At times, waging PLMCC can be nearly as dangerous for admirals and generals as waging war. Take the line between civilian and military control. Crossing that boundary is not unlike entering a minefield or no-man's land in war. And in this country, not since Douglas McArthur has a four-star general crossed that line. That is not the case in Britain.
In October, General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the British General Staff (equivalent to the U.S. Army Chief of Staff), pushed these boundaries to the limit. In an interview with London's Daily Mail, which trumpeted the story with a headline announcing that a general said Britain "to quit" Iraq. Sir Richard created a political firestorm. The next day, he was pressed by the media to clarify or confirm his comments. He backed off slightly, but largely stood his ground. Several ministers called for his resignation.
This episode raises some crucial questions about civilian and military control and when or if senior officers can and should publicly express dissent or disagree with policy. In large measure, the explosive headline caused much of the stir and attracted widespread attention. But too bad for those who just read the headline, because Sir Richard's comments were on the mark, particularly this one: "Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have to speak the truth. Leaking and spinning. at the end of the day. are not helpful."
There's another question: Does resignation have any place in policy dissents, especially since virtually no senior American officers, at least of four-star rank, have tendered theirs?
What did Sir Richard say in the 2,136-word interview? He began by talking about the troops. His initial comments were ahout improving pay. medical care of wounded soldiers, changing tours of duty in the war zone, and upgrading military equipment. However, he had some powertul observations.
First, he said. "I am going to stand up for what is right for the Army." He followed that with. "The Army won't let the nation down, hut I don't want the nation to let the Army down. Then came the zingers.
Beginning with Iraq, the general said. "The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar tor the region . . . . That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."
The most controversial passage followed. "Sir Richard adds, strongly, that we should 'get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.'"
Sir Richard further recommended dialogue with Iran and North Korea, spoke of how and why values and morality underpinned the Army and touched on the interesting question of whether Princes Harry and William, who both have joined the Army, would deploy with their units to the combat zones.
Did General Dannatt go too far? My reading of the interview leads to a resounding no. He was offering his opinions truthfully and professionally. Yet using the Daily Mail to convey that message and clearly providing a far more sobering account than have President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, sends a powerful and unsettling warning to the politicians in charge. One suspects that if Sir Richard were in an American uniform, he would be invited to take early retirement.
As for quitting, our system and military culture here do not regard resignation as a useful end except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Even during the depths of the Vietnam War, no admiral or general resigned in protest. However, the nature of the current ideological struggle with religious extremism and a political ideology that has highjacked Islam may have changed the nature and notion of warfare.
One legacy of this struggle, particularly if the situation in Iraq disintegrates and Afghanistan worsens, could he a reassessment of the traditional civilian-military relationship and the role of military dissent. It is impossible to know if that will happen and if it does whether the armed forces and the nation will he better off for it. However, there is one conclusion. Sir Richard's comments mark the beginning and not the end of this debate.
Harlan Ullman is a columnist for Proceedings whose newest book is America's Promise Restored: Preventing Culture, Crusade, and Partisanship from Wrecking Our Nation.