Robert Gates Is Pandering to Obama to Keep His Pentagon Gig
Belief:
Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?
Greta Christina
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Congress Can Kill Outlandish Bonuses for Wall Streeters: Why Won't They?
Sam Pizzigati
DrugReporter:
The Feds Are Addicted to Pot -- Even If You Aren't
Paul Armentano
Environment:
Why Direct Action Is the Only Realistic Path to Climate Reform
Chris Hedges
Food:
The Recession Is Taking a Bite Out of Meat Consumption
Martha Rosenberg
Health and Wellness:
10 Signs Vegetarianism Is Catching On
Kathy Freston
Immigration:
Italy's Media Wrestle With Immigrant-Bashing
Sandip Roy
Media and Technology:
Teflon Dick: How Cheney Uses Media For Protection
Linda Milazzo
Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik
Politics:
Obama's Misguided War Speech Shouldn't Be the Last Word on Afghanistan
John Nichols
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Ehrenreich: Has Feminism Been Replaced by the Pink-Ribbon Breast Cancer Cult?
Barbara Ehrenreich
Rights and Liberties:
What the FBI's Murder of a Black Panther Can Teach Us 40 Years Later
Jeffrey Haas
Sex and Relationships:
6 Tricks to Sex After a Divorce
Julie Bogart
Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders
Water:
Pennsylvania Residents Sue Gas Driller for Contamination, Health Concerns
Abrahm Lustgarten
World:
Obama's War Speech Offered Something for Everybody -- But Who's Buying It?
Rory O'Connor
What does Gen. McKiernan know, anyway? Gates' Pentagon says that McKiernan now has requested three additional brigade combat teams and additional aviation assets. And yet, he says he's allergic to a "surge"?
If past is precedent, Gen. McKiernan already realizes he has little choice but to salute smartly, do what he is told, and not diverge from what inexperienced civilians like Gates are promoting. After all, didn't McNamara know best in the early days of Vietnam and didn't Rumsfeld know best at the start of the Iraq war?
As the saying goes, if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are a general assigned a mission -- though it appear to be Mission Impossible -- you salute smartly and use those troops entrusted to you to do what armies do. At least that has been the tradition since Vietnam. Such behavior is a disgrace when generals know better.
Ambitious but empty suits
I'm all for civilian control of the military. But I see much more harm than good in political generals -- like the anointed David Petraeus -- who give ample evidence of being interested, first and foremost, in their own advancement. Why do I say that? Because Petraeus, like McKiernan, knows Afghanistan is another quagmire. But he won't say it.
Rather than do the right thing and brief his superiors on the realities of Afghanistan, Petraeus and the generals he has promoted seem likely to follow the time-honored practice of going along to get along. After all, none of them get killed or wounded. Rather the vast majority get promoted, so long as they keep any dissenting thoughts to themselves.
It is the same pattern we witnessed regarding Vietnam. Although the most senior military brass knew, as the French learned before them, that the war/occupation could not be successful, no senior officer had the integrity and courage to speak out and try to halt the lunacy.
Are there Army generals with guts?
It will be interesting to see what McKiernan actually does if and when more troops are surged down his throat. If he has the courage of his convictions, maybe he'll quit and perhaps even say something.
As a former Army officer, I would love to see an Army general display the courage that one saw in Admiral William Fallon, former commander of CENTCOM, who openly refused to "do Iran" on his watch, and got cashiered for it. Two years ago, Army Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, speaking on behalf of their senior commanders in the field, pushed back strongly against the idea of adding more U.S. troops to those already in Iraq. They finally succeeded in persuading former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld of the merits of their argument.
It was when Rumsfeld himself started to challenge the advice Bush was getting (to "surge" and thus not "lose" Iraq on his watch) that Robert Gates was brought in to replace Rumsfeld, relieve Abizaid and Casey from command, and help anoint Gen. Petraeus as surge-savior. (For details on Rumsfeld's break with Bush, see Consortiumnews.com's "Robert Gates: As Bad as Rumsfeld?")
But rather than speak out, Abizaid folded his tent like an Arab and silently stole away. Casey accepted the sinecure of Army chief of staff as hush money. And a thousand more U.S. troops died. The temporary respite provided by the 29,000 troops who survived the surge helped achieve the administration's main purpose -- deferring the inevitable U.S. troop withdrawal (not in "victory" as Bush liked to say, but by demand of the Iraqi government) until Bush and Cheney were safely out of office.
As for Gates, what he does not know about Afghanistan and insurgency could fill a medium-sized library. So could what Gates does know about how to ingratiate himself with the next level up.
If it is true that serious consideration is being given to keeping Gates on past January, it will be interesting to see if the pandering padding of his resume eventually wins the day with the president-elect.
See more stories tagged with: afghanistan, robert gates, surge, pandering
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.