Revolt of the generals - Essay Example

Harris Kamran Government and Politics 17 September 2007 Revolt of the Generals According to Andrew Basevich, there has been, since long, a constant civilian- military tussle.1 Hence, this "Revolt of the Generals", based on operation Iraq, is not an alien concept, but is just another way of venting the deep-seeded frustration and differences that are present among the ranks of both the civilian and the military organizations. In fact, Richard Kohn goes as far as to claim that the revolt is nothing but "impropriety" on the part of the army generals.

2 However, causes forming the basis of this resentment must be considered. With time, especially after World War 2, the civilian leadership has started taking greatly increased interest in military affairs, and their interventions in the decisions which by nature and right are solely the prerogative of the military commanders has increased manifold. Combine this with the advancement in technology, and the army generals are left ever more grieved, as now the political leaders have the means to intervene in micromanagement and make decisions on the battlefield,2 often in contradiction to the decisions made by the commanding officers present on the field, and mostly the military officers have to bear the consequences of politically-orchestrated blunders.

As strong a stance of the generals as might be, the fact remains that the whole idea of a retired-officer-revolt is flawed in nature. This is because it puts the whole organization and the organizational climate and culture at stake. The culture of an organization, as defined by Edgar Schien, is the general norms and values mutually accepted by the members of the organizations and proven and tested through time. The strategic leaders hold the power of influencing this established culture through their words and deeds, especially in situations such as that concerning Iraq.

If unchecked, their actions might make an attempt at changing this culture, or otherwise adversely affecting it, which will leave the subordinates distrusted and confused, and there will be disparity among the ranks of the organization. The army, according to the democratic principle, is a subordinate of the civilian leadership, and therefore is obliged to serve the leadership with loyalty, whether in service or retired.

A grave concern is that the revolting generals claim they are voicing the feelings of serving military officers.3 This signals a deep-rooted disloyalty to the civilian leadership by the military, and is setting a twisted example for future decisions. Also, this implies that in future, the civilian leaders will make an intentional effort to pick military commanders based on their loyalty to the leadership rather than their military strengths.

This will leave the culture of the military radically changed, suspicious, mistrusting and precarious, while the civil-military relations will deteriorate even further. Hence, although Rumsfeld should have been asked to hand in a resignation, this should have not been done in lieu of the military revolt. Considering the pattern of events,4 differences between organizations that have different systems of operations and different cultures to them, especially the civil and the military leadership, will exist.

However, all action should be taken through the proper channel. Notes 1 In e-mail exchange carried by the Armed Forces Journal in early April 2006 for its roundtable to discuss The Generals' Revolt, Basevich said, quoting his exact words, "U.S. civil-military relations are mired in crisis. This has been the case for years_ it's one of Washington's dirty little secrets.

" 2 In an e-mail exchange carried by the Armed Forces Journal in April 2006 for its roundtable, Kohn said that the revolt was nothing but an outburst from some angered men whose pertinent action defies propriety, and that this was no revolt. 2 During the Falklands War in May 1982, Brig. Julian Thompson was ordered by the headquarters based in London through satellite link to attack Goose Green in contradiction to his military judgment.

The attack was solely a political decision. 3 This is stated by Lt. Gen. Newbold in the essay he wrote for Time magazine. 4 During President Clinton's tenure, there was an outburst on his decision to allow homosexuals to serve in the military; there was a widespread resentment among the soldiers for the intervention in Vietnam by the Defense Secretary Robert McNarma. Works Cited "The Generals' Revolt; There are many reasons for Donald Rumsfeld to leave.

Finger-pointing by retired officers shouldn't be one." The Washington Post. 18 April 2006. 18. Hastings, Max. "Behind the Revolt; The Generals' View: To the Micromanager Goes the Blame." The Washington Post. 26 April 2006. 25. "Rummy & his generals." Armed Forces Journal. 2006.