Are the generals revolting over torture policy?

[ndebord]

This about Rummey and General Pace, Joint Chief. He contradicts Rummey directly on torture policies.

http://www.abc15.com/news/morenews/index.asp?did=23049

[Judy G. Russell]

Good. It's about time. But it is a sad sad day when it's the military that's more peaceful than the civilian commanders...

[ndebord]

Good. It's about time. But it is a sad sad day when it's the military that's more peaceful than the civilian commanders...


Judy,

I'm not sure that peaceful is the trait I would attribute to the military, rather it is their people who will be POWs in time of war, not the civilian "pukes" who provide the policies that the war fighters have to implement.

[Lindsey]

This about Rummey and General Pace, Joint Chief. He contradicts Rummey directly on torture policies.
I was reading about that in Salon.com's War Room (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/11/30/rumsfeld/index.html) earlier today:

Asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld said that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" beyond objecting. Pace disagreed, saying that each and every U.S. soldier has an "absolute responsibility" to stop inhumane treatment if he or she sees it. Rumsfeld disagreed, saying, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it." Pace fired back: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."
Dana Milbank also mentioned it in an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901405.html) in yesterday's Washington Post.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

But it is a sad sad day when it's the military that's more peaceful than the civilian commanders...
I don't know that that is so unusual, at least not in the U.S., where it is, by Constitutional requirement, always the civilian leaders who take the country into war. Most generals have seen combat up close and personal, and they know what it means in real world terms. That makes them not so anxious to engage in it without good cause, and more sensitive to practices--like prisoner abuse--that could have blowback effects.

I remember Dick Kahane saying that when he attended the War College, it was the civilians in his class, and not the military professionals, who were always the first to propose "hot" solutions to the problems posed in the strategic exercises. The military leaders were more likely to want to stick with diplomatic approaches to resolving conflicts for as long as there was a realistic chance of success with that route.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You're right, and I remember Dick saying that as well. But it still strikes me as distinctly odd that we have these blasted warmongers in the civilian ranks.

[Lindsey]

You're right, and I remember Dick saying that as well. But it still strikes me as distinctly odd that we have these blasted warmongers in the civilian ranks.
They often have less at stake--personally, anyway. And are probably less aware of the limitations of force.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yep... I'd love to see a rule that says any time someone votes for war (or starts one without a vote), his/her direct lineal descendants have to be in the front lines.

[MollyM/CA]

Good. It's about time. But it is a sad sad day when it's the military that's more peaceful than the civilian commanders...

You know, that's what I thought about the "military mind" until I had as a working pupil a boy who was third generation in a military family, both sides, and as a dressage teacher a general in Germany's Senior Signal Corps, and my pupil's family and Claus were both the most sensibly antiwar of anyone I've known. Not, I think, because it was them --in Claus's case his father, more-- who were going to get killed, but because they knew war intimately and would rather it didn't happen, even though Cameron's dad seemed to think it was rather fun flying things you get killed in in places where people are shooting at you.

Maybe they're exceptions, and maybe I'm misreading them, but it seemed to me that their commitment to defending their countries, especially Claus's, was focused on being prepared so the chances of staying out of a war were better.

[Judy G. Russell]

I have known a lot of military types who have been unalterably opposed to wars where they can't realistically be expected to have a chance to win -- and unfortunately I think John Murtha is absolutely right: the military can't do anything more in Iraq. It's not a military problem.

[ndebord]

I have known a lot of military types who have been unalterably opposed to wars where they can't realistically be expected to have a chance to win -- and unfortunately I think John Murtha is absolutely right: the military can't do anything more in Iraq. It's not a military problem.

Until Bush Jr came along as President, the neo-cons were consigned to cult status as a minor political cult. It took a weak-minded, late to the alter, reborn again evangelical to promote them to power. They went into Iraq AFTER first getting rid of ALL the foreign policy experts who disagreed with them. It is no wonder that they didn't have a plan for the occupation. There was nobody left to do the work needed.

Weak emperors are perhaps the consequence of the Imperial Presidency. And one party rule.

[Judy G. Russell]

Until Bush Jr came along as President, the neo-cons were consigned to cult status as a minor political cult.On that, we are in total agreement.