Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen's article "The Army's Birthday" ("Front & Center," June) is a masterpiece of prose, succinctly and admirably reciting the proud history of our Army. I have it now in my "treasured literature" file.

BRIG. GEN. ALLEN D. ROOKE JR., AUS Ret.
Victoria, Texas


GENERALSHIP
I have noted a string of articles about the current state of generalship in our Army and some concern about that aspect of our Army's performance. While I have been retired for a while now and am admittedly out of touch with things as they currently stand, I would like to make some comments based on my 21 years of active duty and offer an opinion I formed during that time.

In 1936 J.F.C. Fuller wrote a monograph titled Generalship: Its Diseases and Their Cure. That amusing title referred to the problem during the Great War of the "armchair generals" who were disastrously out of touch with the reality at the front. That is one issue with which higher management always has to deal in all organizations (and could be a problem now). There is another aspect (out of many) which seems to be persistent in our history and is also a bureaucratic function of large organizations: the "political co-opting" of senior leadership.

For reasons that are somewhat obvious, it appears that as officers rise in rank, they become increasingly political in their outlook. By that I mean that they begin to integrate political thinking and political realities into their thought processes. In fact, they seem to think that this is expected of them and that it is a sign of professional maturity. The profession encourages and rewards those who can speak "political talk" and can function comfortably in that realm. Now, even at the lowest levels in our military, we expect leaders to have an appreciation of political realities and a broad education beyond that of "just" tactics and strategy. Knowledge is good, and we very much operate within a political world. Where we often go wrong and where our system is off track, however, is when our military leaders stop being soldiers and start being politicians. When that happens, they fail to adequately represent the military viewpoint within the broader system.

This problem and phenomenon is perhaps best illustrated by Gen. Douglas MacArthur being relieved from command during the Korean War. Far from being an embarrassment, that event should be studied as an example for our generals on how the system should work. Regardless of the validity of his military opinion, MacArthur held to a military viewpoint of what should happen. He stuck to his opinion and eventually was relieved by the President. Perhaps he did not foresee the outcome and perhaps was operating too much out of arrogance, but he didn't waiver from what he saw as his duty as a professional officer—to push for the best military option he could think of. In the end, this, as well as his style, were not compatible with political realities; the system worked by taking him out of command.

Some generals today would rather bend to political pressure and the party line than provide just an honest military opinion, regardless of what the politicians want to hear. That was a problem in Vietnam and seems to be a particular problem in long, drawn-out wars, especially unconventional ones. These become very political affairs for our country and the political pressure on our military is immense. Generals who cannot parrot the political story line, whatever it is, probably have a relatively short professional life in that environment. The opinions of lower commanders become likewise tainted as they put the same face on all statements and reports. To place a derogatory label on this, it is the "yes-man" syndrome, and it is bad for our whole system.

So what needs to happen? As with many things, it goes back to our political masters to realize the problem and make changes. There needs to be a realization that having military leadership parrot back political messages does no one any good. We need military leaders of strong conviction, and the political leadership needs to encourage frank discussion and comment. This is the same frank discussion and comment that the military needs throughout its ranks, too. It is all the same thing: the rules should not change for generals. The best service we can all provide is to be honest and forthright and have the courage of our convictions.

LT. COL. GREGORY T. BANNER, USA Ret.
Lincoln, R.I.