There's an interesting article in the NYT that reports on a debate between mid-level officers over who is more at fault for Iraq: Rumsfeld or the generals?
I've been thinking about this one since the war started. Leaving aside the obvious bone of contention that the war should never have started in the first place (and hence, the blame goes to Bush and Cheney), and just stipulating that the war "had to" be fought, the question is, should the uniformed officers have spoken up more forcefully against the SecDef's war plan?
My immediate response was to say, "Of course!" But almost as quickly, you have to ask, how is it a good thing for soldiers to disobey the civilian oversight that is the hallmark of our society? One need only look at Turkey for an example of what happens when the military feels permitted to overrule the will of the people.
No resolutions, either in the article or from me. Just something interesting to contemplate and debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment