This piece by Andrew Bacevich clarifies some thoughts I'd been having about the condition of the military in the aftermath of the McChrystal debacle. My take was, "The last thing we need in Afghanistan is another warlord." From Bacevich's perspective, it's much worse than that, and I think he has a point. Eric Martin, in this post, brings in a couple of additional points vis-a-vis Bacevich's concerns.
Does anyone else see a connection between the examples Bacevich provides in his article and the reaction of Adm. Mullen and the Joint Chiefs to the push to repeal DADT? As in, suddenly it's not "how," but "whether." As I recall, there were too many protestations about preserving "military prerogatives" in that discussion. As far as I can see, the military's prerogatives are to give the best advice they can, and then obey orders.
And no, you don't have to be in uniform to understand history.
No comments:
Post a Comment