I agree with TedN5’s words in this thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=0&#entry185696

While I agree that active military personnel, should not call for civilians in the Pentagon to resign, unless they want to make the refreshing move resigning (or making themselves martyrs by getting fired) in protest, I want to examine the other side of the coin.

I remember General Richard B. Myers appearing on talk shows when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Peter Pace is following in his footsteps. On March 5, 2006, General Pace was given roughly half Meet the Press’s air time.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11654734/

Questions for debate:

1. Should active duty military officials appear on talk shows to present the administration’s spin on the Iraqi War?

2. Do appearances by military officials provide information, propaganda or a little of both?

To answer the second question first, obviously it's going to be a mixture of both. Determining the exact mixture of truth and fiction is a difficult job, probably best left to investigative reporters.

I think that active military commanders should be interviewed in the media. They should expect to face hard questions. We expect this from our elected officials; why not our military commanders?

1. Should active duty military officials appear on talk shows to present the administration’s spin on the Iraqi War?
Soldiers have the Freedom of Speech like every other citizen in this country. The only freedom they don't have is the freedom to quit during their contract. But they do have the freedom to question their orders afterwards.

2. Do appearances by military officials provide information, propaganda or a little of both?
It depends on who the official is. If the official is sitting on the board of a defense contractor or is gaining personally from the war, there's a good chance its propaganda. But most of the times, soldiers will speak what they believe to be true.

1. Should active duty military officials appear on talk shows to present the administration’s spin on the Iraqi War?

No, if we really want to preserve a civilian controlled democracy, they shouldn't. Antiwar.com posted an article on this very subject today. (See Ivan Eland). On the other hand, we have had "political generals" throughout our history. General George McClellan in the Civil War comes immediately to mind. So do General Powell and the other generals who publicly opposed Clinton's attempt to remove the ban on gays in military service. Active duty officers should be encouraged to voice their opinions vigorously to their civilian superiors but not voice them in public. They should also be allowed to freely offer their judgements to congressional committees, unlike the example made of General Eric K. Shinseki when he offered his opinion to a congressional committee that it would require several hundreds of thousands of troops to control Iraq. The public criticism and forced retirement of Shinseki had a chilling effect on dissenting opinions within the military that is only now lifting.

Perhaps of more significants is that our country has moved so far down the road to dominance by the military/industrial/congressional complex that such fine points make little difference.

2. Do appearances by military officials provide information, propaganda or a little of both?

In this administration officers making public appearances have generally served up only administration propaganda. If the interview is properly conducted to avoid policy issues and stick to military matters, some usable information can be conveyed.

A point of clarification is in order for one of the many distortions repeated by the press and by many people on the left. General 'black beret' Shinseki was not forced into retirement, nor was he pushed into retirement. It is absolutely impossible to make that claim based on when he made statements about troop levels and when he announced his plans for retirement.

From Factcheck.org:

It is true that Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25, 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required for an occupation of Iraq. It is also true that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark" in testimony to the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27, 2003. And it is true that the general retired several months later on June 11, 2003.

But the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002:

Washington Times: He (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.

Can we please put this canard to bed?