A Failure of Generalship
An article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling entitled “A failure in generalship” is apparently making quite a stir in military and national security circles. Yingling is deputy commander of the 3rd Armoured Calvary Regiment and is a veteran of the present Iraq conflict, Bosnia and Desert Storm. He does not mince words:
For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq’s grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America’s general officer corps. America’s generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America’s generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.
Worth reading (HT: Fred Kaplan)
I thought the standard disclaimer appended to the article particularly amusing, given his incisive critique:
ARMY LT. COL. PAUL YINGLING is deputy commander, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. He has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm. He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Chicago. The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army or the Defense Department.
While Yingling makes some pointed observations, a reaction to this call for changes might be dangerous. It could lead to too much power for the military. Despite the war mongers we have in the White House now, our country is safer and wiser when civilians are in control. I know Yingling is not advocating military dominance but the danger is there.
As for constructive criticism of policy. How many get away with it. As Kaplan notes Yingling would have been assigned to counting water coolers under Rumsfeld. And he still may.
Interesting that everyone quotes Augustine that the only reason for war is to make a better peace. How come Augustine gets preference over Jesus?
Maybe the generals need Vatican Council II.
One gap, as I see it, in Yingling’s speech is there is no real discussion whether it was right or suitable to enter Vietnam or Iraq.
Someone should write a detailed story on the suppliers of war as in Vietnam and Iraq. If money is the root of evil, there is a lot of evil there.
I say the same in the RCC. Follow the architects of these zillion dollar edifices and the suppliers of all things liturgical. Won’t we find a lot more greed than patriotism and piety?
So, I guess, the article has to be read critically.
Many of us did warn them about “another Vietnam” before the Iraq war. There’s a reference to the lack of understanding of just what they were doing in the “first IRaq war” in today’s NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/us/17sarin.html?th&emc=th
The article proceeds some way before explaining that the sarin emissions were not caused by Iraqi forces.
When will we learn?