The Praetorian Guard was originally formed as a force to act as bodyguards to the Roman General commanding an army in the field. Eventually, of course, the Roman republic gave way to the Roman empire and the Praetorian Guard became the principle force protecting the emperor. In turn, the guard became very politicized and began exerting it's power to meddle in the affairs of the empire. Eventually, the guard killed emperors who did not do their bidding and selected replacements.
One thing that has for years amazed people from many other countries is how rigidly separated from politics the American Military is. It's astonishing how well the American system has worked through the years. Our elected officials have been in control of our military throughout the history of the United States. General officers serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time. Truman's firing of MacArthur for arguing and disagreeing with the president publicly is one famous example.
Lately, there have been several reports of retired generals calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld and publicly criticizing the administration. The press appears to be tracking down every single retired general officer they possibly can to interview as is apparent today in the Washington Post. The danger of this particular tactic should be evident to any thinking person. A long-standing rule is being broken here, a precedent is being set with dangerous implications for the future. Up until now generals have served with the approval of elected officials. What will happen when elected officials start serving only with the approval of the generals?
The media, in it's frenzy to get the president, is creating a new Praetorian guard. They're teaching lower ranked officers who will one day be generals how to meddle in the government to get what they want. How long until generals decide to demand what they want? The Post sticks this at the very end of the article:
"I think it flatly is a bad thing," said Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina who writes frequently on civilian-military relations. He said he worries that it could undermine civilian control of the military, especially by making civilian leaders feel that that they need to be careful about what they say around officers, for fear of being denounced as soon as they retire.
"How can you prosecute a war if the military and civilians don't trust each other?" Kohn asked.
Also, the generals themselves may be partly to blame for the situation in Iraq, along with Rumsfeld and the White House, said Michael Vickers, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.
"It's just absurd to lay the blame on Don Rumsfeld alone," he said.
As I posted earlier, we're heading toward a bad place here, folks.
Pingback: The Moderate Voice
“Up until now generals have served with the approval of elected officials. ”
Here’s a news flash for you boy genius, Rummy is not an elected official. This is a long ways from a palace coup. Also note that this is not coming from active duty officers. The generals are not speaking out until they are no longer a part of the military but civilians and like all civilians, entitled to their opinions.
Have you read Dereliction of Duty, by H.R. McMaster? It is on the reading list for senior officers. Flag officers have a special duty to provide honest and frank advice to the President. It is a touchy situation but a flag officer who honestly believes that the Secretary of Defense is losing the war is honor bound to speak up.
Here’s a newsflash back at ya, wonderboy. I was well aware that someone would raise an issue over the words I chose – but I did so with a reason. The system we use has the cabinet officials acting as surrogates for the President – they act and speak for him.
A retired general who speaks out and causes dissent undermines the troops he purports to be defending. And unless he is a complete ass, he freaking well knows it.
And your point about the duty to speak up is irrelevant – it is not serving officers speaking is it. Bother to look around a bit. I have a number of posts from serving members.
“How can you prosecute a war if the military and civilians don’t trust each other?” Kohn asked.
EXACTLY. Get rid of the civilian leader that no one trusts; seems pretty simple to me.
Short term politically driven decisions may not be good for the country in the long run.
It is the delimma that we always find ourselves in after discovering that our leaders are either not up to the task or not telling us the truth or both.
Shades of Viet Nam, but also look at Katrina. How many times did we watch/listen to Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, et.al hypnotise us with the same repititious mendacity
How are you going to foul up troop moral any worse than has already been done. National Guard and Reservests are subjected to repetitive tours. Regular Army and Marine Corps are subjected to repetitive tours.
The military was under staffed for this task and poorly supplied once it started.
Finding an occasional soldier or Marine who feels good about what s/he is
doing and wants to stay and finish what was started is not an indicater of good moral. Especially when Sargents, Platoon Leaders and Company Commanders are bailing in droves.
G.H.W. Bush was correct in not attempting a wholesale make over of Iraq, and today we are proving it.
This is as good a time as any for a good house cleaning.
Quinton, were you born this ignorant or did it take training? Just curious.
US Army reenlistments are 15% ahead of expectations – that doesn’t happen if the Army is demoralized.