Now he tells us-...surely he had a moral responsibility to speak out sooner?

[babylonsister]

Now he tells us

A top US general has criticised his country's failures in Iraq. But surely he had a moral responsibility to speak out sooner?
Michael Boyle
October 15, 2007 10:30 PM | Printable version


On Friday, former Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez made headlines across the US when he told a private gathering of military correspondents that the war in Iraq was "a nightmare ... with no end in sight". In a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq, Sanchez called his former political masters "incompetent" and "derelict in their duties," and accused them of being blinded by a "lust for power".

This is certainly strong criticism, and the fact that it comes from a respected military officer with experience as the commander in Iraq (from mid-2003 to mid-2004) makes it all the more powerful. But we should not rush forward to thank Gen Sanchez for his insight. Instead, we should ask him one question: where was his bracing criticism when he was in charge of the unfolding disaster in Iraq?

During his tenure as commander of US forces in Iraq, Gen Sanchez did not voice any of these criticisms to the public, nor is there any evidence that he offered vigorous internal dissent within the US military or the Coalition Provisional Authority. There were rumours that he had a frosty relationship with CPA viceroy L Paul Bremer and was alleged to have warned Bremer that additional US troops may be needed to secure Baghdad. But there is no evidence that Gen Sanchez made a formal demand for more resources or US troops to either Bremer or President Bush. He was called to testify in front of Congress on his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal, and dealt with the media many times, but in neither public setting did he make even the mildest criticism of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. In fact, when stepping down from military service, due to his alleged involvement in authorising torture in Abu Ghraib, he remarked only that it was debatable that more US troops would have made a difference and lauded the "tremendous progress" made by the US military in Iraq.

What accounts for his late-breaking wisdom? The obvious answer is that military officers do not break ranks or offer criticism of the mission or the political leadership while in service. It is conventional wisdom that they must retire before offering honest assessments of what the current policy is likely to produce. This is not misguided; there are good reasons to discourage public dissent in the military. Militaries rely on discipline and on unity of command, and public dissent may undermine the effectiveness of a fighting force. Civilian control of the military is an essential principal of liberal democracy, and military officers should not be in front of the microphone every time they disagree with strategic choices made by an elected political leadership.

But the institutional and operational imperatives that discourage dissent from within the military are not absolute. In particular, this rationale does not overwhelm an individual's responsibility to be forthright with his or her fellow citizens about deception and costly incompetence at the top levels of government. Gen Sanchez saw in real time that the Bush administration was committing the biggest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war. He admitted that the moment he realised that Iraq was turning sour was the day he took up command (June 15, 2003). He served in silence for another year. Didn't he have a moral and political responsibility to make these fears public? Shouldn't the American people have received this honest appraisal directly from the military leadership in the early days of the war, if these officers could see that the political leadership were being so obviously and systematically dishonest with the prospects for success in Iraq?

At the time, Gen Sanchez's answer was obviously no. But now he believes that the American people have a right to know where the fault lies - namely, with everyone else. His speech accuses the national security council, the state department, Congress, the political leadership and even the media of putting America in the middle of this mess. But this disavowal of responsibility is even less plausible in the case of Iraq. President Bush's mantra about this war has always been that he listened to his generals and did what they asked. If Gen Sanchez knew that the president was not really listening to the generals, and yet allowed Bush to publicly use this line while internally stifling or discouraging dissent, then he cannot evade responsibility for the policy failure of Iraq. To know that neither President Bush nor defence secretary Rumsfeld were willing to listen to the generals or institute a course correction in Iraq creates a moral duty for Gen Sanchez to do what he can within the constraints of his office to register dissent. He failed to make any noises of dissent when it mattered, even as Iraq spiralled out of control, and his attempt to excuse himself by pretending to be a surprised as anyone else about the failure of America's political leadership is patently dishonest.

more...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_boyle/2007/10/now_he_tells_us.html

[groovedaddy]

1. It's amazing how often career trumps "moral responsibility"

these days.
Just as amazing how steadfastly the bush administration clings to its policy in Iraq and saber rattling at Iran.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. We need someone to stand up and speak out - before retiring.

He failed to make any noises of dissent when it mattered, even as Iraq spiralled out of control, and his attempt to excuse himself by pretending to be a surprised as anyone else about the failure of America's political leadership is patently dishonest.

Way too little, far too late...

[babylonsister]

3. How 'bout 2000 of them? They're not officers, but they're hopefully

going to get that point across.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2054570