As The General Briefs Congress On Iraq

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
April 8, 2008
To the Editor: The depiction of Gen. David H. Petraeus in “Generally Speaking” (Week in Review, April 6) underscores the hypocrisy of prevailing notions of civil-military relations.
In the interest of civilian control and political neutrality, it’s not O.K., as I understand it, for those in uniform to openly oppose administration policies — even unannounced ones (as when Adm. William J. Fallon was pushed into retirement recently after speaking out against the hypothetical prospect of using military force against Iran).
But it’s acceptable for them to openly support administration policies — even strategically deleterious, militarily wasteful, politically motivated ones. And it’s acceptable for civilian authorities, including the commander in chief, to abrogate accountability by relinquishing de facto decision-making authority to high-visibility officers like General Petraeus to make their case for them.
Which is more objectionable: political cowardice masquerading as deference to military expertise, or compliant military followership masquerading as iconic martial leadership?
Gregory D. Foster, Washington, April 6, 2008
The writer is a professor at the National Defense University.
Editor's Note: The article by Steven Lee Myers appeared in the Current News Early Bird, April 6, 2008.
 
Back
Top