraq Dem?????? Ain't no such animal.
Bitchin' is a right within the military - accept it and respect it.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:37 AM (4mgfY)
22
Bluto, I see where you're coming from. But as for the current crop o' generals, how can you be certain they didn't speak up, though admittedly not with the drama (or insubordination) of MacArthur?
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 10:57 AM (UHKaK)
23
Troll wrote - as he girlishly giggled and masturbated.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 11:10 AM (4mgfY)
24
Administrator: The skull-fucker is back! Zap 'em!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 11:10 AM (FCC6c)
25
Glenn,
Okay, I do agree with your point about McArthur. Mc was out of line and likewise so are the current crop of six generals.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 11:27 AM (43BLH)
26
Glenn (and hondo and JC): I'm not addressing the merit of their complaints here. What I'm saying is that, if the situation is SO dire that they feel the need to attack the secretary of defense, then why wait? Whatever you think of MacArthur's position (and there's little doubt, that, like many generals, Mac was an egotistical prima donna) he felt that the situation was so dire that it was worth risking his career. These generals didn't.
Therefore, either the situation is not as dire as they portray, or they felt their careers were more important than addressing it, while still serving.
And to JC or hondo, or whoever mentioned the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the meaning of that oath is that protecting the Constitution takes precedence over protecting one's own life. Are you arguing that it doesn't take precedence over one's career?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 11:49 AM (RHG+K)
27
Bluto, evidently they DID confront Rumsfeld; they merely chose to voice their disagreements in a way more fitting with our form of civilian-lead government by retiring rather than going on Fox News, CNN, etc. I feel that is eminently less self-serving than MacArthur's ploy.
Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 12:00 PM (UHKaK)
28
>>>then why wait?
I don't see how they "waited" at all. I'm assuming they appealed to the chain of command while they were in active service, then they went outside the chain of command when they retired. It seems to me they acted in the finest traditions of the military.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 12:07 PM (8e/V4)
29
JC,
Quite a few of the old school generals refused to even vote, lest it colored their actions against their civilian leadership. Now, we have generals actively working against the civilian leadership and even when they retire their voices carry much weight with their active duty colleagues.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 12:44 PM (43BLH)
30
Bluto
Mac went public because he was an egomanic who felt he was above the rules. he wasn't nicknamed Lil' Ceasar for nothing (great book BTW - and a great general). Its not a good comparison.
The retired generals complaints are varied, and in my opinion mostly valid - they are just being vocal about it now because they can - I accept public bitchin' under these circumstances.
You and many others are making the mistake and seeing this as a partisan political thing - it is not!
Attempting to make it partisan is the MSM, Libs/left and Dems. To them, attacking Rumsfeld = attacking Bush as part of pure partisan politics. This is what your being goaded into responding to.
As prove I offer the following .... their complaints are very specific (I know what they are) - but the MSM and opposition ARE AVOIDING THE SPECIFICS! Instead they offer up generalities and the fact that there is disagreement in the first place (as if that alone is damning).
I know these generals - their sole goal is victory for America - for the opposition it is defeat for Bush (and America if necessary)!
Don't let yourself be conned into thinking its anything else but another attempt by the opposition to play whatever is available.
These are good men Bluto - I'm just sorry an issue like this is being played out like this.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 02:12 PM (4mgfY)
31
Marcus,
I don't mind generals voicing their opinions when it comes to how a war should be waged.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 02:44 PM (8e/V4)
32
>>>Mc was out of line and likewise so are the current crop of six generals.
No, because McArthur did not respect the chain of command and politicized it while still serving in the military. He was therefore insubordinate.
These generals, on the other hand, respected the chain of command, and waited until they were retired before they went public about it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 02:54 PM (8e/V4)
33
hondo, if their goal really is "victory for America" then they are idiots.
JC- if MacArthur spoke up because he was a prima donna, then he was wrong. But if he spoke up because men under his command were dying needlessly, then he was morally right. Certainly, MacArthur knew there could be only one outcome for his career.
I don't know which it was, but I do know that he was correct strategically, just as Patton was when he wanted to march on to Moscow after Berlin.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 09:14 PM (RHG+K)
34
Bluto
Obviously we disagree - but we are both still marching to the same song. I'm just asking you to extend the same recognition to these generals (they may be idiots - including myself - who knows - I've been wrong - that's life).
The opposition looking on sees this as an opportunity for them - they stupidly think that if we disagree - then one of us must agree with them. That is clearly far from the truth - let them dream on.
You, I, JC and the others, the general etc. may disagree, but collectively we all can agree on telling the lib/left to go fuck itself.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 09:55 PM (4mgfY)
35
hondo, what I mean is: how could they have expected the press to play this any differently? They were generals for God's sake, they should know how this works by now.
They come out demanding that Rumsfeld resign and they don't think it's going to be bad for the war effort? C'mon.
And the MSM doesn't care what the generals really want; they got their dump Rumsfeld quote and that's all that matters to them.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 10:08 PM (RHG+K)
36
Bluto
Ref Mac - I'm an old CAV hand - Scout RECON no less. for several generations we have harbored an anger and hatred for Mac over the horse incident of '35. History buffs will know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:13 PM (4mgfY)
37
HOndo--at least one of the generals was publicly opposed to the war in Iraq before it started (zinni) and another (newcomb) says he opposed it in the internal debate before it started. I agree the others were/are supporters of it. Also, there are "victory in Iraq" dems--Joe Lieberman is one. Bush loves him for a reason.
Bluto--MacArthur was strategically correct? IE, we should have nuked bases in China? Did we have the manpower to defeat Red CHina in 52? 53? "Unleash Chiang Ka Shek" is a heck of a slogan, but it wasn't much of a reality.
Before that, MacArthur assured centcom that China would not intervene to save NK as he approached the China border. I think the Chinese response shows that Mac was wrong.
I also question whether America in 45 would have supported an invasion of Russia. Nor am I certain that we would have won where Hitler failed, without using nukes against the Russians (and remember, we didn't have any more for a several months after Aug 9, 1945). Our infantry and air force were quite good in 45, and our navy was far superior to the Soviet's. But I haven't seen a convincing war game that says we beat the Ruskies in 45, even assuming a unified alliance behind us. And, to put it mildly, if you are not in Moscow by November, you are fucked. Ask Rundstedt. Ask Napoleon. Patton was brilliant tactically, but I'm very thankful he was never involved in strategic planning. Ike was right about that.
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 11:19 AM (uT71O)
38
jd, I said strategically, not tactically, specifically because of the nukes. Nukes were better as a threat, Mac wanted to use them as a first option. And Moscow wasn't the key, the Ukraine was.
Militarily we would have run over the Russians; the last four years of their war effort against the Nazis were almost totally supplied by the Allies. The problem was political, as is the problem today with the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror. You can excuse people in forty-five, they had just been through a desparate struggle and convincing them that our erstwhile "valiant ally" Stalin was a monster would have been quite a stretch.
Just because something isn't possible politically doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 18, 2006 11:41 AM (RHG+K)
39
Well, at least we agree that the right thing to do is often not politically possible! I just don't know if the Soviets would have collapsed like a cheap suit. There have been some interesting analyses about the worth of one soldier in WWII, as a fighting unit. The Germans were the best, in terms of professional killing prowess. Our economic dominance was impressive, and perhaps it would have carried us to victory, as it did not the Germans.
Interesting discussion, surely.
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 12:08 PM (uT71O)
40
My grandfather served under him twice. He disliked a couple things he did. One was about being left to the Japs when he went to Europe. Before Germany fell he says a lot of soldiers in the Pacific felt a bit under supported. He says he wanted/thought he should be President.
Posted by: Howie at April 18, 2006 04:12 PM (D3+20)
41
MacArthur went to Europe?
My grandfather served with him too--twice. Once in WWII, and again in Korea. As an old China hand, my grandfather was less than thrilled with Mac. I never heard him say much about Mac, though, as he died when I was eight.
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 10:00 PM (uT71O)
40kb generated in CPU 0.0161, elapsed 0.1061 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.0969 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.0969 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
