Is It Any Wonder?

The progress of the “Mission” in Iraq, or lack thereof, has many Americans wondering who is truly in charge of the mission and the current disaster that has been created. The White House insists upon pursuing as a matter of policy if not principle. Clearly, the President has shown his lack of experience and competence to actively direct the mission. His assiduous avoidance of any substantive contact with actual military duty or training and his consistent record of unsuccessful management of any major enterprise prior to his election as President are public record. Bush is the Commander in Chief and the civilian leader of the armed forces, but that role rarely translates to actual battlefield command. Expecting George W. Bush to undertake direct command of the military mission would be unspeakable and negligence.

The military is founded upon the principle of rank and "chain of command." Soldiers are tasked to execute orders as directed by their superiors. Under this structure, at least in theory, the responsibility for the development of strategy and delivery of orders for the soldiers to follow lies with the top brass. When the stakes are extremely high and the movement, coordination and direction of a complex group of military personnel and equipment is involved, lower level soldiers cannot reasonably be expected to determine policy while facing the dangers of their daily duties. Unless the soldier has deliberately disobeyed a direct order, the responsibility for execution lies with the chain of command. At the same time, the expenditure of billions of dollars from the public treasury and the loss of thousands of soldiers’ lives demands that the military be accountable to the American people. The theory is that the power to command troops and vast resources is accompanied by the responsibility for how the mission is carried out and the actions of soldiers under one's command.

Congress has been investigating a relatively minor military incident that has rather large implications for the military and for the American people. Pat Tillman, an all-American athlete with an all but guaranteed lucrative NFL career chose to enter the military rather than play professional sports after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Whether or not Tillman was misguided because of the Administration lies that led the US into the Iraq mission, he nevertheless believed that he was committed to a patriotic cause and serving his country by enlisting. Unfortunately, his service ended as a result of a botched mission and “friendly fire,” meaning that he was shot down by US soldiers and not the “enemy.” These events alone would be tragic. The tragedy was grossly compounded when the Army, the Department of defense and the White House trumpeted his death as an act of heroism based upon asserted death at the hands of Al Qaeda extremists. His death was used as a public relations gemstone for the President’s Iraq mission.

In fact, the Army knew that Tillman had not died as publicly announced. Other soldiers present at the battlefield incident were admonished to keep their mouths shut. False reports were submitted and news of the real circumstances was conveyed to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Yet the Pentagon and the Bush Administration continued to lie to the Tillman family and use them cynically and publicly to promote public support for the Iraq Mission. More than five weeks later, the Tillman family was finally alerted to the fact that the initial reports were untrue. No member of the top brass was willing to acknowledge that the facts of Tillman’s death were suppressed in order to exploit Tillman’s death for political purposes.

And this is where the larger implications arise. Secretary Rumsfeld publicly acknowledges that mistakes were made and that the system that he was responsible for directing failed. Yet he denies that he has any personal responsibility for the cover up of facts and failure to disclose the truth to the Tillman family. Retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of the friendly fire nature of the incident toward the end of April but claimed that it was not his responsibility to inform the White House or the Tillman family. Retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Gen. Bryan Douglas Brown, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command also testified before a Congressional Committee also testified that they had no personal responsibility for what happened.

The seemingly obvious question would be, if the top civilian and military leaders charged with commanding the troops and operation of the military mission in Iraq believe that they are not responsible for the execution of the mission, including errors that are committed under their command, who is responsible? In addition, can the American people place any real faith in any President or Congress that places individuals with such lack of integrity and sense of responsibility in such high positions Is it any wonder that the situation in Iraq has devolved into such a quagmire and that there is no sense of clarity in the mission or accountability for its failures when these types of individuals are in command? Is it any wonder that hundreds if not thousands of committed and patriotic soldiers who have seen action in Iraq are refusing to return even at the cost of potential military court martial or loss of their military careers?