A BRAC for Generals?

"We are now more than six years into a war that spans the globe," Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman writes in the latest Armed Forces Journal. "In many ways one could consider this conflict, even at this point, one of the largest endeavors the nation ever attempted."

But despite this being one of the longest and most complex conflicts in American history, and despite massive setbacks stemming from poor planning in Iraq and Afghanistan, "only a single brigadier general has been relieved for the performance of duty in a combat zone. Historically speaking, that is a curious fact," Bateman claims.

"Do we need the equivalent of a base realignment and closure (BRAC) board for generals?" Bateman asks. (Former Iraq chief Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez pictured.)

Consider: During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln fired more than 100 of his 600 generals. By World War I, however,

the balance of power between the military and the civilians appointed over the military, thereafter, seems to have shifted slightly. The easy referent authority Lincoln enjoyed no longer could be taken for granted. Generals were now something different. They were seen by the public as the products of long and sustained experience, and specialized education in the art of war.

But "that ... should not be the barrier that it apparently has been ... The measurement [of success in war] is defined by the president. A president says, 'I want X by date Y. Anything less is failure.' ... Leaving the definition to the military results in the interminable hand-wringing over metrics — which the U.S. military has engaged in since at least
1966 — a process that also has meant that, technically, nobody ever actually fails."

BRAC gave Congress power to make decisions about base closures. A BRAC for generals "might be seen as an infringement of the president’s prerogatives," Bateman writes, "but no president in more than half a century has apparently used those powers, and perhaps no president has felt able to do so."

(Photo: via CBS)