[inteldump] Phillip Carter: Rumsfeld and the Military Times editorial

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Phillip Carter:
Rumsfeld and the Military Times editorial
http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/archives/archive_2006_11_05-2006_11_11.shtml#1162755685


   A number of friends have asked me for my thoughts on the [1]editorial
   from the Military Times Co. -- which includes the Army Times, Air
   Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times -- calling for Defense
   Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's termination. According to the Times'
   editorial board:

     It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has
     failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to
     break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that
     he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
     These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy
     many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel
     private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition
     of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
     And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor,
     prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them
     believe it.
     Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with
     the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His
     strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And
     although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the
     secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
     This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party
     wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard
     bruising truth:
     Donald Rumsfeld must go.

   Strong words -- but who do they speak for? As a practical matter, the
   Military Times editorial board speaks for itself. Its membership
   presumably comes from its [2]staff -- a group of professional
   journalists who cover the military establishment, know it well, and in
   many cases, are veterans themselves. Like the editorial boards of
   other newspapers, they really only speak for themselves.
   However, the Military Times newspapers generally march in-step with
   their readers -- the career officers and NCOs of the U.S. military. On
   issues ranging from pay hikes to hardware to enlistment policies,
   their editorials typically reflect the consensus view among military
   professionals -- or, in many cases, the truly informed and
   well-educated view. I don't think the Times editorial board would take
   this position if it did not feel it was keeping faith with the
   uniformed men and women who support it through subscriptions and
   readership.
   Further, I think the Military Times' editorial board feels it has an
   obligation to speak out on behalf of servicemembers who cannot do so
   because of the tradition of "two centuries of American tradition of
   subordination of the military to civilian authority." The editorial
   board probably kept its counsel for some time, until the voices of
   generals, captains and sergeants reached a fever pitch. But at this
   point in history, given all that has transpired, the Military Times
   board probably felt it would be a greater breach to remain silent than
   to speak out.

References

   1. http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
   2. http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=editorial_contacts.php