Foreign Policy
National Security
-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - 6:32 AM
Share
Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is one of the nation's premier military historians, especially learned on the subject of civilian control of the U.S. military. So when he throws the bullshit flag on an article in an official military publication about how officers should dissent, I pay attention.
By Richard Kohn
Best Defense guest columnistThe national security community ought to applaud Joint Forces Quarterly for publishing "Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional." If the thinking in that mush of assertions and opinions evokes any sympathy among officers serving today, it should be assigned in every military school from pre-commissioning through Capstone so that it can be exposed for what it is: an attack on military professionalism that would unhinge the armed forces of the United States.
The best way to analyze whether "a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order," and whether there is a "moral obligation to dissent," is first to see if the arguments have any validity, and second to explore their implications -- whether we're talking about "the strategic level of decisionmaking" where there are "greater consequences" or down the line, because it makes no sense -- if we are discussing professional or moral obligations -- to separate the leaders from the followers on "orders that present military professionals with moral dilemmas wherein the needs of the institution appear to weigh on both sides of the equation."
Lt. Col. Andrew R. Milburn's first argument is that officers "belong to a profession upon whose members are conferred great responsibilities, a code of ethics, and an oath of office" that together "grant individual officers a moral autonomy and obligate" them "to disobey an order" they deem "immoral" or one that "is likely [emphasis added] to harm … the Nation, military and subordinates -- in a manner not clearly outweighed by its likely benefits."
The military profession most everywhere today is the creature of the state and more or less subordinate to it; in the U.S., the military possesses no autonomy of any kind not derived from civilian political institutions, and certainly no moral autonomy. Individuals possess that, but as officers they have no authority, or are any of them prepared, to determine whether an order harms the country, a military institution, or subordinates in such a way as to justify countermanding a decision by the president or secretary of defense. How would an officer know all the considerations involved, and by what authority or tradition is it legitimate to violate the will of the people's elected or appointed officials? Against what standard would even the most senior officer judge? Whose morality, whose definition of what's good for the country, a service, or subordinates? Would every top officer weigh the lives of soldiers against every mission, on their own individual calculation of cost and benefit? If so, the military would be paralyzed by inaction or disagreement. Officers who together refused an order would be in revolt. Think of a Pentagon riven by the kind of pressures reproduced in the movie Crimson Tide. Think Vietnam in the 1960s: the Chiefs and the CINCs (today's COCOMs), and probably officers and enlisted down the line, joining the demonstrators (to the delight of the Left) in some "professional" version of "Hell no, we won't go!" Think George C. Marshall in 1942 refusing the presidential order to round up Japanese Americans on the West Coast because the order might be immoral or illegal (before the Supreme Court rules), or refusing to invade North Africa because American soldiers might be unnecessarily sacrificed at the wrong time and place to defeat Germany (Marshall opposed that invasion).
Milburn's second argument is that the "obligation [emphasis added] is not confined to effects purely military against those related to policy," because "the complex nature of contemporary operations no longer permits a clear distinction between the two" -- as if today differs from the past, as if operations in our War for Independence, Civil War, and World War II were not complex, and did not mix the political and the military, as indeed every war does at the strategic level. He asserts the "obligation to disobey [emphasis added]" as "an important check and balance in the execution of policy," thereby using a glib trick of language to introduce a constitutional term as though our system of government raises the military to some status equivalent to the three branches of government. Actually, the U.S. Constitution explicitly subordinates the military to each branch and specifically prohibits in every way possible the military from arrogating to itself the ability, much less the responsibility, to defy constituted authority. Milburn thinks that a military officer should "exercise his discretion" if the three branches are about to commit or allow a disaster and "the military professional alone is in a position to prevent calamity." What officer can make that judgment, on what basis, and how, without violating the oath to support and protect the Constitution? The Constitution, law, military professionalism, and tradition all make the military accountable to the civilian leadership, not the other way around. Implying otherwise is to recommend the destruction of the very constitution and military establishment Milburn claims he wishes to preserve.
Finally, Milburn claims that "how to dissent [emphasis added] … demands either acceptance of responsibility or wholehearted disobedience," in effect boxing in every officer between assuming the responsibility for every order that comes down from above or disobeying it, a nonsensical either/or that makes no practical sense and has no basis in American law or military tradition. The responsibility officers have is to execute the lawful orders of their superiors, not to weigh each one against their own system of morality or their own calculation about whether they are good for the country, the military, or their subordinates.
In offering his arguments, Milburn makes some elementary errors. He equates without explanation orders from a superior officer and those from a civilian (one assumes he's talking about the president or secretary of defense or a service secretary). Are those orders really the same legally, constitutionally, professionally, politically, and by tradition? In pointing out the absence of "obedience" from all the services' core values, fitness reports, and officers' oath, Milburn neglects the obvious: obedience is assumed. Indeed it has been a foundation for military service since ancient times, and without it, there is no discipline, making armed services merely dangerous mobs, as Americans have known since the beginning of the Republic. Milburn trots out that old, and discredited, distinction between loyalty and obedience to the Constitution and to the president that Douglas MacArthur used to try to justify his violation of the president's orders, directives, and policies. Every school child in the country knows that the people properly elected or appointed to office embody the Constitution, even if they sometimes (according to their critics or opponents or the Supreme Court) occasionally violate it. Our system of government operates only through the individuals that the document empowers to exercise political authority. How can an officer preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by ignoring or defying its proper functioning?
No amount of hemming and hawing about complexity and uncertainty, or invocations of "moral autonomy," or disingenuous claims that his "argument does not challenge civilian control of the military," can excuse Milburn's misrepresentations. He is not reassuring when he cites Chile and Argentina in talking about civilian control, or when he uses such words as "public defiance." Thankfully he rejects those Marine war college officers who suggest "leaking the story, … dragging their feet in execution," and other "covert actions." But Milburn rejects them not as unprofessional violations of civilian control, which they are, but on the grounds of cowardice, avoidance of accountability, or lack of effectiveness, and in invoking once again his mantra of "moral autonomy," he essentially boils the issue down to not being a "standup guy." What Milburn proposes has nothing to do with dissent and everything to do with disobedience: the destruction of good order and discipline in the U.S. armed forces. Advising (and disagreeing with policy or decisions) in the executive branch or Congress in private or when asked for personal opinions in open testimony, is perfectly proper and indeed obligatory. But trying to overturn or block the decisions of the officials put into office by the American people is altogether different. If attempted by more than one officer, or as the product of discussion, disobedience becomes conspiracy and revolt, not exactly moral by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, put into practice, what Milburn proposes would not only unravel the good order and discipline of the armed forces, but destroy all trust between the military and its bosses -- elected and appointed civilian leaders -- and its client: the American people.
Finally, there are the errors in the article. A work that muddles the most famous historical example (MacArthur never made any "threat to cross the Yalu River"), asserts wrongly that, "When the Constitution was written, the army was intended to be only a militia," and that the military has not since 1783 "overstepped its bounds by trying to influence Congress," and even misspells the name of the leading scholar of civil-military relations (Eliot Cohen, not "Elliott"), lacks credibility. Such sloppiness also reflects badly on the referees and editors of the Joint Forces Quarterly. This article calls to mind the famous response of a Yale law professor to a student in class: "Your answer reminds me of the thirteenth chime of the clock: not only is it wrong in and of itself, but it calls into question the other twelve."
If nothing else this highlights one simple fact. It is easy to say that military men and women have no moral grounds to object to an order in theory. It is much different thing to be that officer. Looking yourself in the mirror sounds simple until you have spent a decade making decision with mortal consequences. To simply absolve yourself of your morality means that you could work in a death camp. These are the officers that have no issue with torture.
The limitation to this is that the dissent must be a manner that does not cause further harm to the republic (if a senior officer is facing an issue of this severity then the republic is already harmed, or at the least at risk for harm). A resignation would be appropriate. A retirement would not as the the officer would retain his/her commision. If the former officer, then a civilian, decides to exercise his/her freedom of speech that would be appropriat
With all due respect to Dr. Kohn, I do not agree with his riposte to Lt. Col. Milburn's article. The fact is that there is a moral standard associated with military orders that cannot be ignored: Orders which perpetrate crimes against humanity.
In the International Military Tribunal at Nurember, the prisoners were tried for war crimes, crimes against the peace, and crimes against humanity. Article 6, paragraph 6c, defines crimes against humanity as: "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated"
In Nuremberg, Generals Wilhem Keitel and Alfred Jodl claimed that they were not responsible because their were only carrying out orders. NOT!
Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
In 1961, Adolph Eichmann used the same defense in his trial in Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court in denying his appeal stated in essence that persons are ultimately held to a higher authority than merely orders; rather the standard of humanity.
Subsequent history in Vietnam, the Balkans, Africa and legal proceedings arising therefrom have in one form or another maintained the same standard: Behfeld ist Behfeld is not a defense.
Thus, for example and for example only, if I were a crewmember on a bomber and was ordered to drop chemical weapons on a large city in response to an enemy's chemical use againt our troops in the field, I would tell my superiors to kiss my behind--and court martial be dammed. Why? Because I do not consider gassing a million innocent civilians a proportional response to their leadership's idiocy. I would rather be courtmartialed for disobeying an order than being a butcher ala Eichmann.
Gonzalo I. Vergara, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.)
But what if you were a crewmember on a B-26 ordered to drop conventional munitions on unarmed civilians and the year was 1944 or 45 and the city was Tokyo? Would you refuse then?
Morality is a very subjective thing.
While I agree with what you are saying, refusal to obey on morality grounds is the slippery slope of a nebulous concept. Who decides what's justifiable and what isn't?
Dr. Kohn seems to make a distinction between an "officer" and an "individual" who is an officer; "...in the U.S., the military possesses no autonomy of any kind not derived from civilian political institutions, and certainly no moral autonomy. Individuals possess that, but as officers they have no authority..." He should have expounded on that a bit, as well as addressing your points about those that carried out atrocities during WWII.
An individual has the authority to refuse on moral grounds, but if that individual is also an officer, then he cannot. He has to carry out the order. If he doesn't want to do that, then he cannot remain an officer.
Dr. Kohn may have meant to convey that, but he didn't.
Be sure the two great movies on rebellions in the modern US military, from the 1950s. "Fail Safe" and "Seven Days in May"
There was no mutiny or treason in "Fail Safe". There was a computer glitch; six bombers were sent into attack the USSR and their orders told them to ignore verbal recalls after a certain point.
Some of the guys at NORAD were pretty damn unhappy having to help shoot down their own guys.
Okay, I wrote this note just so I could point out that one of the airmen at NORAD was played by Dom Deluise.
"Seven Days in May" is a really good movie too.
Walt
Confused with "Dr. Strangelove"
"Fail Safe" would seem to me to confirm civilian control of the military when at the end the USAF commander drops a nuclear weapon on New York City to demonstrate American goodwill to the Soviets to avoid a global thermonuclear holocaust. If I recall correctly, that officer does it knowing that his family is there. One can debate about the correctness of the President's decisions, but effective civilian control of the military isn't one of the issues in this movie.
"Dr. Strangelove" is replete with a military out of control. The wing commander has gone totally around the bend, the Air Force commander tries to hinder the President's actions with the Soviets at every turn and the Air Force mid-command only grudgingly provides information to the Soviet air defense command, which ultimately results in a lone B-52 managing to penetrate Soviet air space and hit a secondary target, thereby detonating the Doomsday weapon the Soviets were preparing. It's billed as a black comedy rather than as serious drama.
Pretty clear as to why this learned doctor threw the BS flag! No one likes to have their analysis criticized. I seriously doubt this article contains the seed of destruction for our nation's military that Dr. Kohn implies. Rather than blind obedience, I see a much greater danger in our military becoming the private security force for our nation's elite (a group which now includes many retired generals!).
As fewer and fewer of our elected politicians have any military experience, I think that they are more inclined to accept at face value the clever BS portrayed on the impressive power-point presentations by our be-ribboned generals. Ergo, they don't know how to ask the tough questions. It's not so much a question of obedience as expansion of the MIC's market share. For instance, General Shinseki, who suggested that the pricetag for Iraq operation was going to be considerably higher, was promptly cashiered and replaced with a more hoohah version. War remains one of the few growth industries out there, and it might be asking too much for those most intimately tied to this business to question the bottom-line. Increasingly, senior officers will have to ask themselves whether their obedience is good for the larger body politic. (Is anyone in the Pentagon concerned about the size of our debt?)
Just one other comment from the realm of experience. Impressed with Dr. Kohn's argument and academic credentials (10 pages!). Given his apparent lack of military experience, however, I wonder if he's qualified to comment on the moral dilemma behind following (or disobeying) a difficult military order. Can this sort of knowledge be derived from books? It does sort of bring into question his forceful argument.
If you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding.
Morality seems a much more difficult concept, more variable, more subjective, more eye-of-the-beholder than does duty. I'm against the idea that we arm citizens and have them take oaths to follow their conscience. Let's just stick with follow orders and yield to civilian authority - let the nation and its laws deal with what's moral.
"If you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding."
You mean just the way George Washington did?
I mean that those serving in the American Military serve themselves best by regarding themselves as hired guns. This priesthood crap goes way too far. It impairs military efficiency. When all you deep philosophers are done pontificating, someone's got to take up arms and actually do the job. Best we not burden that good soul with historical analogies, moral concerns, and other impedimenta that get in the way of completing the task.
I speak as one who considered the nature of the job over many years as both a snuffy and a commander. My view is a practical one that best assures victory. And, incidentally, keeps folks alive. Let's not complicate a difficult task.
...that George Washington was not in the employ of George III when he was fighting in the Revolution. Your point???
The point is that Washington TOOK the King’s shilling, and then later betrayed the King to whom he had sworn an oath. Yes, if you want to put it euphemistically, I guess you could say that he was no longer “in the employ” of the King.
I take your point about practicality, but if all we are concerned with is people taking up arms “to get the job done” then why do we condemn “terrorists” for doing just that—picking up arms and getting the job done. Do you agree that we are a whiny and hypocritical people who want maximum “flexibility” to “get the job done” while holding everyone who opposes us to strict standards of conduct as approved by “the international community”?
GW had resigned his commission, became a private citizen and was no longer in the pay of the king. He was in rebellion, but not mutinous. This distinction seems to escape you.
As an example, would you not agree that even though the Bush administration pushed torture that Officers and Enlisted alike had a moral obligation to disobey those orders or as some called them "guidelines"? It was an order from the top, would an officer still have to obey those orders even though some would not call it torture but others would? What if a President orders martial law without Congress? I don't think it is as black and white as Mr. Kohn writes.
Full disclosure- I think you should argue your heart out to whoever is above you behind closed doors and unless it is an obviously illegal order you can either resign if you are an officer if you still do not agree with the orders or be willing to take the consequences and go to Court Martial if an enlisted.
One problem Presidents have are Generals who openly oppose their efforts, like with DADT. Usually, the President tolerates them until they retire and replaces them with someone on his team.
However, Obama nominated Marine General Amos (whose career was sponsored by Bell-Boeing) despite the fact the Amos should have been fired as a one-star for hiding bad V-22 test results from the Pentagon (the DoD IG even raided his office and published e-mails of him conspiring with Bell execs.).
So Amos now appears before Congress to assume his commandant role and openly opposes DADT.
What's with this BS? Obama had a hundred choices for Commandant, and he picks this jackazz?
Are you suggesting that the President should only appoint Yes Men to key military positions? Being opposed to a particular policy isn't the same thing as being insubordinate. DADT has not been repealed (yet?), therefore GEN Amos has not done anything wrong. If DADT is repealed, and GEN Amos refuses to implement the repeal or drags his feet in doing so, only then he would he in the wrong. But I am 99.9% sure that GEN Amos, and the other service cheifs, will salute and carry on if law changes despite whatever personal beliefs they may have on the subject.
Why did Obama nominate Amos when he had dozens of other choices, unless they all want to retain DADT, as I do. Nevertheless, what message does it send when his nominee openly opposes his effort at his confirmation hearing. As the very least, he should have agreed to temper his comments and just say he doesn't have a strong opinion and will support whatever Congress decides. He can send is views back channels, but dissing the Pres in public who just nominated him was out of line.
BTW, Amos is one of the leading figures who is destroying Marine Aviation. First with the V-22 disaster that produced an unsafe aircraft that costs twice as much as helos yet has half their performance and is broke down half the time. Amos has been key in covering up most of this. And he supports the unfolding F-35B disaster, which is all wrong for the Marines. Its can't even operate from Navy ships since its heat warps the decks. The Marines need AT-6Bs and variants of C-2s for special missions and just buy the FA-18Fs off the shelf for the attack role, which are one-third the cost to procure with no development costs, yet are better than the F-35s with AESA radar and two seats and two engines.
Good discussion here: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm.
"Lawful" is the operative word ... and principle. Military actions hinging on morality scare me: too many bozos and Christers (the Services are full of these characters) and country preachers out there proclaiming a personal morality that is ultimately whatever they say it is.
Your argument takes us right back to Nuremburg or Gtmo.
"The law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent
It has no kind of fault or flaw, and I, my Lords, embody the law."
W.S. Gilbert, "Iolanthe" (The Lord Chancellor's Song)
The topic is practical guidance for soldiers in their duties. Let's stipulate that the United States - flawed, imperfect, sometimes misguided - is not the Third Reich. Let's acknowledge that some of us think history (and perhaps a court of law) will someday find the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld excesses criminal, GITMO among them. But let's not burden soldiers engaged with the enemy with the need to parse every action against a moral code, especially one of their own choosing.
In the real world of the operational military scant time is spent (or available) for such deep, profound deliberations. Obeying lawful orders is a lot easier to train, do, and expect - and one hell of a lot more militarily efficient.
"The topic is practical guidance for soldiers in their duties."
Says who? The topic, as I interpret it, is the mutual accomdation of the Constitutionally-mandated duties of the soldier/sailor/airman/marine, the moral compass of the individual leader, AND the practical necessities of operating in the military in peace and war. No matter how one might like to simplify it, this is a philosophically and practically demanding issue.
"Let's stipulate that the United States - flawed, imperfect, sometimes misguided - is not the Third Reich."
OK, let's stipulate that. Let's also stipulate that Germany was not the Third Reich...until it was.
"Obeying lawful orders is a lot easier to train, do, and expect - and one hell of a lot more militarily efficient."
Yes, all true. So would you then agree that the execution of subordinate German commanders at Nuremburg constituted a war crime, since they were obeying the lawful orders of the German Reich?
This is one of the problems with typical American thinking. Moral dictates are to be used to condemn Goering, Chemical Ali, or some Taliban fighter languishing at GTMO but are terribly "impractical" and "inefficient" when someone has the temerity to apply them to us. For decades, the American consensus has been that torture was inexcusable and wrong. Then, literally over night, when WE (as opposed to some other benighted land) were attacked by the evil forces of "terrorism", it all of a sudden became extremely morally complex. And, gee, it's so hard to say whether torture is really wrong in every instance. I mean, suppose a terrorist knew the "code" for a nuclear weapon that was about to blow up New York City...etc, etc.
Well, OK, Rubber Ducky, are you saying that expediency--ie, obedience to the orders of the ruling authority--constitutes justification for the behavior of the military personnel of all states or just for those of the exceptional American nation?
...is winning the war.
Muddling along, absent the soul-searching concerns that anguish you, the American Military has kept this nation safe since its founding. The record's not perfect, nor the military, but the job gets done and allows you the luxury of injecting inane worries into a very pragmatic subject.
It's an imperfect world ... and an imperfect military ... but the situation is not improved by your wish to govern war by syllogism. Follow orders, do the job, sort it out after you've prevailed.
"It's an imperfect world ... and an imperfect military ... but the situation is not improved by your wish to govern war by syllogism. Follow orders, do the job, sort it out after you've prevailed."
So, if that's what you believe, why did you bother to make the point that the US is not the Third Reich? If I understand you, nothing has any meaning except military victory. Everything else is just muddle-headed philosophizing. There are no rules except victory. Well, that IS one way of approaching the world...if you're consistent in your view, that is. The problem is, I think you want it both ways. You want to condemn the "other" as morally evil--else why distinguish us from the Third Reich--while writing off any critique of "the American Way of War" as feckless intellectualizing and "syllogism".
If you're gonna hire hired guns...
Hire good ones. Hire reliable ones. Inculcate in them a desire to get the job done. Tell them to (make them, by force of law) follow all lawful orders. It is the nature of war. It ain't pretty.
And please, for those of knotted knickers, less of the concern for morality of the soldier and more, far more, for the morality of entering into a war of choice (Iraq) or fighting a war in a feckless way for nearly 8 years (Afghanistan). I'm appalled that the iconic incidents of these two wars are Abu Ghraib and the sport-murders of innocent Afghan civilians. But in the realm of morality, such incidents are mere military sideshows to the grand folly of bad war entered lightly and good war waged badly by civilian leaders.
The waste and carnage that has attended Bush's grand follies - that's a proper subject for moral inquiry, Xenophon. Lay off the kid trying to do the difficult job of soldiering: if he follows his lawful orders, he gets a pass on moral concerns.
Take Time to Read Before You Write
Rubber Ducky,
Don’t confuse your obsessions with what I have written. The reason I reference block quotes from your posts is so there is no confusion about which of your points I am addressing—something for you to consider. Where have I talked about soldiers—17 years old or otherwise—in any of my posts?
I have focused on leadership decisions and the unique brand of hypocrisy that leads Americans to whine incessantly about laying moral judgments on OUR 17-year olds while expressing no interest whatsoever in 14-year old “others” sent to GTMO on the basis of little to no evidence. This is the issue, RB. I suggest that before you make any more posts, you re-read everything that has been written in our exchange as your memory is obviously in great need of refreshment.
I find you a boring windbag. But the points were worth making.
Yes, that's right, slink back into your hole, now that you've had your chance to make your "important points".
Humans are moral beings and if an order contradicts your personal morals should you disobey it?
If soldiers debate whether to follow an order, as the Spanish Republican anarchists or early Red Army troops regularly did, then it is unlikely they will be a very effective fighting force.
A few posters have given examples where it would be difficult to follow an order but hard cases make bad law and the benefits of empowering soldiers to question orders would be overwhelmingly outweighed by the negative effect on discipline and operational effectiveness.
One thing that does worry me is the prospect of increased use of automated weapons systems. Hypothetically if reliable mobile ground based weapons systems were developed it would be tempting to replace a human army with a purely mechanical one.
That I feel would cross a line. At the moment there are many reasons why that can't happen. A well equipped conventional army would make mincemeat out of an automated force but that may not always be the case. I am not worried about some science fiction scenario where the machines take over but rather that it would mean that there was a complete disconnection between the exercise and projection of lethal force and any moral brake on it.
Of course at the moment aircraft and missiles are used with little or no human involvement but that's a long way from a wholly automated army. Standard issue hands and feet can get to places that machines cannot and i am sure there will be a place for the poor bloody infantry for a while yet.
The website has a photo of MacArthur so I assume someone thinks he was in the right when Truman fired him. No Truman fan, but the military has to follow civilian rule, dumb or not.
Anyway, while MacA was ready to launch a strike against China his own 8th Army and X Corps was badly mismanaged. How could you trust a general to start another world war when the little was he was handling was a real "Goat Fu*K."
The U.S. army eventually evolved into a fine fighting force but it was after Ridgeway took over (Truman followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs on that).
The leadership of 8th army during the early days was almost criminal in its neglect and amateurish in its ineptness; division, regimental and battalion commanders too old for their posts and many being rewarded for staff positions they'd had earlier--no combat experience.
Truman's near-criminal cutting the military to the bone--and then scraping the bone almost cost us a war against a third rate power only five years after we'd won WWII. Bad, but not cause for a mutiny.
MacA and his generals early in the Korean War cost many needless American lives due their ineptness. Criminal and a possible cause for some disobeying of orders. There are a lot of American graves in Korea put there by idiots.
This is where the commission is to be returned..
"When faced with a moral dilemma, the military officer not only has grounds for dissent, but also, if his code of ethics and oath of office so guide, has a duty to disobey. He is obligated to exercise moral autonomy, and in so doing must use his professional ethics to guide him down a path that is by no means clearly defined.
Just as civilian leaders have an obligation to challenge military leaders if the latter appear to be pursuing a strategy that undermines policy, military leaders are committed to challenge their civilian masters if the policy appears to be unconstitutional, immoral, or otherwise detrimental to the institution. "
as a resignation..it is the only ethical way for a responsible challenge. There are not other methods that I am aware of...we have seen abdication by IGs, senior general officers and of course Congress.
What would O.P. Smith say to Prof. Kohn?
Seems to me that, by Kohn's reasoning, O.P. Smith was insubordinate to Almond (to invoke two personages who've both been lionized and pilloried, respectively, in recent posts to the blog). Should Smith have been cashiered?
Couple things occur to me in reading Kohn's note, and also reading Lt Col Milburn's essay (which, judgjing from many of the comments here, few have). Kohn's "guest column" is replete with both smugness and ad hominem. Kohn's point that Milburn "is not reassuring when he cites Chile and Argentina in talking about civilian control," is at once a red herring and disengenuous--that's not Millburn's point. Neither is is reassuring that Prof Kohn co-authored an article with former CJCS Meyers--"the blue potted plant"--an article which Milburn carefully critiques in his essay, but I digress... Towards the end of the essay Millburn notes, "[The military officer] is entrusted with the Nation's treasure. Surely he can be trusted to handle nuance." "Negative!" says Kohn.
Sure, maybe there are elements of both naivete and idealism in Millburn's essay, but Kohn's critique is terribly reductive. I can't help but think he wrote his concluding zinger (good one, by the way), then structured his critique to align with it.
Kohn too emotionally tied to this subject?
Just a quick comment:
Anyone who has heard Dr. Kohn speak over the last 10-15 years on the subject can sense that he feels very strongly about civil-military relations. The sense I have is that he may be too emotionally tied/concerned about this issue to the point that he has lost perspective on it.
Just my sensing. Would be interested in others who have heard or spoken to Kohn more recently...
Intrigued by the last 2 comments, I had to confirm Omphalos's claim that Kohn co authored an article with Meyers. He did -- what an eye opener! Of course Kohn sided with a man who was possibly the most ineffective CJCS we have ever had. Milburn wrote an very articulate critique in his paper -- which obviously really upset Kohn.
I dont' know Kohn but he has come across as being very emotional and rather immature. Nor am I am very impressed by his credentials. Its probably easier to write and pontificate than it is to actually lead men in combat or actually make hard decisions. A good point for Ricks too who has made a fortune as an journalistic strap-hanger. I found the photo of the dunce hat particularly offensive. Milburn may have spelled Elliiot Cohen's name incorrectly but his article is actually very good. He is also a serving officer who has done considerably more for his country than Mr. Kohn.
Army Officers and the meaning of "service"
As a fellow army officer, I would caution you as to your interpretation of "service." The ad hominem against Prof. Kohn because he is part of the 99% of Americans not serving is disingenuous at best. Kohn served as the Chief of Air Force history for ten years, and has advised and assisted the U.S. military on countless occasions over his long career. Kohn's "credentials" include serving as the dissertation adviser for BG H.R. McMaster during his time at UNC-Chapel Hill, and quite a few other serving officers of all services, including myself.
Throwing out the claim that somehow LTC Milburn has done "considerably more for his country" simply by wearing the uniform belies the reality, which is that the Milburn article is severely deficient in its understanding of the relationship between the Soldier and the State. While not mentioned in much of the commentary above, I was fascinated by the logical jujitsu required to remove the bedrock concept of obedience from the professional officer's obligations. One presumes LTC Milburn's dubious concept of autonomy is somehow a replacement for obedience.
As to Prof. Kohn's rebuttal, I don't think he cared about LTC Milburn's critique of the Meyers-Kohn article; instead he responded to the publication of a deeply flawed article on the civil-military relationship that manged to get published in a professional military journal. One wonders how he should respond when that is the impression our profession offers to the outside world.
Impressions do matter, and dismissing someone's "credentials" because you presume their life's work is "easier" than "leading men in combat or actually mak[ing] hard decisions" leaves the impression that you are the one writing emotionally. That you found the photo offensive merely confirms it. I've done the leading and the writing. One isn't "easier" than the other - they are different activities that demand different skills. I like to think that I will be better at the leading now that I've done some of the writing - and the learning that goes with it.
I found the photo of the dunce hat particularly.....
-----well, brilliant. It is the presence within the coil of the snake on the yellow flag so popular with the rabble these days.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(36)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE