More Insta-nonsense
The other day, Greg Djerejian took Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds to task for approvingly linking to an article that accused the generals calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation of being--among other things--"gutless." In the same post, Reynolds implied that the generals were only speaking out now in order to sell books. Djerejian--who, like Reynolds, was a strong supporter of the Iraq invasion--called Reynold's post (and the article he linked to) "disgusting." If you haven't already read Djerejian's post, it's well worth your time.
Well, despite the reaming he took from Djerejian, Reynolds is not easily deterred. Today he returned to the subject of the retired generals, this time posting a long excerpt from Charles Krauthammer's latest column. Krauthammer ends his column with this:
To this thought Reynolds adds:
Glenn then approvingly posts an email from a "reader":
To which Glenn adds his signature "Indeed."
Indeed what? Reynolds has to know what an absurd straw man this is. Rumsfeld's critics aren't saying that the "generals should run things." That's absurd. The criticism of Rumsfeld (which is coming from left, right, and center) is that he's too stubborn and doesn't listen to what his generals tell him. No one is calling for a military coup. We just think it might be a good idea to replace the current civilian leadership with new civilian leadership, i.e., someone who hasn't made an endless string of colossal mistakes over the last four years.
To state the obvious, the generals who are currently speaking out are retired, not active duty. They are no longer in the chain of command. And they are not questioning Rumsfeld's authority, but rather his wisdom and competence as a leader. They are calling for a new civilian leader, not a military one. And like any other private citizen, they have a right to speak their minds.
Reynolds is more than happy to cite the views of even active duty military personnel when they are saying something he agrees with or criticizing someone he dislikes (see Murtha, John). But as soon as retired military personnel say anything critical of our political leadership, we're suddenly marching toward fascism. Please.
What makes this line of attack particularly hypocritical, however, is that the President's favorite rhetorical tactic is to claim that the generals are the ones who are really running things in Iraq, not the "politicians in Washington." It's his way of passing the buck while firing back at those who would dare question the conduct of the war.
George W. Bush, February 24, 2006:
George W. Bush, January 31, 2006:
George W. Bush, November 30, 2005:
The clear implication is that politicians in Washington are not qualified to make these sorts of decisions, that such decisions should be left to the generals on the ground. In other words, the President is guilty of doing exactly what Reynolds, unfairly, accuses Rumsfeld's critics of doing. Pathetic.
Well, despite the reaming he took from Djerejian, Reynolds is not easily deterred. Today he returned to the subject of the retired generals, this time posting a long excerpt from Charles Krauthammer's latest column. Krauthammer ends his column with this:
It is precisely this kind of division that our
tradition of military deference to democratically
elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent.
Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the
rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing
and very dangerous precedent that even the left
will one day regret.
To this thought Reynolds adds:
"Even?" I'd say "especially." They've been
pushing the idea that generals should run things,
not their civilian superiors, and (with Kerry) the
idea that only a combat veteran should be
President. Yes, those are opportunistic slogans of
the moment. But they're still slogans. Do they
really want that kind of a country?
Glenn then approvingly posts an email from a "reader":
But the logic of this dissent puts their train of
thought far into the (dare I say it) fascist line of
behavior, since they are basically calling for the
military to control all things.
To which Glenn adds his signature "Indeed."
Indeed what? Reynolds has to know what an absurd straw man this is. Rumsfeld's critics aren't saying that the "generals should run things." That's absurd. The criticism of Rumsfeld (which is coming from left, right, and center) is that he's too stubborn and doesn't listen to what his generals tell him. No one is calling for a military coup. We just think it might be a good idea to replace the current civilian leadership with new civilian leadership, i.e., someone who hasn't made an endless string of colossal mistakes over the last four years.
To state the obvious, the generals who are currently speaking out are retired, not active duty. They are no longer in the chain of command. And they are not questioning Rumsfeld's authority, but rather his wisdom and competence as a leader. They are calling for a new civilian leader, not a military one. And like any other private citizen, they have a right to speak their minds.
Reynolds is more than happy to cite the views of even active duty military personnel when they are saying something he agrees with or criticizing someone he dislikes (see Murtha, John). But as soon as retired military personnel say anything critical of our political leadership, we're suddenly marching toward fascism. Please.
What makes this line of attack particularly hypocritical, however, is that the President's favorite rhetorical tactic is to claim that the generals are the ones who are really running things in Iraq, not the "politicians in Washington." It's his way of passing the buck while firing back at those who would dare question the conduct of the war.
George W. Bush, February 24, 2006:
Troop levels on the ground will be decided by
commanders on the ground -- not by politicians
in Washington, D.C.
George W. Bush, January 31, 2006:
As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi
forces increasingly take the lead, we should be
able to further decrease our troop levels -- but
those decisions will be made by our military
commanders, not by politicians in
Washington, D.C."
George W. Bush, November 30, 2005:
These decisions about troop levels will be driven
by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the
good judgment of our commanders -- not by
artificial timetables set by politicians in
Washington.
The clear implication is that politicians in Washington are not qualified to make these sorts of decisions, that such decisions should be left to the generals on the ground. In other words, the President is guilty of doing exactly what Reynolds, unfairly, accuses Rumsfeld's critics of doing. Pathetic.
posted by A.L. at 10:01 PM
4 Comments:
A.L., you've nailed it. Excellent post.
I know a bit about civil-military relations (it comes up every couple years in debate; we call it CMR), and that angle never made any sense to me. I'm really glad someone took the time to really beat that "but won't this destroy CMR?" meme into the dirt.
Reynolds consistently focuses his energy on turning every issue off a debate course and into a train wreck where he then manages the issues by slotting them as carried by illegitimate messengers. Why is Reynolds and his Right so afraid of debate? If the world had followed his lead we'd still be sitting in caves like the new FedX ad shows waiting for a delivery.
Expecting an "honest" discussion on these issues from the lying liars that "catapult the propaganda" is insanity.
You have presented the issues clearly and in a well-organized matter, however, good job.
The "Decider in Chimp" can't handle reality. Of course, he was never our problem in the first place. At some point we need to discuss how the interests BEHIND tthis administration manipulated such a poor excuse for a human being int he White House.
A "decider" and a "uniter" indeed...
Seems like we could pretty much talk the right into saying anything to protect their man, even if their man says something different. ("Generals are in control in Iraq" vs. "how can the left argue the generals should be in control.")
Also, I shouldn't be, but once again I'm amazed with their ability to take a situation out to its extreme, such as "dissent by retired generals is a coup." However, when you bring up the American Citizen Spying Program, they will tell you to not jump to such "wild conclusions" that there's a chance innocent americans are being spied on.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home