TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

Of generals and leaders

ADVERTISEMENT

JOHN NASH

Of Cabbages and Kings

Published: October 10, 2009

There's an on-going debate over public comments made by an Army general about the military operations in Afghanistan. Did he or didn't he properly work through established channels before offering his professional opinion, which, to many observers, differs substantially from that of his boss (President Barack Obama)?

Should he be permitted to express his opinion without first clearing such with the White House? And, how much weight, anyway, does his opinion carry?

To shed a bit of light on that "general" subject, we need to, once again, review the process by which "star-rank" (i.e., generals and admirals) is awarded.

Sadly, tragically, far too many of our top-ranked military officers are more politicians than military tacticians or leaders of men - and I use "politician" in an appropriately derogatory sense.

This is because the age-old military promotion system is politically based, and incestuous. Perhaps 90 percent of the officers identified and selected for star rank have devoted most of their careers to playing politics, rather than working to protect their nation and caring for the men entrusted to their care.

The political "job" is all consuming in most cases. Personally ambitious officers must keep detailed information concerning the network of superiors and contemporaries apparently capable of influencing their careers. They must invest substantial amounts of time in kissing-up to that select battalion of significant officers and relevant civilians (elected and appointed government officials).

Allow me to cite just one example:

One officer, whom I personally observed during his career, clearly worked primarily at politics. He was regularly moved between high-visibility jobs (e.g. management of a multi-billion dollar program for development of a new type of aircraft), because it is an unofficial part of the military promotion system to routinely cycle favored officers through pivotal jobs, so that they are continually in the limelight and their names become familiar to those who control promotions.

Of course, while briefly in such jobs, the subject officers are unable to become proficient, even were they to devote full energy and time to the mission, which they seldom ever do.

The subject officer rose from colonel to general, with several stars on his shoulders, seemingly almost overnight, because, and only because, he was a tireless and devoted politician in uniform. His rotating appointment to important offices not only did nothing to promote or improve those functions, it most likely damaged them in significant ways.

That arrogant, selfish, dangerously ambitious man wasn't fit to be an officer of any rank - let alone a general. And there are many just like him. You simply cannot place any special trust in any star-rank officer, because far too many are just worthless, even dangerous, politicians.

Yes, I have had the pleasure of knowing a handful of star-rank officers who were talented and devoted military leaders and managers, but very few of those advanced beyond one star, because they were more dedicated to "duty, honor and country" than to politics and self.

And, there have even been a few four-star officers whom I admire (all from the World War II period), but my general condemnation of our top-ranked military officers continues to apply.

They may all look pretty much alike, but too many are undependable, unethical and unreliable politicians.

What's this got to do with the current discussion about Gen. Stanley McCrystal's comments about conduct of the military operations in Afghanistan?

Well, it casts unfortunate but justifiable doubt on the validity of his stated opinions, which, if history teaches us anything, may be more politically and personally influenced than formed by educated and experienced analysis of all factors bearing on the situation.

I do not condemn Gen. McCrystal - he may be one of those rare, dedicated and capable generals - but, in evaluating what he has to say about Afghanistan, as well as what our president offers on that subject, we should keep in mind that personal politics all too often significantly shape the opinions and public statements of heavily medaled generals and admirals.

Of Cabbages and Kings is a regular feature of this paper. The author welcomes pertinent and relevant comment, which may be sent to him at john@have-eye.com.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT