AFJ

From Armed Forces' Journal:

This appears to be Yingling's full article that the Post was summarizing. He's earned his opinion, as noted below; but I wonder about his idea that involving Congress in the general officer selection process is likely to overcome the problems of politics. If anything, it seems likely to worsen them in key ways. For example:

To reward moral courage in our general officers, Congress must ask hard questions about the means and ways for war as part of its oversight responsibility. Some of the answers will be shocking, which is perhaps why Congress has not asked and the generals have not told. Congress must ask for a candid assessment of the money and manpower required over the next generation to prevail in the Long War. The money required to prevail may place fiscal constraints on popular domestic priorities. The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military. Congress must re-examine the allocation of existing resources, and demand that procurement priorities reflect the most likely threats we will face. Congress must be equally rigorous in ensuring that the ways of war contribute to conflict termination consistent with the aims of national policy. If our operations produce more enemies than they defeat, no amount of force is sufficient to prevail. Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, the services and lobbyists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving. Exercising adequate oversight will require members of Congress to develop the expertise necessary to ask the right questions and display the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads them.

Congressional confirmation procedures are something we've seen a lot of over the last several years. Does anyone really believe that these procedures ever, ever, ever even once, "reward moral courage"?

Let's say you want to be on the Supreme Court. Or an ambassador. Whatever. Does it help or hurt your chances if you've ever expressed strong opinions about any controversial topic?

Reward moral courage? That's the best way I can think of to make sure that no one of moral courge is ever considered for the post.

I like the idea to make review of the intellectual products of officers a part of their selection process. As long as it's done by other officers, that is -- the review has to be for quality, not merely quantity or popularity, which means that someone who actually understands the military science and history behind the writings does the review. Besides, to all evidence most Congressmen can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and that's before they get into committees.

That review can only be a substitute for actual combat experience, in any event. We do have long periods of peace from time to time, and we do have generals who are from non-combat branches. For combat officers, the only thing that counts is success on the battlefield.

Yingling is right to say that some of the answers to 'what it will take' are shocking; but not merely the answers about price and manpower. It's hard to imagine any Congress having the stones to approve a general who says "It's fun to kill the enemy"; but General Mattis, who did say that, has been one of the most successful generals of this war.