You can't fire him, dude!

You’re Fired!
By Joseph Walther


The discussion went along the lines of, “Military officers are not supposed to go around second-guessing an elected president.” Another voice chimed in with, “But, what if the president’s an idiot?” This elicited, “How come you’re an asshole?” And on and on the discussion went as participants continued to vent their frustration over the prolonged activity in Iraq.

One man insisted that the United States Constitution clearly places the President in charge of the military. He expressed adamant conviction that “generals” do not decide if or when we go to war. “Their job is to fight the war.” An obvious opponent countered with, “Those fornicating—his term had fewer letters—generals are supposed to speak up if they think he’s wrong!” As the number of expletives increased, it became more evident that this was an argument over Bush’s Iraqi policy.

My gut told me to get down and dirty with these people. “You can yell just as loud as any of these people can,” my gut said. Just as I was about to dive in, discretion, an occasional ally, whispered in my ear. “LEAVE NOW, DUMMY!” And so I did. Some arguments are just not worth the effort, even though both sides were voicing (descriptive expletives notwithstanding) valid points.

Presidents have been firing generals for centuries. During my lifetime, Harry Truman recalled and fired General Douglas Macarthur in 1951 over the Korean War. In the spring of 1977, Jimmy Carter fired Major General John Singlaub over a disagreement, also involving North Korea. Most recently, George Bush fired then Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, over a troop level disagreement pursuant to an invasion of Iraq.

Most of the time, when presidents “fire” generals, they don’t own up to it. Of course, Harry Truman was one notable exception. “Givem hell” Harry did a lot of things and owned up to all of them. Neither should anyone be concerned that the firees end up personally ruined and financially destitute. Far from it. Regardless of what the political spin doctors call it, the fact is that when flag officers disagree with the commander in chief and say so publicly, they usually end up on the civilian lecture circuit or, nowadays, as analysts on cable news programs.

When it comes to our national interests, we have a right to know all of the facts and to hear all of the issues. Declaring war and going off to fight one, at least in my view, ranks high on my list of things I want to be perfectly clear about. So how do we get to a point of clarity if not all of the parties can voice their concerns?

I want to be very clear on this point. Military authority is both constitutionally and traditionally subservient to civilian authority. Unless we’re in the mood for a military dictatorship, this is a good thing and we should not even consider changing it. However, there is a big difference between voicing opinion on political matters and voicing opinion on military matters. More important, though, is making sure that we all know the difference between political matters and military matters.

A decision to use military force to protect our interests throughout the world is a political/policy matter. The battle plans to accomplish such a feat is a military matter. Generals should not be going around voicing their opinions regarding political matters. Conversing politicians should not be going around voicing their opinions regarding military matters.

Harry Truman put General Macarthur in command of United Nations troops in Korea, with orders to push North Korean forces back to the 38th parallel. He accomplished this task, but didn’t stop there. He pushed well beyond, toward the Yalu River, the boundary between North Korea and China. He began publicly advocating aggression against China. He wrote a letter to House Speaker Joseph Martin wherein he talked about using Formosa as a launching ground. He even hinted at using “atomic” strikes. It didn’t matter to Macarthur that President Truman and the Joint Chiefs didn’t see the Korean War in the same light as he did. They wanted North Korea contained, not to go below the 38th parallel. He wanted to wipe out all of China to boot!

Whether in retrospect we agree or disagree with him, Macarthur violated a prime directive. Generals are not supposed to voice their opinions on political policy without clearing it with their civilian bosses first. Macarthur trashed the chain of command. He clearly crossed the line and Truman fired him for it. I think Truman had every right to do so.

The circumstances behind Jimmy Carter’s firing of General Singlaub were entirely different. President Carter was going to order the Joint Chiefs to withdraw the Army’s 2nd infantry division from Korea. General Singlaub considered such a move to be militaristically unsound because it would embolden the North Korean Communist Regime to redouble efforts to conquer South Korea. He expressed his opinion in a private conversation that got back to President Carter. Jimmy Carter fired him for it.

In a matter of months after the withdrawal, North Korea’s military buildup proved that Singlaub’s military opinion was the correct one. Strategically, we should never have removed the 2nd infantry division. The General’s dissent was never about political policy. It was over a proposed military strategy, something he was eminently more qualified to do than Jimmy Carter was. The President was wrong in firing him.

Finally, George Bush fired then Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki because the general had the audacity to voice his military opinion that an Iraq occupation would require over 400 thousand troops on the ground. This sent Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz into a 14-karat hissyfit because they had already promised Congress that it’d be a piece of cake involving a lot fewer troops.

Shinseki never questioned the Bush policy of military intervention in Iraq, only the best way to do it. However, the man publicly disagreed with the President, so he had to go. Of course, Bush didn’t do a Donald Trump, “You’re fired!” He just let the old general retire. In retrospect, it looks like General Shinseki was correct, but it doesn’t matter. I think Bush was wrong to fire him. This doesn’t matter, either.

One final time, I don’t think that generals should be going around publicly voicing political opinions, pro or con, regarding their civilian bosses decisions. Politicians, on the other hand should not be going around voicing military opinions unless they give the generals equal time. No one should be able to fire a general for voicing a counter military opinion before a congressional executive committee.

Perhaps Viet Nam would have had a more positive outcome and our current problems in Iraq may not be as problematic, had their civilian bosses given the generals equal time relative to military opinions.

Until next week, stay safe and don’t hold back. Have you ever wondered how many people gave up dessert on the Titanic?

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Send your comments. Just click here.