The progressive movement – which I seem to remember accusing a certain general of betraying the country in a full-page New York Times ad a few years back – is suddenly apoplectic that Rep. Paul Ryan would dare suggest that Pentagon leadership may not be expressing their full reservations about President Obama’s defense budget cuts.
The Rachel Maddow blog slams Ryan’s “unbridled chutzpah,” and concludes:
And finally, there’s the biggest, most jaw-dropping angle of them all: Paul Ryan, who has never served in the military a day in his life, believes he knows better than the U.S. military leadership what funding levels are needed to “keep people safe.”
Amazing. Just amazing.
This, from a pundit who just published a book this week premised on the idea the U.S. needs to shrink national defense – and who also has no military experience. Maybe not the best time to be throwing stones.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey disputed Ryan’s remarks, and said he stood by his support for the defense cuts:
“There’s a difference between having someone say they don’t believe what you said versus … calling us, collectively, liars,” Gen. Dempsey told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft after a four-day visit to Latin America. ”My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”
Gen. Dempsey said the budget “was a collaborative effort” among the top officers of the military branches as well as combat leaders.
It didn’t sound like Ryan was calling the generals liars or questioning their integrity, but simply acknowledging that they work at the behest and under the authority of the Commander in Chief. And that could limit what they feel they can say publicly.
The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, who has served in the Pentagon, defends Ryan’s comments:
Why is the brass signing off on this? Well, that’s their job. I know well how this works. I saw it first hand serving in the Pentagon. The Constitution establishes civilian supremacy over the military. The president is commander in chief. He defines strategic requirements, so the way he gets the military leaders to agree is simple: He just lowers the bar of expectations. He dumbs down the requirements.
So when Congress asks the brass, “Do you have enough?” They have no choice but to answer “yes.” It is like telling marathoner who has not had time to train that he only has to run a 5-K race. Sure, he’s ready—unless he actually has to run a marathon.
So we shouldn’t be surprised when the military rubber-stamps the president’s budget. Nor should we be surprised when Congress questions them. That is the job of the Congress.
That doesn’t mean Ryan didn’t make a mistake here. His comment was still poorly-worded, giving his opponents fodder to attack him and distract from the issue. He also put military leaders in an uncomfortable position, forcing them to defend their previous statements on budget cuts to the media. But his broader argument wasn’t necessarily inaccurate.
"Boots on the ground" know best. We don't want defense cuts. When the defense budget is cut three things occur: training is cut, technical publications are cut, and manpower is reduced: it's the guys on the hangar deck who are hurt most. Flags at the Pentagon kowtow to their political bosses because, hey, they aspire to one more star. If the president questions them of course they are going to agree with his point of view. Very few Flags have the backbone to standup to the president. The guys on the hangar deck aren't stupid: we know who has our back, and it isn't the leadership in the Pentagon, it's men like Congressman Ryan.
Don't you just love it when libs who hate the military deride others for discussing the military…its as if the libs are in on large clown skit.
Dempsey? isn't he the general who called Iran a "rational actor" and said that the US government had no idea at all if Iran even WANTED a bomb? n nyeah, I'm going to believe him. ri-i-i-ght.
What was Rep Ryan hoping to accomplish? He could not reasonably be expecting that military leaders would acknowledge forsaking genuine need in favor of a politically driven budgetary limit. It seems he has introduced controversy with no real scenario for benefit. Add to that the historical reality that Congress has a history of pushing military spending that the military has not wanted or needed. Given the motivation to create jobs in their districts, our representatives touting the need for more military spending should be subject to the larger share of scrutiny.
I wiill state what Ms. Goodman merely implies — the military is required — as in "go to jail if you don't" to follow orders. And when the Obama Admin orders them to say X, Y & Z, they are required to say it — regardless of their personal opinions. The LightSquared mess comes to mind…. n nAll the way back to George Washington and Valley Forge, it has been the duty of Congress to ask the difficult questions that the commanders and POTUS would prefer not being asked….
I wiil state what Ms. Goodman merely implies — the military is required — as in "go to jail if you don't" to follow orders. The military implements policy, not makes it — the military implements it as best it can without questioning why. They understand that this is necessary, and those who rise up through the ranks to General Officer or Admiral and beyond understand this. n nCase in point: LightSquared. The brass knew how bad it would be for our GPS system, but they were given their marching orders and they followed them until some of the politicians asked the right questions, which — as they also can not lie — they had to answer and did. And then some folk asked a few more of the right questions and the true story came out. n nSo too here — the issue may well be what do we need versus what can we afford but the Generals are going to follow orders. In response to pfkga89 above, YES, military leaders would forsake genuine need if they are ordered to do so (for whatever reason the commander decides). The exception shows the rule — McArthur in Korea. n nThis is why it is so crucial to have politicians who have actually served in the military — not this "Chicken Hawk" garbage that is so bogus because no one (including themselves) are mentioning the people who served our nation in the clandestine services (e.g. CIA) and that is every bit as much service to our country as being in Iraq — in fact, many of them *are*… n nWe need to have politicians who have served in the military because they can ask questions like "umm, if the life of a tank engine is XYZ hours and we have this many of them and this many hours of operation for these missions, let alone training and other stuff, aren't you way under-estimating the number you are going to need and the personnel needed to swap them out?" n nAnd the military guy probably (a) knows that and (b) would probably love to answer that question because (c) he can not be ordered to lie to a member of Congress and everyone knows that. nHe will answer the question narrowly — and the Congressman with military experience (or a staffer who does) will then say "But Sir, you are using the engine maintenance and life expectancy figures for Diesel fuel but we have the "one fuel in theater" policy and are running our tanks on Jet Fuel which has a completely different set of statistics because it lacks the lubricating qualities of Diesel and the engines wear out faster." n nOr the flip side — and this was defeated — "Sir, exactly how do we benefit from having two different engines for this one jet fighter? We have to have two different sets of manuals, two different sets of tools, and two different sets of technicians trained on the particular engine — and then we have to keep track of which engine is in each plane to make sure that the right people and tools and manuals go along with it to maintain it. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have ONE type of engine so that all the planes are identical and we don't have to worry about this?" n nOf course, there weren't jobs in Lynn, Massachusetts because of this — the GE plant there was to be making the second engine — but this really was asinine and it was defeated. Defeated because we all have cars and understand that you have to go to a Toyota dealership for Toyota parts, you can't get them from the Ford guy. But for other stuff, you really have to have been in the military to understand. And that — not the "Chicken Hawk" garbage — is why we truly need politicians with military service — and politicians not of the John Kerry stripe but those who understand the military independent of political views.