Skip to comments.Father of the Bush Doctrine George Shultz on pre-emption and the Revolt of the Generals.
Posted on 04/29/2006 3:16:26 AM PDT by aculeus
SAN FRANCISCO--George P. Shultz was the secretary of state of the United States during the years that the Soviet Union was led, successively, by Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev. During those years, 1982 to 1989, the United States was led by Ronald Reagan. At the end of our interview, as he was showing me out of his apartment, Mr. Shultz invited me to stop in the dining room. "I want you to see something," he said. We walked over to a table. "Have a look at that. It arrived in the mail the other day." It looked like a polished brass cylinder, open at either end. It was the 14th artillery shell from the 21-gun salute at Ronald Reagan's funeral in 2004. "Isn't that something?"
George Shultz is an intellectual, an MIT economist who in his career held two other cabinet posts, labor and Treasury, under Richard Nixon. And clearly he is awed by Ronald Reagan, the "actor" President, and the years he spent serving as Reagan's minister to the world. But I had come to San Francisco because I wanted to talk about the here and now. So did he. Above all, the Revolt of the Generals and the leaks out of the CIA. He's upset.
"I always had a good experience dealing with the career people in government," Mr. Shultz said. "But I have to say it's almost as if there is an insurrection taking place. Particularly what is going on in the military is astonishing and fundamentally intolerable. There has to be a sense of discipline. This is something new, and for everybody's good it has to be dealt with."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Both of them told me that, while this "revolt" is somewhat driven by concern for the way the war is being managed, they both believed the primary motivation behind it was these men had a score to settle with Rumsfeld.
The one who wore 3-stars admitted that most Generals have an ego that is....well, colossal.
Rumsfeld takes and took no guff as Secretary. He said he saw many occasions where Rumsfeld backhanded general officers at meetings and he gave direct and specific orders. If they were not carried out, God help you.
they both believed the primary motivation behind it was these men had a score to settle with Rumsfeld.
Not to mention that they were probably all Clinton appointed Generals.
Generation-X Generals I guess, or worse.
Brown nosers of another general---- Wesley Clark.
Excellent piece- I read the whole article.
These generals have an over-inflated view of themselves that is unsettling.
Most people do not remember that when Rumsfeld started, he set out to change the military from a slow, ground-based behemoth designed to fight the Soviet Union into a more mobile, tactical unit.
Rumsfeld was ruffling generals' feathers before 9/11.
George Shultz was just about the most effective Secretary of State in U.S. history. Under President Reagan's leadership, he helped engineer the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. Secretary Shultz deserves tremendous credit for the foreign policy successes of the Reagan years. When has something to say, it is worth listening.
Everybody above O-6 is a politician. The grumpy generals are tools. They're positioning themselves for good things from a Democrat administration. If they bet right they win big. If they bet wrong they are no bigger losers than they are now.
I don't think there are any generals young enough to be part of Generation X. Most likely these jerks are Baby-Boomers. Weasly Clark is a prime example!
Don't dog on my generation because of these fools. Oh, and we are known as the Reagan Generation (at least that's what most of us decided after his funeral).
Sorry. I was thinking of a line from The Conservative Mind something about a "voice forlorn, not because it is no longer heard but because it is no longer even recognizable" or something like that. George Shultz is definitely "old school".
That's okay. I just woke up and I have a tendency to be on the defensive first thing in the morning. Good thing my husband has finally learned that. :o)
These generals yield lots of power while in command, and many of them with a large ego think they should go on to be commander in chief, their ideas of military concern are the only right ones.
General Macarthur was troubled with this inflated ego and, was slapped down by President Truman.
Mr Schultz is correct, we have got to get better control of our military leaders and, I would add to that, the CIA.
A break down of leadership will lead to our demise.
Excellent piece...I suggest all should give it a look.
IMHO - I would agree it is the "current" most promising moment, and one that will establish the current President Bush as one of the greatest Presidents. Why? For the same reasons that one of the most successful Iraqi blogs is called "IraqTheModel". The democratization of Iraq is the trigger for a series of huge changes to come in the Mideast that will equal or surpass the fall of the Soviet Union. Lefties would say, "But what about all the instability and turmoil?" I would say that was happening anyway (WTC 93, embassy bombings, 9/11 etc.). The difference now is that, in the midst of that turmoil, freedom is on the offensive; "IraqTheModel"
Call him old school, if that makes you feel smart, but Schultz/Rice/Bush have definately realigned our foreign policy in the Middle East to better reflect our values. Now, realism of Kissinger and Otto von Bismark was really old school.
Having worked under both Kissinger and Schultz the two were quite similar in their personal habits. Both had a sense of humor, if one knew how to turn it on. Both worked long hours, as did their staff. Both were easily steamed, but Shultz held it in better. Shultz seemed more human because he seemed less consumed by the events of the moment. I guess the real difference was that one was East Coast and the other West Coast.
George Schultz has always been, and remains, one of my very favorite public servants. When he talks, I listen.
Good article by the WSJ. George Shultz has his place in history, and few will write anything negative about his over all performance.
Excellent article, thanks for the post and the ping.
George Schultz is a brilliant man who has done much for our country. In many ways he and Thomas Sowell remind me of each other in that they can take a complex subject, get to the meat of the problem and explain it in terms anyone can understand.
If our country had more like them we probably wouldn't be in the position we are today, abroad and at home, IMO.
Cool graphic! Do you know how I can get on the "X-er ping list"?
Big footprint generals in a newly changing asymetrical, Rummy millitary.
I think you are a lucky man, having worked for Schultz.
I don't know who you are talking to, but it definitely is NOT ME!!!
All I did is bump the thread to remind me to read it later...
Sure I do. qam1, you have another one for the list!
LOOKs like you must be responding to #14. I don't like being put down for someone else's post!
Have another cup of coffee.
I asked about the place of dissent in government. "Look," the former secretary said, "in our system some people get elected and what you get out of that is the right to call the shots, and the full-time career people are entitled to have their views listened to. But it is very important to see that what is going on now is a problem that goes beyond whether someone likes Don Rumsfeld or not."
I am so very thankful to know that Sec. Shultz made these comments, and I pray that they will be heard and heeded in all of the proper powerful channels.
I believe this is more than an insurrection.
Agree, in spades. Shultz was also strong on one of Reagan's (few) weak points: the response to terrorism. Shultz, in his day, consistently counseled far stronger actions than Reagan and Weinberger where willing to take. For instance in response to the Beirut barracks bombing Shultz argued for massive attacks on Iranian or Syrian run (I forget all the details) terrorist training camps and militia barracks in Lebanon. He wanted to kill hundreds of terrorists. Weinberger (who I admire in most respects, btw) was afraid of the consequences. Instead we got that ineffectual battleship shelling of Hezbollah positions in the hills surrounding Beirut. They laughed at us when they should have been bleeding and burning.
This was posted to extended news, apparently, but surely an interview with one of the great conservatives sages and public servants -- George Shultz -- is worthy of inclusion in the Editorials sidebar?
So....it's Shultz's fault? ;o)
Seriously, this was a wonderful article.
GS is brilliant, and a visionary.
Thank you for the ping.
WTH is a "Gen-X General"? Are there any? Really?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.