More on Rumsfeld

My last post generated a few comments about our current SecDef and his problem with retired General Officers calling for his ouster. Maybe I didn't explain myself thoroughly.

There is a pretty good analysis at Slate. Read it and all the comments.

I think that General Officers, active or retired, are wrong-headed when they criticise the civilian leadership. The concept of civilian control of the military is what makes us different from the Banana Republics. Officers in the United States military don't buck civilian leaders. We don't lead coups. We don't threaten the civil leadership process. The military is subordinate to civil leadership and we submit willingly to that subordination because it is best for the Republic.

Suppose, for example, that a future President had to take into consideration the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before appointing a Secretary of Defense. Suppose that same President was planning to draw down the military during a period of true peace. Suppose that President was cutting the military to such a degree that a significant number of General Officers would be retired. That future President would have a truly onerous task. It is not the job of the military to burden leaders.

The best, most effective form of criticism comes from the press, or the Congress, or within the civil governemnt.

The military is subordinate to the civil authority. Public criticism of civil authorities is neither in the best interest of the military, nor in the best interest of the Republic.