Tara McKelvey at Columbia Journalism Review takes a cheap and shallow shot at Tom Ricks in Too Close for Comfort? - as do several in the comments section. I'd respond, but why bother when someone much more informed about such matters can do it much more eloquently? See Jamie McIntyre's CFR's Errant Dart at Line of Departure. Money quote: And the primary charge against Tom Ricks seems to be that he's done too much research, talked to too many people, knows too much history, and is unafraid to say what he really thinks.
Speaking of Tom Ricks - he has several interesting posts up at Best Defense - Marine generals to Cheney: Knock it off, mac. Money quote: ... we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics. Also see Tom's Rory Stewart on being a government consultant. Money quote: It's like they're coming in and saying to you, 'I'm going to drive my car off a cliff. Should I or should I not wear a seatbelt?' And you say, 'I don't think you should drive your car off the cliff.' And they say, No, no, that bit's already been decided -- the question is whether to wear a seatbelt.' And you say, 'Well, you might as well wear a seatbelt.' And then they say, 'We've consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart and he says ... And speaking of Rory Stewart, Emily Stokes over at The Financial Times as a great synopsis of her interview with Rory - Lunch with the FT. Certainly an interesting man living in interesting times.
At The National - Foreign Correspondent Gretchen Peters reports on an expert panel that says NATO has lost trust of Afghans - serious stuff if true and something that cannot be taken lightly.
Moving on, The Associated Press' John Milburn has penned a decent overview of the U.S. Army's advisor training program at The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. Bottom-line: the mission is moving from Fort Riley to Fort Polk, and significantly expanding. Good news.
Joshua Foust at Registan, not one of our fans but that is most certainly okay with us, offers up the case for Afghanistan in regards to recent historical considerations. This is part 3 of a ? part series...
The GAO offers up a US NORTHCOM "report card" in a very recent Homeland Defense report to Congress titled U.S. Northern Command Has a Strong Exercise Program, but Involvement of Interagency Partners and States Can Be Improved.
Chris Schnaubelt has a very nice research piece at the NATO Defence College's web page - NATO and the New U.S. "Afpak" Policy - bottom line is we can do better. Dr. Schnaubelt holds the Transformation Chair at the College.
There's more but out of time - I'll leave you with sites (not all inclusive mind you) I should be reading more - given eight days a week - Ex's Abu Muqawama, Best Defense - Tom Ricks again, AFPAK Channel at Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch also at FP, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Max Boot at Contentions, Herschel Smith at The Captain's Journal, Steve Coll at The Think Tank, Danger Room - especially Noah, Jules Crittenden at Forward Movement, GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD - still figuring that one out - but I like it, In Harmonium, Information Dissemination, Kings of War, The Lede at the NYT and thanks for the link guys, SWJ great friend Matt Armstrong's MountainRunner, Outside the Beltway, Schmedlap, Shadow Government at FP, The Long War Journal's The Threat Matrix, Joshua Foust's Registan, the whole crew at Threats Watch, uber-embed and boots on the ground reporter David Wood, Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent, Wings Over Iraq, Michael Yon - another boots on the ground - never comes home kinda guy, and of course Zenpundit aka Mark Safranski - always last but not least.
I've missed a few I like a lot, I'm sure...
Comments
Schmedlap,
I think we're in more agreement than disagreement. As I stated earlier, I don't know if it's better or worse. It is just different. I used the ex-PL anecdote to highlight to show the variation in ranks.
I've often wondered how we get back to the non-partisan think tanks of the 1950's (early Rand Corporation). These organizations were ad-hoc, chaired by distinguished retired gentlemen, and focused on solving national-security issues.
Since the gov't funded the projects and the personnel were already established, they worked towards duty rather than profit or politics. Some of their work was profound introducing the prisoner's dillema into game theory.
Neither politics nor think tanks are necessarily bad or evil. I personally hope the Congress ten years from now will be filled with veterans. I just hope they do it for the right reasons- to be statesmen rather than politicians invoking the hard lessons of learned from war into better policy for the next generation.
v/r
Mike
I would just add that there is a certain amount of weight attributed to the words of a former Commandant of the USMC that is not even approached by a former NCO or junior Officer. For that reason, the General Officers should exercise a lot more caution, both for the weight that the public assigns to their comments and for the example that it sets for those further down the rank structure.
In regard to ex-platoon leaders with degrees, I think that can be a good thing. Most people who have not served in the military find military affairs difficult to comprehend. It seems a bit absurd for people who do not understand the military to start coming up with bright ideas for the military. Ideally, they would have some consultation with individuals who both understand the military and speak the same pointy-headed intellectual language. Enter the ex-PL with a fancy degree.
Unfortunately, this can bring with it some bad incentives, as we're now seeing. Think tanks become deeply enmeshed in the political process and then affiliation with a think tank is seen as a ticket into the DC political upper crust. Suddenly people whose primary interest is (often domestic) politics start posing as serious national security thinkers, just so that they can get into the think tank crowd and be a political player. Their ideas are heavily influenced by their political ideologies and/or party affiliations and poison the mix. This started in the "conservative" think tanks, from what I observed, and now the left has struck back with "progressive" think tanks of their own in order to assert their nat'l security bonafides and try to chip away at what has traditionally been a right-wing strength at the ballot box.
I don't know how it all plays out, but I don't think it will be pretty.
"I am very worried about the politicization of our military. Our current and recent military officers are developing a lot of comfort with criticizing the civilian leadership. There doesn't seem to be any stigma attached to publicly criticizing the civilian leaders. That's not a good thing for a professional military, imo"
We're definitely seeing an evolution of Huntington's The Soldier and the State. Outside of the quiet resignation of Gen Shinseki, we've seen retired generals criticize both the Bush and Obama administration. That, coupled with ex-platoon leaders with advanced degrees running off to think tanks, is certainly different.
I don't know if it's better or worse. I remain disinterested in the politics. I just want us to find the best answers to ensure we maintain our national security objectives without breaking the existing military and bankrupting ourselves.
That's about as political as I'll get. There is great merit in the old code: inform the boss as truthfully as possible. When he makes a decision in which you disagree, either support it or resign.
v/r
Mike
I didn't suggest that it is the only bad thing. It was simply the point that the Generals emphasized in this letter. It is also noteworthy that their rebuttal to Cheney's claims of enhanced interrogation "working" is to assert that it often doesn't and in other cases was not necessary. That, again, is not contradictory. It also does not prove Cheney's case, but my original assertion stands that the arguments are not contradictory. If a General dresses down a VP, he should at least be able to say, "you are clearly wrong and here is why" rather than "I disagree."
Just to be clear, I did not point this out to defend Cheney, but rather to point out that I think GO's should be a little more careful in this regard (not that I think Gen Krulak is kicking himself because Schmedlap disagrees). I am very worried about the politicization of our military. Our current and recent military officers are developing a lot of comfort with criticizing the civilian leadership. There doesn't seem to be any stigma attached to publicly criticizing the civilian leaders. That's not a good thing for a professional military, imo.
Obama has some tough decisions to make in Afghanistan (and even Iraq) and those decisions will become more complicated if current and former military officers are publicly rebuking him for real or imagined missteps. That should be the role of the media and public, not his military.
I'm guessing that he disagrees with the idea that one could agree with Cheney and the two Marine Corps generals without contradiction. You're stretching quite a bit with this argument that the GOs are saying, the only bad thing was that the torture techniques came to light.
How exactly do you prevent these abhorrent practices from coming to light, considering the large number of people and different agencies who get involved in the capture, interrogation, care and feeding, detention, and (one imagines) eventual release of said detainees? When you have the military JAGs, the DoJ lawyers, the FBI interrogators, the medical officers, and several CIA interrogators all saying that it was pretty horrific and not beneficial, that's going to come to light.
Of course, having half-brained, arrogant US soldiers taking pictures for their Facebook entries isn't helping this practice from "coming to light." Torture doesn't work, and no amount of disengenuous arguments from Cheney is going to change that fact.
The Generals apply faulty reasoning in their dress down of Cheney. First, they state...
<blockquote><I>Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those <strong>in the field</strong> from taking matters into their own hands... As military professionals, we know that <strong>complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat</strong>. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.</I> <strong>(Emphasis mine)</strong></blockquote>
No problems there. I agree 100%. But then they go on to say...
<blockquote><I>... the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard <strong>for all agencies</strong> of the U.S. government.</I><strong> (Emphasis mine)</strong></blockquote>
<P>Wait a second. For all agencies? Are all agencies potentially conducting enhanced techniques <I>in the field</I> and/or <I>during the stress of combat</I>? I don't think so. For example, we waterboarded a few individuals several years ago - I don't think that was done while under enemy fire. I think it makes a ton of sense to hold Soldiers in the field to the standards of the interrogation FM. But senior CIA personnel back in the states, for example? How does the remark about situational ethics come into play here? I'm not defending Cheney's argument <I>in its entirety</I>, but I think that if some Generals decide to "dress down" a recent VP, they might go about it a little more carefully.</P>
They also go on to say that...
<blockquote><I>"Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security...</I></blockquote>
<P>Two different arguments. Cheney argued that it was necessary to glean intelligence. The Generals are asserting that when the techniques come to light, that they can feed the enemy's propaganda. Those are two different arguments and not mutually exclusive. The risk of each variable needs to be weighed. You can agree with Cheney and the Generals (as I do) without contradiction.</P>