Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Why Presidents No Longer Fire Generals

Gen. David Petraeus (R) testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee
as Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno listens on Capitol Hill May 22, 2008.

From Arm Forces Journal:

We are now more than six years into a war that spans the globe. American forces are engaged on the land, from the sea and from the air, around the planet. More than 1.6 million service members have deployed into the Central Command area of responsibility, and perhaps 35 percent of them have been there more than once.

Americans have done brave service in other areas, as well. The financial cost of this conflict, by even conservative measures, is approaching that of our largest war. The human cost, although lower as an absolute than many other wars imposed, also has taken a heavy toll on our all-volunteer professional military. In many ways one could consider this conflict, even at this point, one of the largest endeavors the nation ever attempted.

In one area, however, the current conflict is anomalous. We have retained nearly all our generals (and admirals) throughout the fight. Only a single brigadier general has been relieved for the performance of duty in a combat zone. Historically speaking, that is a curious fact.

Read more ....

My Comment: If the casualties were ten to twenty times higher in Iraq, a number of generals will be fired right now. But we do not have to speculate .... we have been witnessed to a number of generals being fired only recently. The Air Force Top General and a number of lower ranking generals were fired by Defense Secretary Robert Gates a few weeks ago .... and a number of generals have also not been promoted or reassigned.

No comments: