A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 24, 2008Try Two At Better General PickingOK, so maybe putting generals on popular ballots might not've been the best idea since sliced bread. So, here's another try at the same problem. So, if you remember, my goal is to get ept military leadership more often than now to cut down on embarrassments like Vietnam and Iraq's nonoccupation. So far, we've only had really good military leadership twice: in the Lincoln Administration, late in the way after Lincoln had slowly gotten rid of the underperformers, and in FDR's day, when he used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to get rid of the inept on top. My next suggestion is choice by an Academic Senate of each service's academy (Annapolis for Navy, etc). Academic Senates are groups of representative professors voting on university issues. These Academic Senates should pick all general officers, so we get good people instead of those smart enough to make their bosses nervous about ending up junior to them if they promote them. Such Senates should actually be familiar with much of its services' talent pool, and be good at picking thoughtul men with good strategic ability, unlike the electorate at large that was my last suggestion. Joint Chiefs and the Sec'y of Defense could be picked in a similar spirit (please, no more Rumsfelds!). These Senates, along with the President and chairs of the House and Senate Armed Service Committee, would pick delegates to a Joint Military Senate, which would vote on whom the various Joint Chiefs and their chairman should be. This should be constitutional. Congress would have to pass the appropriate legislation to change to choosing generals by academic committees. The Senate would have to pass legislation to require Presidential Sec'y of Defense nominees to pass the Joint Military Senate before considering them itself. Several measures would have to be taken to prevent influence by fear of reprisal from unhappy candidates. Service academy funding and promotions would have to be unwound from any grip of the services, and be done strictly internally and through Congress. It'd be better if there were some way of getting the incompetent OUT faster. Rumsfeld might've seemed like a good candidate BEFORE he served this 2nd time, after all. Maybe the Joint Military Senate could be given an impeachment capability for incompetent generals like Franks and Sanchez? But we'd see lots of misuse, since DC often loves investigations more than solving problems. And it'd be unconstitutional for them to impeach SoDs. Your thoughts? Well? Is that better? Oh, and Rumsfeld's hardly been the only bad Sec'y of Defense. One reason DC burned to the ground in the War of 1812 is that Madison's Sec'y of War left the city UNDEFENDED. And American militaries have always done better the farther from DC they were. Posted by Jon Kay at March 24, 2008 12:13 AMComments
Generals aren't political enough? This process would do even more than the current process to weed out competent officers and promote the politically skilled bureaucrats, ass coverers, and career protectors. Posted by: MikeMangum at March 24, 2008 07:08 PMEr, you do realize that our most celebrated generals only emerged in the Civil War and WW2 through a process of Darwinian attrition, through actually having enough general officers in the field that their performance in actual large-scale combat situations and combined manuevers could be assessed? "Room to succeed." And American militaries have always done better the farther from DC they were. Should be a bell ringing for you there. Success in the field is often a function of communications--good comm between operating units, NOT between REMF's and field commanders. The worse the latter, the more independence the field commanders have, the better they can directly adapt to ongoing events in the field and immediately implement adjustments and adaptive strategies rather than first running them by politicians and staff weenies at home for approval. Posted by: Tully at March 25, 2008 08:56 AMWhen there isn't a war on, the military puts a premium on the same things as any bureaucracy. With a result that it is primarily those who play it safe rise towards the top. And I'm not sure that there is any effective way to get around that. Once a war starts, the only way to get decent generals is to have someone (probably a President) who is willing to remove the bureaucrats, and promote generals who are willing and able to fight. Which means it is likely to take a while to get our military in gear -- unless we get very lucky. Or unless we have had another war recently enough that the process has run its course with the current general officers. In short, nice as it might be, I rather doubt that it is really possible to pick during peace time the generals we will want during war. Posted by: wj at March 25, 2008 12:42 PMGenerals aren't political enough? This process would do even more than the current process to weed out competent officers and promote the politically skilled bureaucrats, ass coverers, and career protectors. That's nice. If you want to convince the rest of the world of something, it helps to explain WHY, preferably with some evidence attached. Oh, and IMHO generals are so close to being politicians there's little point in telling the difference. They have responsibilities to work for their troops' welfare, and to try to explain their plans and ideas to plenty of others'.
Yes it IS hard to be sure somebody will do well. But, there are and have been plenty of American generals whom a little conversation or experience with make clear they aren't up to the job. They lack strategic talent, leadership, willingness to look at facts, are too arrogant, or have one of zillions of other fatal character flaws for this position. I think it's worth some effort to strain these men out of the general officer pools. I'm not aiming to pick Grants first try, but to strain out the McClellans and Frankses. It's scary - conspiracy buffs came up first when I googled for "FDR Pearl Harbor service chiefs". |
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Rove Update
Open Thread: The Missing Middle John McCain: One Tough SOB John McCain: One Tough SOB Texas County Convention HELL, Part III And, Yes, Final Govt Contract Protests Are Too Typical Texas County Convention HELL, Part II Texas County Convention HELL, Part I Texas County Convention HELL Preview Texas County Conventions Tomorrow
|
