Generals vs. Civilians

Mackubin Owens has an important piece in the Wall Street Journal concerning the primacy of civilian leadership of the military: “Our Generals Almost Cost Us Iraq.”

It’s the ignorant civilians who cavalierly reject the sober advice of military professionals.  At least that seems to be the argument that many in the media, and specifically Bob Woodward, make to show that Bush mishandled the war.

Although the conventional narrative about the Iraq war is wrong, its persistence has contributed to the most serious crisis in civil-military relations since the Civil War. According to Mr. Woodward’s account, the uniformed military not only opposed the surge, insisting that their advice be followed; it then subsequently worked to undermine the president once he decided on another strategy.

In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. “foot-dragging,” “slow-rolling” and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership — the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid’s successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president’s policy.

If Mr. Woodward’s account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln’s war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president’s policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.

One of the persistent complaints I hear about Bush is that he refuses to listen.  That particular criticism of course usually means only that he refuses to agree with the critic.

The generals may have important advice to give, but there is no point in criticizing a civilian leader for rejecting that advice without showing that it had bad consequences.  The surge has been successful.  Bush rejected a bad policy advanced by the military in favor of a better one, and we should be glad he did.

And any flag officers who attempted to thwart the president’s policy should be dismissed.