Fetishizing the Generals

Today Max Boot writes about the dust-up between Rumsfeld and the generals. In a nutshell, Boot argues that we can't put all the blame on Rumsfeld for the mess in Iraq, since the generals made their share of mistakes, too. Fair enough — it certainly would be wrong to think that the military has all the wisdom in this case. But then Boot feels obligated to up the ante: "I am nevertheless troubled by the Revolt of the Generals, which calls into question civilian control of the armed forces." And thus we discover that the Republic is threatened.

But while the generals certainly are relying on their military street cred to bolster their arguments, it wasn't the generals who first made the claim that decisionmaking should be ceded to the military — it was Bush. Since the war began, the President has stated over and over again how beholden he is to military opinion. When asked questions about troop deployment, for example, Bush replies: "As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."

So, by all means, let's continue to argue about who was wrong and who was wronger. I'm sure that there is plenty of blame to go around. But two things are now clear: First, Bush wasn't telling the truth when he said he was basing his decisions on the views of his military commanders. And second, Bush wasn't terribly concerned with the implications for civilian control of the military when he claimed that he gave his generals an essentially blank check.

Now, we all knew at the time that Bush would pass the buck to his generals when it was politically convenient to do so. And we also knew that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld ever put much stock in the opinions of their military men. Bush tried to have it both ways, and now that's been exposed for all to see. It's a political embarrassment, not a Constitutional crisis — and that's something we can stop arguing about.