Military leaders no longer have a backbone

The thing that has disturbed me the most about the disaster in Iraq is the fact that before the war none of the military leaders that were are part of the coalition stood up and questioned the number of troops to be deployed in post war Iraq or the wisdom of the war. I understand that military leaders cant make statements contrary to government policy in public nor can they publicly criticize political leaders. Note I think that military leaders should be able to defend themselves from barbs from politicians.

Having said that surely the military leaders could have used some restraint and still made there views known. Other avenues could have been found to ensure any reservations were heard. If political leaders choose to override military sense then military leaders should be prepared to resign rather then oversea a unwise course of action. Many current military leaders seem to care more about there retirement pensions rather then doing what is in the best interest of a military and country.


Macarthur and Ike would turn over in there grave if they knew how spineless 21 century military have become.

I agree with the OP, the General rank at this present has the less impact as far as leadership is concern that in past generation. Young enlisted troop now associate themselves more with the Sgt's, There's is plenty of reasons for that but as a military member I will say that I know who the General of my command is, but have I seen him? No! Have I met him? No! The President Bush has had more interaction with ME, than my commanding General, I have met the President twice and I believe that's the reason that he is so well liked by the enlisted troops.

I think this is unfair criticism. These are career people that you talk about. many of them undoubtedly voiced opinions before going into Iraq. Whether the people who mattered were willing to listen is another thing.

Many Generals have retired and voiced opinions trying to end the mission in Iraq. Outside USA this raised quite a few eyebrows, so don't rubbish it.

If your unit is going into danger whether you like it or not, then do you quit or do you go where you can do the most good to protect your unit.

The Army like any other human endevour always has gung ho sycophants willing to step in and take the place of generals who resign in protest so my bet is that many stayed in loyalty to their troops.

Did the generals who spoke out about the Iraq war retire before the war took place ?
Before D - day Ike wanted the bulk of the American bomber effort transferred from targeting German city's to the French rail network . Ike was prepared to resign if this important aspect of the build up to the D-Day landings wasn't allowed to take place.
Where that kind of courage before the Iraq war ?

xpert11 you make some valid points, if we go back to when the Bush Administration came into power, the first plan that Rumsfeld had was to build a faster, leaner, smaller army. Generals in the Army rank that did not agree with this plan were replaced with those who were willing to move the plan foward and testify in Congress in favor of it.

The result was that Generals who did not want it to lose their position staeted agreeing with the SecDef just to save their skin, thus negating the military with people that could stand up to a SecDef with an unrealistic vision on how the military should be structured.

Donald Rumsfeld vision was implemented in the War in Iraq, and yes we defeated the Iraq Army, but then you know what happen after that. The vision of a small, leaner, faster army was not the cause of the mess that we see in Iraq, but the fear of Generals to contradict or at least put some constructive criticism to the war plan is in my opinion what got us to this mess. And im not making this up, is being said by a lot of now retired Generals, that they were afraid of voice there opinion, and that Rumsfeld had surrounded himself with a staff of Generals that would agree with his philosophy.

Manoman, kudos dood, you hit a large nail with a big hammer. I think those idiots invented viagra for that crowd of wannabe men.

And thats the point that Im trying to make and let people be aware of. Our wars are not longer directed by Generals on the field, our last great General was General Norman Schwarzkopf from the first Gulf War. He a long with General Collin Powell were the last stratigic thinkers in acomplishing enemy neutralization to accomplish objectives. The Powell Doctrine should now be a model for years to come on how war should be conducted, why? Because it takes the politics out of war and thats they way it should be, once you go to war is because politics and diplomacy have fail, so let the guys with the guns do what they do best once you decide to go that route. Is not going to be pretty, is not going to be perfect but is going to get done.

Yeah I take the point about Rumsfeld surrounding himself with yesmen. It happens everywhere in life and not just in the military.

Another point is that a light leaner mobile force is okay for a mobile war and outflanking one's enemy, but then what ?

It became an army of occupation. Rumsfeld and Bush naively presumed that the Iraqi people would simply be so grateful that the sun would shine and they could turn on democracy like water from a tap.

Bush even believed his own stage production, flying on that aircraft carrier and saying the war was over.

Originally posted by xpert11
The thing that has disturbed me the most about the disaster in Iraq is the fact that before the war none of the military leaders that were are part of the coalition stood up and questioned the number of troops to be deployed in post war Iraq or the wisdom of the war. I understand that military leaders cant make statements contrary to government policy in public nor can they publicly criticize political leaders. Note I think that military leaders should be able to defend themselves from barbs from politicians.

Having said that surely the military leaders could have used some restraint and still made there views known. Other avenues could have been found to ensure any reservations were heard. If political leaders choose to override military sense then military leaders should be prepared to resign rather then oversea a unwise course of action. Many current military leaders seem to care more about there retirement pensions rather then doing what is in the best interest of a military and country.


Macarthur and Ike would turn over in there grave if they knew how spineless 21 century military have become.

You also have to remember that MacArthur and Patton (2 of America's greatest generals) would never make it in the modern US Army ... they werent even PC enough for their time much less today

Patton and Mac were true Americans to the core who cared about nothing more then doing the right thing and saving as many lives as they could while still achieving the objective.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Yeah I take the point about Rumsfeld surrounding himself with yesmen. It happens everywhere in life and not just in the military.

You can not compare the civilian/corporate workplace with the military. They serve two completely different purposes.

Our military has the means to destroy this world as we know it and having one person surrounded by a group of 'yesmen', in the military is just asking for trouble of unthinkable proportions as has happen in the past.