US ex-military brass raise voices in criticism of Iraq war
AFP | October 18, 2007
American ex-military men spoke out this week against the management of the war in Iraq, opening a rare schism between those whose duty is to serve and the politicians who give them marching orders.
Over the past several days, a retired general and numerous former army captains in Iraq took their message to the media, attacking the strategic faults of a war that in four years has cost more than 3,800 military lives.
Twelve ex-captains from the US army who served in Iraq between 2003 and 2006 wrote a rare editorial Tuesday calling for either a US withdrawal or a return to the draft in order to beef up the military presence there.
"To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately," they wrote in the Washington Post.
"A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition," they wrote in response to the administration's plan to bring home around 30,000 troops by next summer.
Days earlier, a former top US commander in Iraq, retired lieutenant general Ricardo Sanchez, assailed President George W. Bush's strategy, lamented that the war was "a nightmare with no end in sight," and denounced US political leaders as "incompetent."
Sanchez retired from the military in the wake of the fallout from the 2004 scandal over abuse of detainees by US military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
While the active military is normally required to refrain from expressing political opinions in public, these ex-soldiers' criticisms have raised eyebrows particularly at a time when the Iraq war is increasingly unpopular among Americans.
"Under the first amendment, the retired military have the right to speak. However while they're on active duty, these rights are constrained by the uniform code of military justice. There are restrictions," said Peter Feaver, political science professor at Duke University in North Carolina.
"The issue is: if and when it is appropriate, and the impact of it on the military as a profession, and on civil military relations," he said.
"The military has the solemn obligation to speak up forcefully in private to civilian leadership," he said.
"In return, civilians have the responsibility to make sure the military advice has been heard and factored in. They ultimately have the responsibility to make the decision."
The 2006 "generals' revolt" against then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld remains one of the most striking examples of public opposition by a group of former top-ranking military officers to those in power.
Six retired generals demanded Rumsfeld's resignation, accusing him of being responsible for mistakes made in Iraq and not considering military points of view. He has since been replaced by Robert Gates.
Among them was the first Asian-American four-star general in US history, former US army chief Eric Shinseki, who told lawmakers in 2003 that taking full control of Iraq would likely require a deployment of several hundred thousand US troops -- some five times the figure endorsed by the US defense secretary.
"I think circumstances have to be extraordinary for retired senior officers to speak out," said retired lieutenant general Gregor Newbold on Monday, part of the group that spoke out against Rumsfeld.
"I don't believe civilian control is in dispute. I don't recall any member of armed forces questioning the civilian leadership," he said.
"However, at the time I had discussions with most senior officers in every service on a daily basis and it was nearly universal. There were enormous questions about what we were doing and why."
