The Cult of the Commander

There's an awful lot to object to in the McCain/Lieberman "The Surge Worked" op-ed. Notably, they don't grapple with the fact that before the surge began, the surge's proponents outlined goals for the surge, and the surge's goals have not been achieved. But there's also John McCain's almost frightening inability to understand the appropriate division of labor in the policymaking process:

As the surge should have taught us by now, troop numbers matter in Iraq. We should adjust those numbers based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders in Iraq -- first and foremost, Gen. Petraeus, who above all others has proven that he knows how to steer this war to a successful outcome.

So what if Petraeus says he needs to maintain surge-level forces indefinitely and the Joint Chiefs say the only way to do that would be to cut back on deployments in Afghanistan but our commanders in Afghanistan say they can't afford to cut back. Indeed, what if they say they need a surge of their own? Who do we listen to? Admiral Fallon? Who knows? The answer, clearly, is that while a responsible president needs to listen to what his military commanders in theater think but then he needs to use independent judgment. You're never going to get an answer like "Sir, my strategy has failed" or "Sir, this other guy's mission is more important than mine" out of an official in any kind of organization -- military or civilian.

What's President McCain going to do when it turns out that all of his subordinates throughout the government want more resources to be put at their disposal?

Comments

What's President McCain going to do when it turns out that all of his subordinates throughout the government want more resources to be put at their disposal?

Easy. McCain will cut taxes, so that revenues will increase.

Posted by Jake | January 10, 2008 2:55 PM

McCain doesn't give a shit, Matt. He is simply hoping to bump his own prospects by declaring victory in Iraq. He doesn't care about any of it; he just wants to spend 4 to 8 years as president before he kicks the bucket.

Posted by tinisoli | January 10, 2008 2:56 PM

What's President McCain going to do when it turns out that all of his subordinates throughout the government want more resources to be put at their disposal?

Screw over the subordinates with jobs that don't poll well and/or don't jibe with the religion of the free market. SASQ. McCain isn't as dumb as he has to pretend to be to get the Republican nomination.

Posted by Cyrus | January 10, 2008 2:56 PM

Matt:

Did you catch this comment from McCain:

“There is only one man who should decide when to withdraw from Iraq and that is (General) David Petraeus,” the Arizona Senator said.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS/80107020/-1/NEWS19&sfad=1

Posted by blah | January 10, 2008 2:57 PM

So, doesn't this mean McCain has effectively endorsed Petraeus for president?

Posted by tinisoli | January 10, 2008 3:02 PM

Matt, this is a ridiculous criticism of the statement that's there. It looks like he's saying what you do on the ground is based on input from the troop leaders and of those he most trusts Petraeus. OK. Great. He _didn't_ say (there -- the quote the commenter gives is more troubling) that you just do what the commanders want -- you can't, for the reason you point out. But you're critiquing something that he doesn't say in your example.

Posted by Sanjay | January 10, 2008 3:06 PM

Re McCain's comment "“There is only one man who should decide when to withdraw from Iraq and that is (General) David Petraeus,” the Arizona Senator said."
-----------
So why don't we make Petraeus Imperator ..er President?

And as the divine Caesar Tiberius noted, why do we even need a Senate?

Ah, yes. To delude the rabble into thinking we are still a Republic of free men.

Posted by Don Williams | January 10, 2008 3:07 PM

The answer, clearly, is that while a responsible president needs to listen to what his military commanders in theater think but then he needs to use independent judgment.

Indeed. This is exactly the point that Edwards made in the last debate.

Posted by Clark | January 10, 2008 3:07 PM

As much as you don't like Kennedy, Matt this is exactly what made Kennedy great. He listened to his military commanders, but was also willing to listen to other voices outside of the military and make independent informed decisions. He avoided the groupthink that caused the poor decisions of the Bay of Pigs to create a disaster during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This groupthink is clearly evident in the Bush administration and is something McCain seems likely to continue.

Posted by freddiemac | January 10, 2008 3:15 PM

Although I understand why Bush uses Petraeus the way he does, I too am tired of the cult of the commander.

This is Clausewitz 101 - the political authority has to maintain authority over the military. You can't outsource leadership; this is why we have elections, after all. War doesn't occur in a vaccuum - not in a theater, not in a region, and certainly in the constellation of U.S. politics. There is a reason we don't have a "war czar."

Posted by Ender | January 10, 2008 3:15 PM

edit - that should read "avoid disaster".

Posted by freddiemac | January 10, 2008 3:18 PM

More importantly, what is candidate McCain going to do when the Sadr truce ends and violence returns to pre-September 2007 levels?

Posted by Justin | January 10, 2008 3:18 PM

If Petraeus is steering the war to a favorable outcome, does that mean we get to leave soon?

Posted by Tom Nawrocki | January 10, 2008 3:36 PM

The surge worked?

I'm reminded of the old saying: "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

Posted by CN | January 10, 2008 3:43 PM

"What's President McCain going to do when it turns out that all of his subordinates throughout the government want more resources to be put at their disposal?"

Easy. Borrow more from the Chinese.

Posted by bob h | January 10, 2008 3:43 PM

There is a reason we don't have a "war czar."

Actually, we do.

Posted by Joshua | January 10, 2008 3:44 PM

Why do you hate the troops so much, Matt?

Posted by Jason | January 10, 2008 3:45 PM

Is he subtly endorsing taking troops out of Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy etc? I'd be for that. Then the next President can bring back all of the troops in one fell swoop.

Posted by mad6798j | January 10, 2008 3:52 PM

That was spot on, Matt. Any unit/section/organization in government or the private sector could do a better job with more resources, but resources aren't infinite.

Posted by nodakdude | January 10, 2008 4:30 PM

Maybe it's time for the discussion on where military missions come from. The civilian leadership decides foreign policy goals. Then the civilians decide the foreign policy objectives, from which military missions (if needed) are developed. The military is not in the business of developing missions, objectives, or goals. The military tells the civilian leadership what is needed to accomplish the mission.

I think our press actually knows this. Maybe they'll wake up some day.

And then there's the issue of the non-existant monolithic block of 1.3 billion muslims with a common agenda of conquering the world ...

Posted by Thom Tobiason | January 10, 2008 4:33 PM

Matt, this is a ridiculous criticism of the statement that's there.

Sanjay, it might be a ridiculous criticism if the president and the Republicans in Congress hadn't repeatedly stated that the Generals would decide how many troops we'd keep in Iraq and how long. It was the fundamental argument during Petraeus' testimony last September.

Politicians make decisions about when to go to war and when to stop - even how many soldiers will be deployed and for how long. Soldiers follow orders. This is the way it's supposed to work in a democracy.

The Republican argument makes scapegoats out of the military ("It was General Franks's plan!"). Our problems in Iraq require political solutions - that requires politicians to stop hiding behind the Generals. The best Petraeus can do is provide time.

Posted by Jinchi | January 10, 2008 4:56 PM

Oh, please. Where was this when Harry Reid said "Listen to the Generals"?

Outright hackery, Matthew.

Posted by Al | January 10, 2008 5:04 PM

Generally speaking, the dumber the marketing term the dumber the thing being marketed.

Posted by Linus | January 10, 2008 5:46 PM

Y'know, I came into this election thinking that all of the likely candidates all had the same (unstated) understanding:

Iraq's problems will not sort themselves out on an American timetable, and the Treasury cannot keep cranking out bonds to pay for the war in the meantime. Therefore, whoever inherits this mess will start closing up shop ASAP so that the repercussions don't screw up the next mid-terms too much.

In other words, they're all closet quitters.

Posted by cmholm | January 10, 2008 5:47 PM

It's not "all his subordinates" McCain's going to show this much deference to, it's just the generals, and there's nothing remotely surprising about this attitude to anyone who knows him: it's straight out of Vietnam, where McCain was a career military guy who thought, like a lot of military guys, that the civilian commanders were idiots. (Read his book, it's all there.) You've got to remember: McCain is third-generation Navy, he only left the Navy after his release because he was too badly injured to fly anymore, he's got one son at Annapolis and another in Iraq. He's always going to see the world through the prism of the military, and while I'm sure he'd decide on his own policy goals, I'm also sure he'd give a lot of weight to Petraeus et al when it comes time to implement those goals. It doesn't reflect anything about his overall approach to policy-making; just about his approach to using the military.

Also, I've gotta say: I've noticed a lot of snarky McCain posts over the last few days. He's not the nominee yet, you know.

Posted by Shoshana | January 10, 2008 5:52 PM

Combining this with that later quote of his that Petraeus alone should decide "when we withdraw from Iraq" (which Mark Kleiman also noticed), I fear we do indeed have further proof -- if any were needed -- that McCain is spectacularly mentally lazy, and that he tries to excuse this fact by blathering endlessly about being a Straight Talker. In this case, it will indeed be interesting to see what happens when his Iraq commanders say they need more troops, his Afghan commanders say THEY need more troops. Will he flip a coin?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 10, 2008 7:15 PM

"Any unit/section/organization in government or the private sector could do a better job with more resources..."

Well, no, you could give Bush infinite resources and he'd still screw everything up. That's what he DOES.

The same applies to the Pentagon, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan where they don't have a CLUE what's going on and no plan except to make the situations worse.

The problem isn't "listening to the generals", it's listening to the generals who are morons - which is most of them, but not necessarily all of them. Certainly Petraeus is not only one of the morons, he's a lying moron with a political agenda.

The civilian leadership should be listening to civilian military scholars who both understand the military mind (such as it is) and also the actual history of military operations and how wars are fought and won. Rarely does the serving military officer corps really have a grasp of those matters from a broad perspective. Which is not say there aren't excellent military historians or strategists serving - but they aren't being listened to in preference to the career-greasing Pentagon power structure.

McCain is a senile old fool who has no clue what he's talking about on just about every issue. The fact that he's "old military" should remove him from consideration of ever being President. Eisenhower was an aberration and made foreign policy mistakes himself. No long-term military type should ever be elected President, although merely having served obviously is not a disqualifying criteria and probably is a positive criteria.

(And don't bring up George Washington, that was two hundred years ago.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 8:03 PM

"Notably, they don't grapple with the fact that before the surge began, the surge's proponents outlined goals for the surge, and the surge's goals have not been achieved."

As one who has actually served in combat and who knows some of the those on the ground, what in the hell is your substantiation for this remark.

You people are incredible. Can't have it both ways, and apparently you would rather have it the other way, with our defeat.

Despicable. You spit on the grave of those who have served.

Posted by Jack Moss | January 10, 2008 8:13 PM

"Notably, they don't grapple with the fact that before the surge began, the surge's proponents outlined goals for the surge, and the surge's goals have not been achieved."

As one who has actually served in combat and who knows some of the those on the ground, what in the hell is your substantiation for this remark.

If you would try to keep up with current events you might realize that one year ago President Bush outlined a number of goals for the "surge" in his speech to the nation.

All security for Iraq was to be turned over to the Iraqis by November. Didn't happen.

The Iraqis were to pass legislation to distribute oil revenues to all citizens. Didn't happen.

The Iraqis were to pass legislation to make it possible to amend their constitution. Didn't happen.

Iraqi elections were to be held in 2007 to help empower the Sunnis and make them more amenable to and part of the new government. Didn't happen.

And these words from your Dear Leader himself:

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. Didn't happen.

As for you:

Despicable. You spit on the grave of those who have served.

You don't sound like one who actually has served, as you claim. You sound more like a typical right-wing Internet troll pretending to be a war hero. Whatever, your melodrama would probably go over much better elsewhere. Have you tried Free Republic? They love your kind of garbage over there. People here tend to be rational.

Posted by Pug | January 10, 2008 10:16 PM

Jack Moss, do you have any actual details or only anger. The surge was based on giving breathing space for the Iraqi political leadership to come to political reconciliation. Bush and Petraeus are the very ones who outlined those goals. They have not been achieved. Spinning out low blows like "Despicable. You spit on the grave of those who have served" just demostrates that you probably don't have a high regard for democratic discourse.

Posted by Reality Man | January 10, 2008 10:27 PM

"You spit on the grave of those who have served."

Yeah, I do.

You gotta problem with that?

And why? Because people like you spit on the graves of the civilians you killed accomplishing your wonderful mission which was based on lies and greed for oil.

So fuck you.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 10:56 PM

You know, this does rack one point for the waiting-until-the-shit-cools-down-and-then-saying-you-had-everything-to-do-with-it strategy. Lots of people now buy the idea that the surge "worked". When, you know, if you just waited until now without the surge, you'd probably still see the same drop off in casualties.

Posted by gerontion | January 11, 2008 6:54 AM

"As one who has actually served in combat and who knows some of the those on the ground, what in the hell is your substantiation for this remark.

You people are incredible. Can't have it both ways, and apparently you would rather have it the other way, with our defeat.

Despicable. You spit on the grave of those who have served."

As one of the veterans of the armed forces who hovers between Atlantic blog threads from time to time (I'm sure I'm not the only one), I suggest you STFU with your pious bullying. Getting shot in the ass in 'Nam doesn't instantly enlighten a person about the best foreign policy positions to take. Nor does support for the troops demand a person get all enthusiastic about the business of killing foreigners. Doing time for Uncle Sam doesn't obviate your responsibility as a moral agent in the world, Mr. Moss, and it really is quite possible that the people who died by your hand (if any) didn't deserve it, and could be alive today and happy, if you hadn't been sent their way. That's a possibility you should be grappling with, as frightening as the consequences of it would be, instead of pretending that you don't have to think about it, because everything about the war is just and good and right.

This is the central problem with being a soldier. On the one hand, you're supposed to follow orders, but on the other, you are still ultimately responsible for your own actions. In order to serve one's country in good conscience requires an almost blind faith in the decision making capabilities of the state. Mr. Moss has to believe that our mission in Iraq is a good one, and cannot tolerate discourse indicating the contrary, because if it were true it would mean that he wasn't some paladin furthering justice in the world, but just a government-sponsored murderer.

It's a situation that actually demands our sympathy. Most people wouldn't suggest that we should just get rid of our military. But as long as there is a military, there is also the risk that it will be used foolishly. Which means that we need people who are willing, out of ignorance or apathy, to play a high-stakes moral game. How soldiers deal with the situation is up to them, but I think, since we collectively have put them up to it, they deserve a certain latitude in how they process the moral ambiguities. In the meantime, our job is to make sure that they don't get sent across the globe running fool's errands. Every innocent who dies in Iraq reflects on us for our failures to ensure that our democratically governed political system isn't taken over by a bunch of callous, testosterone-driven dipshits.

Posted by gerontion | January 11, 2008 7:20 AM

An exercise in mental vapidity: Maybe it's time for the discussion on where military missions come from. The civilian leadership decides foreign policy goals. Then the civilians decide the foreign policy objectives, from which military missions (if needed) are developed. The military is not in the business of developing missions, objectives, or goals. The military tells the civilian leadership what is needed to accomplish the mission.
I think our press actually knows this. Maybe they'll wake up some day.
And then there's the issue of the non-existant monolithic block of 1.3 billion muslims with a common agenda of conquering the world ...
Posted by Thom Tobiason

1. Civilian leadership does not decide foreign policy goals independent of external events, military thinkers, economics, geostrategy. Frequently, other stakeholders tell them what the goals must be, including the military if they pick up a geostrategic or national security threat.

2.Then the civilians decide the foreign policy objectives, from which military missions (if needed) are developed.

Sometimes that is exactly vice versa, the military does not work in a vacuum where new foreign policy and diplomacy does not have to be conducted to support a mission. So many is the time when the Pentagon officers march out and tell not just their chain of command but policy-makers, State with what the civilians need to do.

Even when military missions follow foreign policy or domestic economic goals, the military is not just handed a mission without extensive military advice and input early in the civilian policymakers process.

3. The military is not in the business of developing missions, objectives, or goals.

Get in the real world. Military people and ex-military operating purely to provide military expertise are exactly in that business. They are major contributors to policy-making organs like the National Security Council, President's Foreign Policy Advisory Council, House and Senate Committee staff - in developing missions, objectives, and goals. Much of our foreign policy, and many domestic programs come from the thinking of military war colleges, foreign military strategists, and military technology requiring domestic and foreign policy changes. Changes that show a white paper, policy brief, even a full war plan developed solely by military people, vetted through Pentagon civilians in circumstances that are not time-critical. In certain countries, policy-makers get more extensive guidance from US military assets on what is going on and what future actions are recommended than from civilian advisors.

In addition to policy, at times very able military are assigned to civilian executive posts. There is no absolute rule against it, but for keeping the principle of civilian final approval, it is used sparingly.

Secretary of State General George Marshall, General MacArthur's stellar job as Viceroy of Japan, Senior Diplomat General Anthony Zinni, President's Chief of Staff, Sec of State Alexander Haig, General Colin Powell NSA and Sec of State. And now General Michael Hayden running all intelligence through the CIA are examples.

4. The military tells the civilian leadership what is needed to accomplish the mission.

Few missions are developed without military input and consultation ahead of time. And any competent civilian leadership knows the military stocks up warplans that cover about 80-90% of expected or possible future missions so it is smart for the civilians to ask what plans are on the shelf already before reinventing the wheel. And learn from the mental exercise of making detailed war plans on specific countries if their capabilities are lacking, and how the quality of thinking in those exercises is evaluated as part of a senior officer's fitness. Invade Ecuador? Sure, there's probaly a plan for that.

Another reason the military isn't just handed a mission done entirely by civilians is that the military is the repository of much of the military law and military diplomacy expertise and need to have those assets involved in deciding on what mission may be optimum and consonant with law.

Posted by chris ford | January 11, 2008 8:14 AM

To Chris Ford (above):
This comment was made in the context of the question of Gen. Petraus deciding when we should leave Iraq. Or deciding anything regarding the U.S. national policy interests by himself.

If the General can decide WHEN we should leave Iraq, should we be happy to allow him to decide when to attack Iran? When and in what manner? Do we really want commanders on the ground making up foreign policy on the fly regardless of what the civilian leadership says? What about Admiral Fallon? What control over our foreign policy should he have?

My point was that we traditionally have had civilian control over the military and clear roles for each. You seem to be arguing against this. Right?

Posted by Thom Tobiason | January 11, 2008 11:52 AM

I didn't read all the comments in-depth so don't know if this has been mentioned, but my understanding of why things are quieter in Iraq is that it is pretty much partitioned now in the cities: Sunnis & Shiites (& Kurds?) are in separate neighborhoods now, rather than integrated. Some have been encouraged to return, but will a full-scale return bring conflict with the current occupants of their houses?

Also, is McCain willing to endorse a mandatory troop call-up (the 'draft') in his Presidential campaign? Because that is what it is going to take in order to maintain the troop levels that he wants over the next number of years without completely decimating the military. I wish the interviewers on Fox would have asked a tough question like that during the S. Carolina debate.

Posted by c gilbert | January 11, 2008 4:58 PM

No need for the draft. Just discontinue the re-enlistment bonuses and enlistment rates will improve. It's magic. Like tax cuts.

Posted by g jackson | January 15, 2008 1:00 PM