I somehow found this recent exchange between Defense Secretary Rumfeld and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff heartening. Its good to see that the head of the U.S. military is willing to stand up for what is right, even in the face of disagreement from his civilian boss.
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld contradicted Pace, the general stood firm.
Rumsfeld told the general he believed Pace meant to say the U.S. soldiers had to report the abuse, not stop it.
Pace stuck to his original statement.
"If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," Pace told his civilian boss.
The unusual exchange occurred during a discussion at a news conference about the relationship between U.S. forces in Iraq and an Iraqi government considered sovereign by the United States.
A questioner asked whether the United States and its allies might be deemed responsible for preventing mistreatment of people under arrest in Iraq, given that the U.S. and its allies train Iraqi forces.
"There are a lot of people involved in this, dozens of countries trying to help train these Iraqi forces. Any instance of inhumane behavior is obviously worrisome and harmful to them when that occurs," Rumsfeld said. "Iraq knows, of certain knowledge, that they need the support of the international community. And a good way to lose it is to make a practice of something that is inconsistent with the values of the international community."
He added: "Now, you know, I can't go any further in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."
Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked what orders the troops have to handle such incidents. He responded: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it."
He said soldiers who hear of but don't see an incident should deal with it through superiors of the offending Iraqis.
That's when Rumsfeld stepped to the microphone and said, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it."
Pace then repeated to Rumsfeld that intervening when witnessing abuse is the order the troops must follow, not just reporting it.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
He added: "Now, you know, I can't go any further in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."
That struck me as quite an astonishing statement, coming from Rumsfeld.
Voronwë, I heard that exchange on the radio the other day and was astonished.
I hope that it doesn't lead to Pace being "reassigned." We need more people like him in positions like his.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
He added: "Now, you know, I can't go any further in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."
That struck me as quite an astonishing statement, coming from Rumsfeld.
Maybe when Mr. R. was a kid they took out his tonsils and the knife slipped and they also took out his Irony Gland?
Ya think?
America is FULL of men and women with the sound principles of Gen. Pace. That's why I know this current.......situation......can't last forever.
Whatever else one may say, Mr. Rumsfeld has been entertaining. I love this 'poem' taken from one of his briefings:
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
But I didn't start this thread to be a hotspot of anti-Rumsfeld sentiment, really I didn't. I'd rather focus on the hope that one can take from surprising places rather then harp on the negatives (something which I am myself often all too guilty of).
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I have long preferred to have the actual military in charge rather than the back-door civilian/intelligence policy makers.
There is chain of command in the military; there is a code of conduct. None of these exist in the political arena and that is disastrous for any endeavor requiring strategy.
The first Gulf War was the first war we waged successfully in almost fifty years, even though we have been engaged in "low intensity conflict" and "undeclared war" in over one hundred countries during that time. The reason? - imo, it is the first time since WWII that the CIA was not allowed anywhere near the intelligence gathering or strategic planning for the war.
That was the one genius thing Bush #1 did during his administration, and it is the one thing with which I agree wholeheartedly with Bush #2. Civilian intelligence cannot be trusted. If you want to wage a war, you have to put the military in charge of everything. I hope that Bush #2 continues to resist pressure to fold military intelligence into the CIA under the realignment. Right now the CIA is handmaiden to the military in Iraq and I hope it stays that way.
Pace's attitude is characteristic of the vast majority of military personnel and reflects the officially sanctioned view. There has been a lot of nonsense published and broadcast that portrays the American soldier as torturer, and murderer. The press seems to want to taint the professional soldier with the stain of amoral non-military political appointees, and the offenses of the criminal minority that exists in any group. I hope by now that most people understand that when this criminal activity is found, it is punished. Our culture has not yet discovered a way to punish those guilty of being politicians. Professional soldiers put their own lives at risk every day to avoid "collateral damage". Its part of their job.
Having said this, I must also acknowledge that there are a small number of specific small groups of special purpose personnel who are trained to take no chances in compromising covert missions. Even this doesn't include torture. Some of their actions are harsh, but war is not a pretty business. By contrast, I have personally known members of foreign militaries whose job was to extract information and intimidate in any way they chose.
Outside of the military, in groups like the CIA, the story is different. I don't know that I am prepared to judge the morality of actions they might take that are deemed by them to be necessary. I am sure it is not in my interest to constrain them in the same way as the military.
I am hearing that top generals are not comfortable reporting the reality of Iraq to the defense department. This Gen. Pace makes me feel much better about things.
I was very heartened to read that article, thanks for posting it Voronwë! It's wodnerful to hear that people like General Pace can stick to their true feelings without worrying that they'll harm the reputation of a political leader, whether they be Republican, a Democrat, an Independant, whatever.
Although in Rumsfeld's case, there's not much more harm that can be done to his reputation...
Another soldier who disagrees with the Bush administration has been forced out. Admiral William "Fox" Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command (which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afganistan) has resigned over disputes with the administration over its Iran policy (and possibly over the Iraq policy as well). From an article in Time magazine:
Fallon's backers in and out of the Pentagon said his departure simply proves that the Administration brooks no dissent on matters of war and peace. "Bush says he'll listen to commanders in the field," one retired admiral says, "unless they say something he doesn't like, and then he fire them." Senior Pentagon officials insist Fallon left on his own, but those familiar with the Pentagon's ways had their doubts. "We're not telling you what to do, Fox" the admiral suggests Gates told Fallon, "but there's hemlock in the cup."
There is a lot evidence to support the proposition that the administration only listens to commanders that agree with them. After the top commanders of the Central Command and the Iraq forces agreed with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, they were replaced with other commanders that supported the administration policy of more troops and extending the conflict (including, ironically, Admiral Fallon).
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
