A Failre of Generalship

By Lt. Col. Paul Yingling

"You officers amuse yourselves with God knows what buffooneries and never dream in the least of serious service. This is a source of stupidity which would become most dangerous in case of a serious conflict."
- Frederick the Great

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.

These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.

More

Requesting Legislation...From the Bench?

How many times did we here Mr. Bush say in speeches or press statements that he did not want judges legislating from the bench? This question applies to all situations including campaigns and nomination battles. Now he appears to be asking for legislation from the bench in direct contravention to prior statements about how judges should conduct their judicial duties.

The Military Commissions Act, for all its flaws, granted detainees the right to a civilian council with no restriction. Mr. Bush agreed to this when he signed the law without a signing statement. Defense directives also outline how the provisions of the law are to be carried out. Now, Mr. Gonzales is submitting a brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arguing to restrict access to civilian attorneys in spite of the law.

The court can accept the case. However, if they found in Mr. Bush's favor would they not be legislating from the bench?

Graham Response to 'War is lost' Comment: Who won in Iraq?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid comments about the Iraq war were heard around the capital, roundly criticized, and questioned.

In the Fort Wayne Sentinel he was reported to have said:

I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense (understands), and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - that this war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.

Signing Statements vs Vetoes

Mr. Bush's relations with Congress has been tumultuous at best and complete control at worst. When a Republican led congress passed a ban on torture in the Detainee Treatment Act and attached it as a amendment to the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 he signed the law with a signing statement. Now the Democrats are in control threatening even tighter controls on the war in Iraq and he is again threatening a veto and this time he will carry it out.

Mr. Bush's one veto during the Republican led Congress was the stem cell research bill. The others, including a pork-laden transportation bill and a defense supplemental with the Real ID Act attached, he signed. He also threatened a veto of the Defense bill in 2005 because of a the Detainee Treatment Act, but signed it and then with little fanfare promulgated a signing statement that said:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

Pulitzer Prize Winner Charlie Savage reported in the 5 January 2006 edition of the Boston Globe that 3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture ban which quotes Sen. Graham as saying:

I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified Graham. If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same.

The article provides a statement from the other two, McCain and Warner. So to claim that they caved in and allowed torture to become official policy is unfair and incorrect.

Now on to vetoes. The president as above mentioned only vetoed one bill in the Republican congresses even though he threatened several times to veto bills. He signed larded bills, bills with unrelated provisions attached, and those that included things he did not like. A signing statement was his answer then and now he is going to return to the Constitutional option of vetoing. This may be proof that his preferred method of dealing with his own party when they get out of line.

It is just stubbornness. If he really believes that it is his power to clearly disobey the will of congress then he should sign the supplemental and attach a signing statement.

I do not support this action, but he won't because he wants to make a political issue out of the supplemental and he wasn't willing to do that.

Progress in Iraq

Sen. Graham recently returned from a nine day trip to Iraq--two days as part of a congressional delegation and seven days as an Air Force reservist. He has concluded that the surge is working as a result of his visit and service in-country.

In an interview on FoxNews Sunday Graham fleshed out the details of the sixteen Shieks that were now working with us to secure the country. In comments to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal upon his return that we should know by early Fall about the will of the Iraqi people to control their country and that we needed the Petraus years ago. This cautious optimism after return is bolstered by his comment while on the delegation visit that Iraqis are resilient people.

In his editorial "Progress and Losses in Iraq" Graham explains the progress he saw in Iraq on the recent visit. He pointed out that their was more cooperation with tribal leaders in Anbar Province and that thy were encouraging young people to join the Iraqi police force. He was allowed into areas that were previously off-limits while with the delegation.

He was assigned with the Rule of Law Task Force while serving his week of reserve duty. He saw cases brought before courts and saw up close that nothing good happens without a price. The price in this case was an optimistic American Navy Commander that assisted in building a court house and then was killed by an IED.

He also reported a security problem at Camp Buca where al-Queda detainees are held along with prisoners who are not dangerous. The prison was becoming a recruiting ground for the terrorists, but there was a plan to deal with the problem.

He concludes that while there is progress in Iraq we have a long way to go to complete the task.

Sen. Graham Travels to Guantanamo to witness CSRT Hearing

Saturday marked the first hearing of a Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at that was closed to the media. This was a pivotal hearing of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation form A-Z," Mohammed admitted as he gave his confession to the tribunal consisting of three military officers and with two United States Senators, Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin watched via closed circuit TV.

Senators Graham and Levin meet in the Senate Office Building.
Source: New York Times

Senators Graham and Levin were present to observe the process and report back about what happened. Graham was an architect of the Military Commissions Act which Levin voted against. They released a joint statement today that explained the process and said that it went well. However, they added that "the true test of the CSRT process is not a case in which the detainee admits the allegations against him, it is a case in which the detainee disputes those allegations. Judicial review of the tribunals is ongoing. We will continue to review the process and will explore possible ways to improve this process through Congressional action."