Joint Failure: Bacevich argues that the Joint Chiefs are as culpable as Bush for the Iraq fiasco

[BurtWorm]

Forgive me if this was posted already. It's from yesterday's Boston Globe:





http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/06/17/joint_failure/


Responsibility for the disaster of Iraq lies not only with the President of the United States, but also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president needs expert and candid military counsel. Not yes-men in uniform.

By Andrew J. Bacevich | June 17, 2007

Washington was briefly abuzz last week with the news that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will not recommend the reappointment of General Peter Pace for a second two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gates is instead nominating Admiral Michael Mullen for the post. The political classes reacted first with surprise and then with approval. The New York Times editorial page declared Mullen a "good choice." Senate confirmation seems assured.
Article Tools


A better idea might be to abolish the position of JCS chairman altogether -- and the entire JCS system along with it.

History will render this judgment of Pace, who succeeded General Richard B Myers as chairman in September 2005: As U. S. forces became mired ever more deeply in an unwinnable war, Pace remained a passive bystander, a witness to a catastrophe that he was slow to comprehend and did little to forestall. If the position of JCS chair had simply remained vacant for the past two years, it is difficult to see how the American military would be in worse shape today.

Softening history's verdict will be this fact: Long before Pace arrived on the scene the JCS had established a well-deserved reputation as one of the most ineffective institutions in Washington. Dissatisfaction with the Joint Chiefs dates virtually from the moment in 1947 when Congress passed the legislation creating it. Trying to fix the JCS soon became a cottage industry. The widespread unhappiness with Pace's performance, culminating in his de facto firing, affirms that these various reforms have failed.

Expectations that a permanent mechanism for providing military advice could improve the quality of civilian decision-making inspired the creation of the Joint Chiefs in the first place. After all, this had seemingly been the case during World War II, when Franklin Roosevelt had created a precursor of the modern JCS whose members had collaborated effectively with FDR in successfully directing a massive global war.

[babylonsister]

1. Good article...

and good luck! Mine sunk like a stone!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=289118

[BurtWorm]

2. Thanks for the warning!

:toast:

[babylonsister]

4. I think the length might have been off-putting, especially if no one

recalls the perspective the author is writing from (conservative, lost his son in this gawdawful occupation).

[BurtWorm]

5. That's what caught my eye.

:(

[Captain Hilts]

3. I disagree. The military did not want this war. It MUST to follow political leadership

It's Bush's war, NOT the military's.

They have no choice but to follow the orders of civilian/political leadership.

[BurtWorm]

7. The point is, they gave him what he wanted, not what he needed.

They can't "disobey," perhaps, but their responsibility is to the American people, not to the Bushists. Isn't it?

[Captain Hilts]

10. No, the military cannot pick and choose the wars they want. The political leadership does that. nt

[tsuki]

6. A complete crock.

"Responsibility for the disaster of Iraq lies not only with the President of the United States, but also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president needs expert and candid military counsel. Not yes-men in uniform."

They had these men. Shinseki and Zinni. They were pushed aside for yes-men in uniform. So as far as I am concerned, it is still the administration's responsibility.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-01.htm

[BurtWorm]

9. Complete?

I don't think so. If the JCS had been blunt and honest, what could Bush have done? Fire them all? Would that have been possible? We'll never know, because they rolled over and obeyed.

[Solly Mack]

8. Oh yeah, because Bush would never "retire" a "No" man

Oh no...Bush would have listened to the general that told him "No"...you betcha...just ask General Shinseki

Bush WANTED Yes men and he got what he wanted

not to quibble or anything but

Pace isn't incompetent, he's complicit

Want to make a case for disbanding the Joint Chiefs? Fine...just don't do it by pretending part of the problem was Bush not having "expert and candid military counsel"... Bush didn't want "expert and candid military counsel"...he wanted Yes men that would agree with whatever he said

It goes without saying that the high ranking military Yes men advising Bush on how to pursue his criminal course in Iraq are ALL just as guilty as Bush