I noted yesterday that for all the conservative outrage in response to Harry Reid’s fairly mild criticism of outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, the right neglected to realize that Pace had just been fired. All things being equal, if conservatives have formed a We Love Peter Pace Fan Club, they should direct some of their ire towards the White House and the Pentagon, not Reid’s office.
A couple of readers emailed to suggest that I’d made a leap. We don’t know for sure the circumstances surrounding Pace’s departure, so it’s hard to say with certainty that Bush “fired” Pace. Fair enough.
As of today, however, we can say it with certainty.
In his first public comments on the Bush administration’s surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.
To quit in wartime, he said, would be letting down the troops.
“The other piece for me personally was that some 40 years ago I left some guys on the battlefield in Vietnam who lost their lives following 2nd Lt. Pace,” [Pace, responding to a question from the audience after he spoke at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk] said. “And I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed — that it’s not my decision. I need to be told that I’m done.
“I’ve been told I’m done.”
Now consider the context of this story in light of the right’s sudden fascination with hurting Pace’s feelings.
Harry Reid, in a conference call with seven people, suggested that Pace hasn’t been candid enough with Congress when it comes to assessments of the war. Today, the Republican National Committee issued a statement saying that Reid “attack[ed] our military.” The RNC added that Reid “insulted” a man who has “served our nation for his entire adult life with honor and distinction.” (This follows along the lines of the right-wing blogs, which continue to insist without reason that Reid made “antimilitary slurs.”)
Which is worse, a senator’s mild, one-sentence criticism of a general’s judgment, or the president firing that general in the midst of a war?
I have to admit, the right’s ridiculousness in going after Reid on this one has caught me off-guard. I just didn’t expect conservatives to be so outraged over a one-word quote offered in passing. Clowns at the RNC manufacture pathetic attacks with some regularity, but this is just weak, even for them. The right’s argument over the last 48 hours has basically boiled down to this: No matter what the facts, Democrats aren’t allowed to criticize military leaders.
Predictably, the right seems to have the broader dynamic backwards. Melissa Tryon, a West Point grad, argued in the Washington Monthly that Democratic leaders should criticize the military brass:
Bluntly put, there’s no escaping the role played by top military brass in getting us to this point. Nor can the brass avoid blame for understating the catastrophic implications of White House decisions for military readiness, training, supply, recruiting, medical systems, and overall morale…. For too many senior military officials, going along with poorly considered civilian plans has been justified in the name of respect for civilian control. It often looks more like careerism masquerading as principle.
….For any Democratic candidate genuinely interested in making inroads with the military, learning about the perspectives of enlisted soldiers and lower-ranking officers — not admirals and generals — will be essential. With any luck, such a candidate will come away convinced of the need for greater accountability from the upper ranks, echoing down through subordinate leaders and across to civilian counterparts.
As Kevin Drum noted, “In a democracy with civilian control of the military, criticism of the top brass is not only appropriate, it’s necessary. It’s what you get from people who actually care about how well the military works and whether our soldiers have the right leadership.”
Something for the far-right demagogues to keep in mind.