Finding Context For Ousted Air Force Leaders

You have to look back a fairly long distance to find generals and admirals being relieved of combat commands, either in combat or just prior to deployment. Only eight American generals or admirals have been publicly relieved of command from a combatant unit, or in a combat zone, since 1945. As noted, significantly, only one of them was relieved for failure. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur was yanked from command by President Truman during the Korean War not because he had failed, but for outright insubordination. He disagreed with the president, was privately informed to toe the line and, instead, continued his de facto attempts to create his own foreign policy. (This included the threat to bring Taiwanese Nationalist Chinese into the conflict in Korea, as well as his better-known comments on the use of nuclear weapons.) More recently, Adm. William Fallon “voluntarily stepped down” after a media story appeared that highlighted his heretofore apparent private disagreements with members of the executive office of the vice president and the president. In both cases, the salient feature was not a failure to win at the operational or strategic level — the echelon occupied by both Fallon and MacArthur — but one of subordination of the military to the duly constituted civilian authority.

In this conflict, however, only former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski (now a retired colonel), the first general officer in the chain of command over the events at Abu Ghraib, was shuffled out of command (and subsequently demoted) for her incompetence in that situation. In all the battles, in all the campaigns, in all the struggles of Korea, Vietnam and now the global war on terrorism, just one.

This is part of an outstanding article in the Armed Forces Journal this month by Lt. Col. Robert L. Bateman who discusses a very timely issue, why presidents no longer fire generals. This article adds context like no other to the events of the day that took place within the Air Force.

There is very little to add to the analysis of the events of the day, other than to suggest that everyone should read in full the perspectives of Lt. Col. Robert L. Bateman. It is a sobering reminder why leadership in politics is critical during wartime.

The Bush administration has now forced 1 Air Force General and 1 Navy Admiral out of service due to reasons other than the current war in Iraq, while only forcing the same number, 2, Generals to retire as a result of the operations in Iraq. Lt. Col. Robert L. Bateman concludes his article with some sage wisdom, important considerations that belong in the election process as we move towards a new administration.

In the end, there is no simple solution. It is probably dangerous, for the republic and the armed forces that defend her, for this situation to exist. But it is also the logical result of 232 years of evolution between the military and the civilian authorities that control them. The question that remains is this: When nobody is willing to sit in judgment of the combat performance of the generals, including the generals, then who is really in control of our armed forces?

Do we need the equivalent of a base realignment and closure board for generals? Recall that it was only the threat of public hearings before Congress that apparently scuttled Sanchez’s nomination for a fourth star and command of Southern Command. Generals may be selected by the president, but as with all officers, their promotion is contingent upon approval from the Senate. In the Sanchez case, Congress fulfilled the role intended for it in this set-up. But very often it would be a political hot potato for a congressman to appear unsympathetic to a medal-wearing general.

The base realignment and closure board, authorized and directed by Congress, gave lawmakers the top cover they needed to put into effect hard choices that they could not have made publicly and expected to survive politically. Perhaps some sort of similarly constituted board should be convened by Congress for the purpose of reviewing generals, and the promotions and assignments thereof. Yes, this might be seen as an infringement of the president’s prerogatives, but no president in more than half a century has apparently used those powers, and perhaps no president has felt able to do so.

In any event, the history recounted here does seem to suggest that something is out of kilter.

If you are looking for context to the firing of the Air Force leadership, Lt. Col. Robert L. Bateman's article is a must read. What happened today is rare, even as it is justified. While the news media is doing a good job covering the event that has happened, the question is whether the media will also educate the population regarding the significance, help the greater population understand the conditions that exist and the right questions to consider. We think Lt. Col. Robert L. Bateman is telling us something very important, and we note it takes him around 4400 words to insure the point sinks in. Will the equivalence of a 4400 word think piece be dedicated by the talking heads and writers of the media to educating the American people of the issue?

We doubt it. Today's event was a bright red flag, and such events offer an opportunity to educate, but that opportunity will likely be lost except to those looking to learn for themselves.