DragonFlight

I understand that while employed by the Federal Government a person owes some loyalty to the current administration, but to whom or what do they ultimately owe their allegiance -- a personality and party, or the nation and Constitution? This concept of “loyalty and honor” to leadership of the nation, when the real focus should be serving that nation, is ludicrous. The only time an individual might actually be in a position to influence policy, and thereby the repercussions of such policy, is while they are still on the job and have some authority, or very soon afterwards. After retiring, any criticisms ring with an impotence, achieving nothing more than to expose loyalty and honor as empty words rationalizing service to self over service to the nation they had sworn to serve. And ultimately it is "The People," the electorate, that requires valid information in order to vote, and when that comes too late, it hasn't been equipped to make right choices.

When one’s boss or bosses are making decisions that harm the nation, it is imperative to speak out, and sooner rather than later. If this requires leaving the job at that point, so that such revelations and opinions as deemed necessary can be made in a timely fashion, namely while they might still make a difference, then that is what should happen. When did we become a nation of wusses, terrified of speaking out, afraid of losing a job, and willing to compromise our integrity before offending the people we work for?

Maybe what has changed is the nature of the job. Perhaps the job is no longer serving the nation, but serving all those higher ups who ultimately serve at the “pleasure of the president.” Do we really have that kind of confidence in a single individual and his “crowd?” Do we honestly believe the president and his close associates are infallible and above reproach? I’d always thought the purpose of advisors was to advise and give counsel, the result of which was to help the person in charge to make better and more informed decisions. I’d also thought the same applied to government officials in responsible cabinet posts and directorships. I believed these people helped run the government by giving expert input that facilitated the decisions made by the President.

Has the job actually become facilitating the president no matter what lunacy he might choose to invoke? Has the president become a king after all? Do his advisors merely have the choice to agree or be silent? Is this what that “loyalty and honor” mantra is all about? Do those accepting positions in an Administration simply become yes men and serving boys? When did Alan Greenspan decide to remain silent about economic policies he saw as a recipe for a disaster? When did George Tenet decide to take the fall for a president who had made up his mind regardless of any input from real intelligence? Why did the “golden boy” Colin Powell suddenly suspend reliance on his own experience, knowledge and intuition in order to help catalyze a war he knew was wrong then, but admits to only now?

Why did General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, wait till Oct 12, 2007 to “become the most senior retired general to criticize American political leadership of the war?" Speaking before a group of military reporters and editors he not only criticized the media for “sensationalist” coverage and “self-aggrandizement” and a willingness to “compromise integrity” in order to land front page stories, but he also spoke of political leadership as consigning America to a “...nightmare with no end in sight." He says:

“There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese proverb says, ‘Action without vision is a nightmare.’ There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight. Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from decising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had a greater priority than our national security objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq - without bipartisan cooperation we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on in Washington that would give us hope.”

Too bad the lieutenant general couldn’t have spoken out earlier, like in 2003, or 2004, or even 2005. Perhaps back then it might have made a difference that would have disallowed notions of surges and more dead troops in the future. Perhaps if Tenet had spoken out more truthfully, and if Powell had not just gone along, the preemptive invasion of Iraq might have met stiffer resistance. Maybe if Greenspan had been more honest about tax cuts during war we wouldn’t be stuck with such a huge deficit that Bush refers to as "only" $158 billion, but which Fortune Magazine's senior editor at large, Allan Sloan, calls "Fuzzy Math" , and claims is actually two and a half times larger.

I often wonder if people realize how very cheaply they sell their souls, and how very easy it is to actually do so? Compromising one’s integrity in the guise of covering up the immoral, unethical, or just plain wrong, choices and decisions of one’s employer IS selling one’s soul; it’s not good business, it’s not loyalty and honor, or any other grand cliché. I can only equate the practice of just “going along” when the stakes are so high, and so many effected, rather than immediately quitting the job and speaking out loudly, with a gross lack of faith in one’s own life, and life in general. To profit from a situation one knows to be terribly wrong, instead of making the decision to be honest, and forward the truth, and perhaps peace over war, displays little faith in our role in the Universe we call life. And in the long run, one might ultimately discover there was no profit at all, only loss.