Regarding Rummy

The Academic Elephant has an excellent piece on the current wave of criticism directed at Rummy and why he must stay.

She writes:

It seems to me that at the root of this issue is the fact that civilians control our military. In some ways, the very command structure of the Pentagon is an oxymoron, because logic suggests that a military man should head the military. After all, the military is a culture unto itself with highly-specialized protocols and rituals, not to mention highly-specialized information and tactics, which are best understood by those on the inside. But the makeup of our DoD has since 1947 specified civilian leadership, which creates friction in the top tiers of the Pentagon. But that's okay because we don't really want these guys sitting around singing kumbaya together. Such deliberate conflict is designed to force the military to take civilian priorities into consideration and to ensure full oversight of the military--and the military resents it. How could they not? They're supposed to. That's the point. The only time they don't resent their civilian leadership is when that leadership is weak and so does not step on the military's toes, as was the case with, for example, Bill Cohen. I'm sure all the generals in question--Clinton appointees to a man--long for the "business as usual" days of Cohen. But such a SECDEF, while perhaps popular in the corridors, is not doing his job. He's not challenging the military or second-guessing them, as he should--and, for that matter, the military are not challenging or second-guessing him, as they should. This state of affairs might have passed muster in the Clinton era, but in perilous times like these, we can not afford such a comfort level.

There's more, much more to her analysis.

Read it here.

I would point out that this conflict has been a dominant feature of US military activity ever since the creation of the DoD. Remember the struggles with McArthur over Korea, the intense conflict between civilians and the brass over Vietnam, etc.

I would also note that since WWII there has been a tendency for conflicts to terminate in ways that are unsatisfactory to the military, which would prefer a clear-cut victory. The Cold War itself just sort of sputtered out and its aftermath has been problematic. Korea became an interminable cease fire; Vietnam a withdrawal that turned into a rout. Iraq is turning into something equally frustrating. In each case the military response has been to blame civilian interference.

But, that is to miss the point. The important fact to note is that through this long period of military frustration the political, economic, and cultural influence of the US has grown immensely to the point of being, in the minds of many, a global hegemon. This points to the fact that in the modern world military power is not the only, nor even the primary, instrument by which the U.S. projects influence abroad.

Military commanders are, quite appropriately, concerned with the immediate task at hand -- winning the war. Civilian officials, however, have a broader view. Their concern is to find a favorable resolution to a difficult situation, and military victory may not be the optimal outcome. Iraq is a case in point. There it is far more important that the Iraqi people create and direct the instruments by which civil order is established and maintained than it is for the US forces to go in and kick ass.

Bush and Rummy understand this. Many of their critics do not.

Alexandra on Maltzan over at All Things Beautiful has links to much of the blog commentary favorable to Rummy as well as some interesting artwork.