I feel disorientated with the return to "singledom," which was a state I used to take as my natural state. I think, after I managed to get Gina to divorce me, I was pretty confident that this was it for me as far as being in any form of partnership was concerned. I was also pretty sure that I would have nothing to do with graduate Singapore Chinese women.
Well, I admit I am singing a very different tune. She's younger (Tara's age) and Singaporean Chinese. A graduate with an architecture degree who works in media sales. There's something special about her...so much so that although the relationship is in early days, I find myself wanting to be with her for as long as I can.
Anyway, since she's in the US, I might as well rant a bit about things involving the US, of which one of the issues that has been making the news is the rather public comments made by General Stan McChrystal, the man who will be the commanding general in Afghanistan.
The good general is being castigated by the "media" for taking his views public, so as to put his Commander-in-Chief in a tough spot. General McChrystal has said that he needs at least 40,000 troops on the ground to secure the American position in Afghanistan. This is supposedly contrary to what Vice-President Joe Bidden wants and although the General's boss, Defense Secretary, Bob Gates still supports the General, he's made the point that views should be presented to the President but in private. The General, it seems has committed the sin of trying to go one up on the "Commander-in-Chief."
Personally, I'm for McChrystal. Having served my stint in National Service, I'm all for top soldiers who are willing to take on civilian politicians in the public arena. During the last few years, I became an admirer of the former Chief of General Staff of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, who had the courage to tell the politicians in public that he thought they had lost the plot in Iraq. Unlike his American counterparts who saluted the mistakes they knew the politicians were making and then criticized them once they retired (with full pension), General Dannatt made his comments public and while in office. To the credit of the British Establishment, General Dannatt stayed in his office - though the word has it that Prime Minister Gordon Brown personally blocked his promotion to becoming Chief of Defense Staff.
Why did I feel such a compunction to salute General Dannatt? Why do I feel that same compunction to salute General McChrystal? The intellectual pundits are telling me that these men broke the fundamental rule of being soldiers - they interfered in politics and that is supposed to be a really bad thing. I remember when I was a student and the discussion turned to the role of the military and it's relationship with politicians, the answer a lot of people gave was, "Who elected you, the solider?" My Favourite Young Politician who can't even serve a day in PTP (Physical Training Phase) with crying, actually told me, "I would salute the politician over the solider any day - the politician plans."
Yet, in spite of all these influences, I can't help but wish that we had more top brass like Generals Dannatt and McChrystal. To me, I believe that such men are necessary to put a reality check on politicians who play with the lives of troops whenever election fever looms.
Let me clarify my position. I don't think soldiers should become politicians. They're two different games and a good soldier does not necessarily make a good politician. Somehow, once a general gets used to the perks of civilian office, they find it hard to let go. Eisenhower was a great general in World War II but his record as President was dull, at best. Over here in Southeast Asia, the Generals don't have a particularly good record of running the show - and I'm not even going to discuss Nigeria, which has had a history of military brutes thinking they could run the country.
However, I do believe that every senior military commander has a fundamental duty to look after the troops under his command. War is a brutal business and it's usually paid for with the lives of the troops on the ground. Yes, I know, when someone joins the armed forces, they do so on the understanding that they could die in a war - but having said that, the leaders of these men have an obligation to make sure that they're chances of getting killed in combat are minimized and if the guy dies, it's not in vain. I'm with George Patton when he says, "It's not my job to die for my country, I just make sure the other son-of-a-bitch dies for his."
When you look at things this way, what is a general supposed to do? I believe that the top brass has to ensure that the troops know the job and they're prepared for it - ie they need to be trained for it and they need to have adequate equipment for the job.
So, when you look at things this way, Generals Dannatt and McChrystal are doing exactly what good Generals should do - they are looking after the troops under their command. Why did the politicians get upset with General Dannatt? The answer was simple - he pointed out that British Troops did not have the right equipment to do the job - Whitehall was trying to fight a war on the cheap at the expense of the lives of troops. Why is McChrystal in hot soup with the media? He's pointing out that you need to put a certain amount of troops on the ground to get things done - the man is fully aware that former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld screwed the troops by sending too little of them in to hold the country together - despite being otherwise advised by the generals.
You'll always notice that the media tends to portray top brass in a negative light. The generals and admirals are somehow in a secret conspiracy to hide this or that from the President. The truth could not be further from that. Good Generals and Admirals are a lot less bloodthirsty than civilian politicians. In the Bush Administration, it was the ONLY person who had seen REAL COMBAT who did want to go into Iraq (Colin Powell).
Unfortunately politicians tend to think that wars can be fought on the cheap. George Bush I did a fabulous job in kicking Sadamm out of Kuwait - unfortunately, his mastery of that war was lost on his son. The Old Man set a clear agenda and let the generals run the show, and more importantly provided the necessary support for them to do the job. Maggie Thatcher did something similar in the Falklands - there was a clear objective and experts got what they needed to get the job done. Fag Boy Bush and Tony Twat thought they could go in and kick a bit of arse and come out smelling of roses - unfortunately the towel heads had other ideas and started shooting back.
The Generals were blamed for being "good" boys who went along and saluted whatever the Nancy Boys wanted, which they was not possible. You cannot expect to work miracles and you shouldn't even try when it means another human being pays with his life for your fuck ups.
If General McChrystal is being "Bad" because he's making it public that he thinks Afghanistan needs 40,000 troops, I say we need more bad generals like that. Iraq became a quagmire because Rumsfeld didn't think the views of his generals were worth a shit and thought he could win a war on the cheap. Unfortunately that's not how it works. To ram in your point, you sometimes need to place the politicians in a tight spot. If General McChrystal says he needs 40,000 troops to secure the military objective, he should have them. If the politicians think its not worth the cause, they should not send in the troops at all. Which is worse, to speak out of turn and upset your superior or to allow your superior to send people to their deaths unnecessarily? I know which option I'd go for.
Geen opmerkingen
Een reactie posten