At Army Base, Officers Are Split Over War

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Here in this Western outpost that serves as the intellectual center of the United States Army, two elite officers were deep in debate at lunch on a recent day over who bore more responsibility for mistakes in Iraq — the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, or the generals who acquiesced to him.

“The secretary of defense is an easy target,” argued one of the officers, Maj. Kareem P. Montague, 34, a Harvard graduate and a commander in the Third Infantry Division that was the first to reach Baghdad in the 2003 invasion. “It’s easy to pick on the political appointee.”

“But he’s the one that’s responsible,” retorted Maj. Michael J. Zinno, 40, a military planner who worked at the headquarters of the Coalitional Provisional Authority, the former American civilian administration in Iraq.

No, Major Montague shot back, it was more complicated: the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top commanders were part of the decision to send in a small invasion force and not enough troops for the occupation. Only Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who was sidelined after he told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq, spoke up in public.

“You didn’t hear any of them at the time, other than General Shinseki, screaming, saying that this was untenable,” Major Montague said.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, Politics • Iraq War

3 Comments
Posted October 13, 2007 at 12:39 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Randy Hoover-Dempsey wrote:

Thanks for the article. It seems important that these conversations go on within the military. I’m glad to be part of a society in which there is freedom of discussion about such difficult issues, even among the military establishment. Why is it so difficult for the Church to consider political issues?
One aspect of the problem is that we, as the Church, are unsure about the source of our unity. My assumption is that Jesus Christ is the only source of our unity with one another and with Him. Therefore, our common bond is dependent on Him and not on anything that we have done or think.
I also believe that any other source of unity—for example, economic class, political beliefs, or national citizenship—necessarily contradicts the unity that we have in Jesus Christ, who is our only Savior and Lord. It may be that other sources of unity are idolatrous. (I believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer addresses this idea in Life Together.)
If my assertions are true, divisiveness in regard to political issues serves a positive purpose. Such divisiveness may be a sign that we are placing our allegiance where it does not belong. In other words, if we are unable to talk about the war in our parish without divisiveness, perhaps it is our belief that we should must be politically united on the topic of war that is holding us together rather than our common faith in Jesus Christ.
What is true about discussion regarding war would also be true about other politically charged topics.

October 13, 1:12 pm | [comment link]
2. Ralinda wrote:

The big question from this article is: “Should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?”  And the answer is “yes” if you are a real officer rather than a careerist bucking for the next promotion.

October 13, 2:07 pm | [comment link]
3. Cennydd wrote:

There are times when any serviceman or woman has to take a stand for what he or she knows is right…....even at the cost of one’s career.

October 13, 9:19 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): The Ottawa Synod voted 177 to 97 to recommend blessings of same sex marriages

Previous entry (below): Ex-General Speaks on the Iraq War, but did the Press report it Accurately?

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)