Generals and Civilian Control Argument

Outside the Beltway has a piece discussing Rumsfeld and the Generals on the point of whether the Generals should be criticizing. (Personally, I'm getting tired of the topic, since it is quite clear that the various sides of the argument don't care to actually debate. This piece is much more reasonable than most.)

Kevin Drum, reflecting on the recent spate of retired generals speaking out both both for and against Donald Rumsfeld's being replaced as SECDEF, remarks, "Regardless of whether or not we agree with the generals‚’ criticism, I think it'’s wise to be uneasy about something that has a bit of a sense of a palace revolt against the current civilian leadership of the military."

Steven Taylor thinks this concern odd, arguing that that “employing the ‘civilian control of the military' card in this context is a non sequitur, because the generals in question are retired, and therefore are civilians and are exercising their rights as such to critique the sitting government." In follow-up posts, he notes that guys like Wesley Clark have spoken out without similar criticisms and, citing an Explainer piece noting that there are "about 4700 retired generals," the pronouncements of a few of them will hardly undermine civilian control.

While I am sympathetic to the 'civilian control' argument and would like to see retired generals (and, indeed, public officials period) be silent, I ultimately agree with Taylor on this one. As I've noted before, we've had much more aggregious cases at even more inauspicious times without undermining the Republic.

Check out the comments section as well.

It does come down to the former Generals are civilians now and can freely speak their piece. One needs to investigate to some measure their motives though. The majority of them have bellowed that they are only doing it for the troops in the field, but I find that disingenuous. Between the politics, former grudges to repay, and the book deals, I find that their motives aren't so pure. It doesn't make their comments irrelevant, but it does make one pause in how much value one should place on them.

I've yet to find a decent analysis of each General and their motives. Their complaints in some cases are clear, but for the majority I can't find anything but vague critiques. Not enough soldiers, bungled the insurgency, etc. They may all have a valid point, but the specifics are lacking, and in fact, many of these points are arguable. Especially the troop size argument that keeps being batted around.

You can also view another point of view at the so-called Moderate Voice.

Hopefully this whole topic will go away soon.