The Emporer has no clothes?
Little Boots, you are running out of time.
Published on Monday, April 30, 2007 by The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution Rumbles in Military Hint at Change by Jay Bookman
Time and again, President Bush has tried to hide his incompetence
behind our men and women in uniform. Repeatedly, criticism of his
policies has been distorted into an attack on the troops; too often,
questions about his strategy have been brushed aside with claims that
his policy had been dictated by his generals.
Even now, with the House and Senate trying to force a change of
direction, the White House accuses Congress of trying to "micromanage
our commanders and generals," redefining the debate as a disagreement
between Congress and the military, not with the president.
I think that game is about to end. I think President Bush is losing
the American military, and that while he wrangles with Congress over
deadlines, in the end it will be the military that forces dramatic
changes in policy in Iraq.
Signs of that change abound. When the White House recently asked five
retired four-star generals to serve as a so-called "war czar"
overseeing our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, all five declined, a
remarkable sign of disgust among those with a culture of service.
"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're
going," retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan said in explaining his
refusal to consider the post.
That sense of a military establishment finally losing patience is also
reflected in the behavior of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates has
refused to toe the party line, asserting an independence that the Bush
White House must find maddening. While the president was in Washington
condemning Democrats for undercutting the troops, Gates was in Iraq
announcing that the debate in Congress "probably has had a positive
impact; at least I hope it has in terms of communicating to the Iraqis
that this is not an open-ended commitment."
Adm. William Fallon, the head of Central Command, signaled a similar
change by banning use of the term "long war" to describe our struggle
in the Middle East. "The idea that we are going to be involved in a
'Long War' at the current level of operations is not likely and
unhelpful," a spokesman explained.
Perhaps the most telling signal, however, came in a devastating
critique published last week in Armed Forces Journal by an active-duty
Army lieutenant colonel, Paul Yingling.
The piece, headlined "A Failure of Generalship," is nominally an
attack on today's military leadership, which itself is
extraordinary. The main thrust of Yingling's argument is that too many
generals have stood mute while civilian leaders misled the nation
about what is really happening in Iraq, repeating a mistake that led
to disaster in Vietnam.
"While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt,
there is less certainty regarding their moral courage," Yingling
writes. "In almost surreal language, professional military men blame
their recent lack of candor on the intimidating management style of
their civilian masters," and even though that has begun to change,
"they may have waited too long."
Yingling has served two tours of duty in Iraq. As a graduate of the
Army's School of Advanced Military Studies, he had already been
identified as one of the service's best and brightest, and he has made
clear his intent to stay in the Army. With this critique, he has
placed that career and his chance at a general's stars in severe
jeopardy, but his willingness to take that risk will echo through the
ranks as an example of the moral courage he finds absent in many of
his superiors.
All these signs point to a storm gathering within the military,
especially as the strains imposed on the Army by the surge become more
apparent. In that regard, it is interesting to note that Army
Gen. David Petraeus, commanding officer of U.S. forces in Iraq, has
recently and repeatedly stressed his intention to provide the American
public an honest assessment of progress or failure by September. By
then, he suggests, the effects of the surge and the willingness of the
Iraqi government to reform will be more apparent.
Last week, Petraeus was asked whether that assessment could
conceivably include telling the president that things aren't working
and the troops should come home.
"I have an obligation to some wonderful young men and women in uniform
- who are serving in Iraq, and who deserve a forthright assessment
from the folks at the top - and that's what I'm going to provide,"
Petraeus said.
Gates and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, have joined
Petraeus in setting September as an crucial time of reassessment. In
other words, while Congress and the president wrangle about deadlines,
a deadline of sorts may already have been set.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears
Mondays and Thursdays.
© 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobst Brandt