A Non-Event, Yes Sir!

September 7, 2007

At this point in time -- September of 2007 -- we are awaiting the report of a general in Iraq and for some reason this report is going to somehow have bearing on whether or not we keep our armed forces in Iraq or bring them home.

I won’t deal with such issues as the majority of the American public wants the army home or by countering this desire (arrogantly) the U.S. President demeans American citizens, implying they are dependent, ignorant, childish. I won’t deal with the issue of the United States being criminal because it invaded without good cause a relatively defenseless country, has established bases there, continues to subject it to violence, and is now blaming that country for not being more welcoming, for not being more democratic, for not more effectively attacking and subduing those of its citizens who disagree with all of the above. But the following will provide clues why the Army tends to vote Republican and why, in the Army, there are distinctions between the Soldier-Soldier and the Citizen-Soldier.

The Soldier: There is no issue. If the President wants the Army to stay then the Army will stay. If the President wants the Army to pull out then the Army will pull out.

Why?

Because the President is Commander-in-Chief, head of all armed forces, and they will do what he says.

Would they do this knowing that the President was wrong and that they might die because of it?

That is not the issue. Any soldier might die at any time. It is not the job of the soldier to question the President. What the President says is an order. The job of the soldier is to obey. If the President says go, you go.

Without debate, thought, research?

Yes. But if the President asks for debate, thought or research, then there will be debate, thought or research.

Then such activities might counter the President’s wishes?

Only if the President allows that to happen. Only if the President asks for a report -- an objective report -- of the debate, thought, research.

You mean such debate, thought, research might simply be employed to support the President regardless of objective evidence to the contrary?

Absolutely. If he so orders.

The President gets what the President wants?

Sir, Yes, Sir!

So, the President, if he or she wants the truth, must specify: Must ask for the report (1) of an objective opinion (2) made by an objective effort (3)?

Yes.

This seems very absolutist, very monarchical? Not very democratic?

It is not democratic. It is the Army way. The Army is not democratic.

What if a general, an officer, were to go to the President , or his equivalent commanding officer, and disagree with the President’s opinion?

He can but he is putting his head on a platter. The President may ask him or her to resign (or worse). You see, in a less democratic country he might be shot.

What if a Private or Sergeant were to go to his commanding officer and disagree?

The same. The President or commanding officer might agree, but even then ask the soldier to obey. If the soldier did not, then the soldier might be punished, discharged, even imprisoned. An officer might be given the out of resigning, but lower grades are given fewer choices.

"If I want your opinion I will ask for it?"

Exactly.

Do they ever ask?

No, Sir.

What does it mean, then, that the newspapers and television are all awaiting the report of the general in Iraq?

It means the general will report what his commander-in-chief wants him to report. If he cannot then he will have reported to the President beforehand that he cannot. The President might ask him to resign or report what he the President wants anyway or order him to tell the public that the President has ordered him to be objective and then report what the President wants anyway.

To lie?

Of course.

Then all of the hoopla about the general’s report -- implying that it is the general’s honest, candid, objective opinion -- is meaningless? Is it this way always?

Fundamentally, yes. Some Presidents might establish a pattern of allowing their generals -- some levels -- or chiefs of staff -- some level -- to be open, candid, objective with the public. In this case, where we have seen so many generals disagree and they are long gone, it is clear that the President wants strict discipline. There have been too many retired generals.

Then this is not the American public’s war? But it is truly the army’s war and will always be -- must be -- as long as it is President Bush’s war?

Sir, Yes, Sir!

(If I have left you curious about the military mentality, I will elaborate in a future dialogue, called Yes Sir! Part II.)