Printed with Permission of Col Charles F. Kriete
THE ARMY
When civilians hear the word "commander" they mostly think of someone giving an order to subordinates. And, of course, commanders do give orders. But "command" as a concept has far greater meanings and implications than ordering folks around. It is in fact the basis of the claim that military service is a profession. The military's real purpose is "to control the violence of war in a way that permits the outcome to be some useful social outcome" (Morris Janowitz)
The key sentence in the army regulation which defines command says, "The commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do". This statement forms the basis not only for the operation of units, both in combat and peacetime, but also the ways those units are organized, and how they relate to one another and the enemy. It is that legal structure which creates a purposeful organization out of an uncontrollable, destructive mob.
The command system works as it was designed to work only when all the elements of the chain, from Theater Army to squad, speak honestly with each other - without concern for the effect that their words will have on both superiors and subordinates. Human nature being what it is, this is a seldom fully-realized ideal. Courage, and confidence in your commander are needed on both sides when the news you bring is bad news. The army succeeds ONLY to the degree that speech up and down the command is truthful and complete. The corollary of the orders given is that the commander giving them takes responsibility for the outcome of their execution.
A classic case of the breakdown of this reponsibility is Abu Ghraib, Iraq. The torture of prisoners there was leaked to the public by pictures taken by folks at the lowest levels of command. The Major General appointed to investigate this ugly situation made a thoroughly honest report. It confirmed that the provisions of the Geneva Convention (actually, they are laws binding the behavior of the armies of all signatory nations, the USA being one of them) were violated repeatedly, on direction from superiors. The ultimate response of the highest levels of command was to blame the lowest ranking personnel, prosecute them in military courts, and then dismiss the whole matter in hope that it would be quickly forgotten.
When the trial of one of the offenders began, a subpoena was issued to Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller (who was in charge of the interrogation of the prisoners) by the legal counsel of one of the Warrant Officers conducting the investigations who was the defendant at the trial. This General Officer took the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination) rather than testify, on the grounds that if he told the truth in his testimony he would be incriminating himself. There is no record that he ever did or said anything to acknowledge any of his responsibility for their behavior. This Major General had also supervised the interrogation of inmates at our prison in Guantanamo.
Maj Gen Miller's refusal to take any responsibility for the outcome of his instructions he may have given at Abu Ghraib is just one of the instances in which the Army doctrine of command responsibility has been flouted in our invasion of Iraq. What is at stake here is not the relatively trivial problem of actions which violate both the letter and the spirit of the Army Regulation governing the performance of the command function. Not one senior officer connected with our invasion has stood up to take responsibility for any of the reprehensible activities so far disclosed. And those who planned and executed that invasion, failing to anticipate what chaos would develop there after the Iraqi army was disbanded, have been completely silent. None has stood up to take responsibility for the plans they prepared and the orders given to execute their provisions. They have been completely silent.
Those of us who love the Army, and respect the command structure, and who have given it our best efforts in Vietnam and elsewhere, are ashamed at what its commanders have now done and refuse to take responsibility for, in and after our invasion of Iraq. That invasion, condemned by Pope John Paul II in an encyclical issued before that invasion took place, was based on lies and false intelligence. "We, the People", now need to hold them accountable for their lack of honor.
Charles F. KrieteCh(COL) USA, RetiredDistinguished Fellow, US Army War College
Comments are closed for this post.
