The American Spectator : Censoring Military Leaders

Text Size

Censoring Military Leaders

By John R. Guardiano on 4.23.09 @ 6:07AM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to silence military leaders. Congress needs to demand that they be heard.

"Once the decision is made -- and particularly once the president signs off on the budget -- then there needs to be discipline about people not conducting guerrilla warfare against decisions the president has made… We have a chain of command and that's what it's all about."
-- Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pentagon Press briefings, April 6 and 7

With those chilling words, Defense Secretary Robert Gates let it be known that he will brook no dissent within the military over his decision to gut the defense budget by canceling and "restructuring" key weapon systems. But the inconvenient truth for Gates is that his directive flies in the face of Congress and the Constitution.

Gates has proposed the most significant weapon systems cuts since the Carter administration more than 30 years ago. Gates' cuts include the elimination of the Transformational Satellite program as well as the elimination of eight new Army combat vehicle types, all of which are integral to modernizing U.S. military capabilities for 21st-century irregular warfare.

Indeed, these cuts will have profound, deleterious and far-reaching effects on our fighting men and women. Shouldn't Congress get to hear what U.S. military leaders think about these cuts? Doesn't Congressional oversight responsibility demand a full and public vetting of the defense secretary's proposals?

Gates grudgingly acknowledges that the military service chiefs "can give their professional military advice to the Congress and to the president if they disagree with [his] decisions"; but all other military leaders, he says, better shut up.

"For everybody else," he told reporters on Apr. 7, "once I've made my decisions, and once the president has made his decisions, then that is the position of this department, and they are expected to execute those programs."

Military officials, of course, have to follow the law. But the supreme law is the Constitution of the United States, which protects free speech, and which vests funding authority and oversight responsibility with Congress.

As Gates well knows, "the Pentagon," so called, is not a monolith. It has 23,000 employees and hundreds of different chains of command. Consequently, there are a variety of different Pentagon viewpoints on myriad topics, including the defense budget.

In order for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, it must subpoena and swear under oath all key participants involved in Defense Department budget deliberations, including but not limited to the military service chiefs and senior three- and four-star Generals and Admirals.

This means, pace Gates, that many more people than just the military service chiefs ought to publicly testify before Congress. More than 100 Pentagon officials, after all, were involved in this year's secret Pentagon budget deliberations. The defense secretary has benefited from their analyses; so, too, should Congress and the American people.

That's what democracy and representative government are all about: an open and vigorous exchange of ideas. All points of view should be heard, so that the American people and their elected representatives can make wise and informed decisions about our defense budget.

If Gates is confident that his cuts are wise public policy, then he should welcome, not fear, a thorough and open examination of his proposals. In actuality, however, Gates knows that his cuts are problematic at best and cannot withstand serious Congressional scrutiny. That's why he's trying to preemptively censor military leaders.

"Generals and Admirals are afraid to speak in the climate created by Gates," Dr. Rebecca Grant, a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, said to the Norfolk Examiner.

As Defense Secretary, Grant notes, "Gates has fired a service chief, [former Air Force General Michael Moseley]; two service secretaries, [former Army Secretary Francis Harvey and former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne]; and a combatant commander."

For internal Defense Department budget deliberations, Gates also forced uniformed military officers and civilian government employees to sign a secrecy oath. These are not actions that encourage free thought and open analysis by our nation's top military leaders; quite the contrary.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter:@JohnRGuardiano.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment

Bram| 4.23.09 @ 8:00AM

Silly me. I thought Gates, as one of the very holdovers from the Bush administration wouldn't fit in with Obama's people. Turns out he is the perfect guy to help Obama dismantle our military capabilities.

Gates understands that funding Acorn and a Trillion dollars worth of other Democrat pet projects is far more important than modernizing the Army and Air Force.

Louis Tully| 4.23.09 @ 9:03AM

Gates--another one of those Bush appointments he is so infamous for.

stu.b.con| 4.23.09 @ 9:18AM

Ironic isn't it? The leftards spent 5 years caterwauling about the Bush administration "listening" to the generals, but now that the obamatard is in charge they need to just shut up and follow orders. Seig Heil!
shut up davey the puke emanating from your pie hole is an insult even to your side.

Pete| 4.23.09 @ 9:39AM

They'll cut the hell out of the existing military but I bet they ramp up spending on a new federal police force to save us from conservative "terrorists" at home. Gee, I wonder why guns and ammo are selling so briskly.

Bobbi Jean| 4.23.09 @ 10:20AM

I wonder what our next 9/11 will be like. What lucky city gets to be the host this time? Cowards like Gates will have American blood on their hands.

JeffW| 4.23.09 @ 11:10AM

Did I just step into the twilight zone. DM is protesting something being socalist?? He is wrong of course as he/she never served and wouldn't have the foggiest idea but still to hear DM complain of socalism is to funny.

J.C.Eaton| 4.23.09 @ 11:25AM

There is an obvious risk to those military careerists who need to speak out for the sake of their country. General Billy Mitchell comes to mind. Mitchell came to the then-startling conclusion that aircraft would make battleships[and other capital ships] obsolete and was was ridden out of the Army for his well-needed trouble. Alternatively, there was a time when officers in the position of disaggreeing with Gates' minimalist military would have resigned to make and state their case. Yes, it's a lot to expect from soldiers, but a lot is expected of them. And it's a hell of a lot less than the poor bastards who go to war for us will suffer if they are under-equipped. Semper Fi.

Gecko| 4.23.09 @ 11:32AM

Now hold on their partners, life in the military has always been a balance of free speech versus military necessity, and there are times when those of us who have put on a uniform have had to shut our yaps cause we were told. Comes with the territory. This isn't a first amendment issue, but it does seem to be a case of the chain of command being overly protective of a decision. Most decisions, once made should be self-supporting to subordinates, if the leaders want them to carry it out. In this case, it seems like this is a very unpopular decision and the military leadership community is not standing behind it. Public bickering of our top commanders really lowers troop morale. If thay many professionals are against it, maybe their needs to be a bit more scrutiny by our elected officials. But wait, that would mean they would have to do their job. Dang it, there I go again.

Il Gecko
OKC

Dustoff| 4.23.09 @ 11:37AM

Remember how the dem's screamed about our armed forces were to small for both wars. Iraq & Afg... Now they wish to make is even smaller.

Nothing but a bunch of liars!

Tim| 4.23.09 @ 11:45AM

I'm a big fan of the M-1 tank, I guess she'll be serving well into the 2020's now.
Imagine if Bush 41 had to fight Desert Storm with M4 Sherman tanks?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/M4_Sherman_tank_at_the_Imperial_War_Musuem.jpg

J.C.Eaton| 4.23.09 @ 11:53AM

Gecko: I certainly agree with your points that the chain of command exists for good and substantial reasons, as well as yours that lawful orders, once given are the job of soldiers to carry out. BUT, the time does come, when the order is so at odds with reason, sense, good of the country, that a price for the opposition to those orders or policies must be paid. I don't know if this is one of those rare instances, but someone close to the issue knows, hope he does the tough but right thing. Best,

vealbone| 4.23.09 @ 12:17PM

Heaven forbid we have to engage in another military conflict outside of Iraq and Afganastan. If we do however it appears that our troops won't have the best equipment for their needs. This was a huge sticking point for Dems when they were screeming about a lack of armored humvees. I recall former Sec. Def. Rumsfeld being lambasted for the statement "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want". If and when we have another conflict, will it be that we're going to war with an army that is fighting with the same weapon systems that during the Bush years weren't sufficient?
Sounds like a resounding vote of confidence for our troops.....God Bless them all!!!

Robert| 4.23.09 @ 12:53PM

DM, as with everything else you say, you are bass ackwards. Clueless libtard, the military by definition IS socialist. Top down hierarchy...like you libs wish the rest of society to become.
You want to democratize the military and socialize everything else.

Gates has a job for you in today's armed forces.!

Dustoff| 4.23.09 @ 1:01PM

Robert
Gates has a job for you in today's armed forces.! (DM)
++++++++++++++++

Please.. don't torture our armed forces this way. (-:

tyler| 4.23.09 @ 1:35PM

I think this is a prime example of just who george bush had working for him. gates is a traitor hank paulson was is a registered democrat and it just shows how weird george bush was. once again conservatives were fooled by this man gates. everyone thought hes good hes with bush what a joke conservatives need to do their homework.

Jim| 4.23.09 @ 1:52PM

That's one of the nice things about DM; once you see his name you can just pass on to the next comment. In one form or another, you've already read his comment. This is the transparency that POTUS was talking about. Don't worry, they will post the proposed cuts for 5 days before they do anything.

Darin| 4.23.09 @ 2:25PM

To those who favor cutting the military:

What level do you think is acceptable? Specifics. Need to know dollars, amount/type of equipment, numbers of personnel, etc.

When trouble crops up around the world (wars, natural disasters, etc.), how is the United States going to respond? Military aircraft, ships, and personnel provide relief efforts for floods, hurricanes/tsunamis, disease, etc. I guess all that must come to an end.

When we're attacked again, I dont' want to hear word one about what we could have or should have done. Not to mention what we could or should do.

Might as well get back to pre-WWI isolationist policies and let the rest of the world take care of itself.

MT| 4.23.09 @ 2:56PM

Gates wouldn't have gotten away with this BS under George W. It took a fascist liberal President for Gates to show this cowardice.

Daisy| 4.23.09 @ 3:00PM

I just want to know where the safest part of the country is. Stay the hell away from the big cities!

John Andrew Prime| 4.23.09 @ 5:40PM

Public Affairs at 8th Air Force categorically denies that LTG Robert Elder was fired. He is near his third anniversary as CC, when they normally are promoted or retire, and speculation has been rife for weeks that he will retire. But I seriously doubt that Dr. Grant, who I know and who is a friend of General Elder, said he was fired. That's why the writer of the article used brackets, to inject his own surmise into the piece, which was silly.

Mark777| 4.23.09 @ 6:09PM

John Andrew Prime: But Dr. Grant did say that a combatant commander was relieved by Gates. If she wasn't referring to Lieutenant General Elder, then to whom was she referring? Inquiring minds wants to know.

John Andrew Prime| 4.23.09 @ 6:31PM

Elder, who today announced plans to retire, right on schedule, is not and has not been a combatant commander. I suspect she meant Admiral Fallon.

Crusader| 4.23.09 @ 7:20PM

What a job. Make asinine decisions and fire the most experienced subordinates who disagree with you. Awesome!

Michael Tomlinson| 4.23.09 @ 7:20PM

The SEC DEF and Director and Assistant Director of DHS need to step down. Time for Republicans in Congress to make an issue of BO's appointees subverting the Constitution.

Louis Tully needs to grow up and quit bitching about a solid conservative President. We know the enemy and he's the guy this type of BS helped elect.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.23.09 @ 7:22PM

The SEC DEF and # 1 & 2 at DHS need to step down. Time for Republicans to call for their heads and go after BO's trying to subvert the Constitution.

As for Loui Tully it was this type of Bush bashing by so-called conservatives that helped elect BO.

Osamas Pajamas| 4.24.09 @ 12:43AM

Remember Blowhard Biden telling us to be prepared for a very controversial decision or policy? How about this. The Demos will reduce us to a second-class world power, a goal they have long held dear to their hearts. Gates looks like a RINO --- a Democrat ---- not a Republican.

mike| 4.24.09 @ 1:35AM

keep in mind that budgets can always be reformatted, should the need arise to deal with wars and disasrers- which the coast guard/emergency rescue teams handle as well as relief workers-,etc- and so are not a problem. futhermore, i noticed that many people wondered why Democrats so uproarus during the last president's campaign, are now advocating the slashing of the military's budge. notice that, the reason democrats were so adamant about the lack of armor/armored trucks is that these are defensive technologies. notice the cuts mentioned above concern weapons systems and modernization which are almost always offensive capabilities. further more, President Bush was promoting the warand remarking at it's dangers and how it was nessesary to direct large amounts of money to the developing warfare. so democrats called him on the fact that for all his know how and god choices, he rarely listened to military advisers and promoted individuals being sent to war without proper supplies. President Obama is advocating no such war and is in fact still preserving the essentials for an army- spealized deensive technologies, and basic armored vehicles, as well as trainng and instruction. finally, of course the miltiary advisers will advocate the need for more spending, any group will advocate for more finnancing and more support, because it helps to further their gains, and the army has a need to preseve itself at all costs and in the interest of a balanced govenment to allow all sides to be heard, but these cuts are needed in times of economic crisis and uncertainty, as the death of the nation means destruction of the Army.

JeffW| 4.24.09 @ 12:47PM

Mike,
Any Marine can tell you the best defense is a good offense. They teach that when recieving fire, return fire and advance. Not hunker down, hide, or withdraw as this administration is wanting to do.

rdman| 4.24.09 @ 1:00PM

If Gates had an inkling of integrity and principles, he would resign!!!

We, the People need to "Clean House."

Richard Baker| 4.25.09 @ 9:28AM

Since WWII we have been lead too often by political Generals like Powell, Shinseki , and many others who are so career minded that they forget that the purpose of the military is to defend the country against the Goths at the door, unlike the Pullers, Emersons, and Pattons who did understand the purpose of uniformed service. Ike went on about the military-industrial complex while forgetting that large standing armies are not a favorite of Americans since the Revolution. So, we substitute weapons systems for manpower and the development of these systems is very complex and requires an infrastructure(I hate that word) to generate the force multiplication for each man in uniform. Or would the lefties want a million man militia such as that in Communist China and just call it a jobs program? Gates should go and those General officers who vehemently disagree should resign and retire and go raise Hell as civilians. This country needs more principled military leaders instead of the political class we've got, at present.

oxigi| 6.23.09 @ 3:01AM

So, we substitute weapons systems for manpower and the development of these systems is very complex and requires an infrastructure(I hate that word) to generate the force