When I was growing up, I developed my love for reading. My reading was much in evidence during the summers. While I enjoyed playing outdoors with my brothers and friends, I read when I was indoors, day or night. Especially enjoyable for me was the monthly Readers Digest with its plethora of stories and humor. I always enjoyed its condensed novel at the end of each issue. The one condensed novel that caught my attention was Seven Days in May, which was made into a movie.
Seven Days in May featured General James Scott, a
charismatic and highly decorated Air Force officer, serving as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff who opposes the foreign policies of President Jordan Lyman.
After President Lyman successfully negotiated an arms reduction treaty with the
Soviet Union, General Scott organized a plot of generals and admirals to stage
a military coup to oust the President. A week before the coup is scheduled to
occur, Marine Colonel Martin Casey, Director of the Joint Staff, discovers
Scott’s intent and works with President Lyman to foil the plot and save our constitutional
government.
The problem with the fictional General Scott was not that he
was political. Quite the contrary as politics come with the rank of general or
admiral as politics is about power- in their case, the power to allocate
resources- human, financial, and materials- for war. Scott’s fault was that he
crossed into partisan politics to oppose civilian control of the
military and to enter formal political alliances to favor one political party
over another. While a Seven Days in May scenario probably will not happen
in the United States, there is ample evidence for history and current events that
we must be vigilant to even let a whimper of such a conspiracy to exist.
Americans have elected six generals to the presidency-
Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower. They did not pose
a problem to our constitutional order as they were former generals who were
duly elected by the voters. But few Americans know that in two elections active-duty
generals ran for president (apparently legal at the time) but lost-
·
1852- General Winfield Scott, commanding general
of the US Army and hero of the Mexican American War of 1846-48, ran as the Whig
candidate losing to Franklin Pierce. After the election Scott stayed at his
post and maintained cordial relations with President Pierce but clashed
repeatedly with Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. At the beginning of the Civil
War Scott assisted President Lincoln with initial war strategy but retired in
November 1861 due to age and health.
·
1864- General George McClellan, former
general-in-chief of the Federal army and commander of the Army of the Potomac,
ran as the Democratic candidate against the incumbent President Lincoln while
still on active duty but with no assignment since he had been fired by Lincoln
in 1862. McClellan only resigned his commission on election day. Later in 1878-81
he served as Governor of New Jersey and wrote extensively to defend his record
on the battlefield.
We also have had active-duty generals who publicly disagreed
with presidential policies and had to be fired-
·
1951- General Douglas MacArthur, commander of US
forces in the Far East and UN commander in Korea, was relieved of command by
President Truman because he publicly criticized Truman’s war policy and vied
with the President over control of nuclear weapons in the conflict.
·
1977- General John Singlaub, Chief of Staff of
US Forces in Korea, was relieved of his post by President Carter for publicly
criticizing the President’s proposal to withdraw some US forces from South Korea.
In 1978, Singlaub was forced to retire from the military after he once again
questioned the President’s policy
·
2010- General Stanley McChrystal, commander of
all international and US forces in Afghanistan, resigned his commands and
retired from the military after negative comments of US officials including
Vice President Biden spoken by McChrystal and his staff were publicized in a
magazine. Subsequently, McChrystal was called to the White House by President Obama
where his resignations were offered and accepted by the President.
In addition, we have retired officers like General Colin
Powell and Admiral William McRaven who routinely endorse candidates for the
presidency. Gone are the days when our military officers desired to be so
apolitical that they rarely voted if at all. General Eisenhower, for example, was
so apolitical that both Democrats and Republicans courted him to be their
presidential candidate.
Now we come to the curious case of General Mark Milley, the
current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as of this writing), with his
two phone calls to the commander of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (among
other criticisms). Two questions emerge from these calls-
1. Were
these calls authorized by each Secretary of Defense in office at the time of
each phone call and by President Trump or his designated staffer (ex- National
Security Advisor)?
2. What
were the contents of these phone calls?
Regarding the first question, the Acting Secretary of
Defense during the second call denies he had knowledge of the call and would
not have authorized it if it had come to his attention. As for the second
question, did General Milley tell his Chinese counterpart that he (Milley) would
give the Chinese advance notice if the US was preparing an attack on China? As
for the first question, if Milley placed an unauthorized call, he is guilty of
insubordination. As for question two, if he did, he is perhaps guilty of
treason.
Given that General Milley was a part of the blotched
Afghanistan withdrawal as well as the mistaken drone strike that killed ten
innocent people without even harming one terrorist, many critics and pundits
have called for the general’s resignation, firing, and/or court martial. Whether
his career is finished is up to President Biden probably with the idea that the
general will become a political liability, he is finished. If not, he perhaps
stays. And whether he stays or not, General Milley has caused the line into
partisanship
A model for correct political behavior for generals is General
of the Army George Marshall. After graduating from Virginia Military Institute Marshall
was commissioned as an officer and served until 1945. As Army Chief of Staff during
World War II, he served President Roosevelt, a Democrat and served President
Truman, another Democrat, as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.
Marshall did not get personally or socially close to either man so he could
them his unhindered counsel. Although Marshall was attacked viciously after the
war, he did not response in kind. Marshall did not endorse political candidates,
not even General Eisenhower, a man he head mentored for success, for the
presidency. And Marshall did not write his memoirs because he was concerned that
he would embarrass someone.
Call me “old school” because I believe all generals (and
admirals) have been given a sacred trust to defend our nation and as such,
whether they are on active duty or retired, they must resist the siren calls for
partisanship as did General Marshall.
No comments:
Post a Comment