Can the American people, and the families of the dead US soldiers, assume that the Generals tasked with planning the recent Afghan pullout displayed what you speak of?
Randy you bring up a valid point in spite of the calculated sarcasm with which you posed it. Democracies are run through civilian authority. That means at the end of the day, whether dealing with a strategic, operational, or even a tactical military issue, the will of civilian authority will prevail. That clearly has not always worked to the benefit of our soldiers in harms way, but it is necessary if civilian control is to be maintained.
With respect to the Afghanistan withdrawal, military leaders and planners were forced to operate within those constraints. When civilian authority (Biden and Jake Sullivan in this case) troop level demands over time during the withdrawal could not be met by maintaining operational control of Bagram, military planers were forced to alternative courses of action. The one chosen by and approved by the administration was the withdrawal through Kabul airport. No one wearing a unifirm was happy with that COA.
I suppose the military leadership and planners could have chosen to resign rather than attempt to implement that plan, but then again their constitutional duty is to support the decisions of the civilian leadership. Resignation essentially violates that oath.
Given the restrictions in conduct of that military operation, I am frankly stunned it went as well as it did with respect to US military personnel. To give a little credit where credit is due, the ground force commander, Major General Chris Donahue, a former Delta Force operator and CG 82d Airborne was the last uniformed soldier off the tarmac at Kabul.
Of course, if you have a better solution for how the military should behave and interact in the midst of democratic civilian institutions, I am sure we would all benefit from your insight.
And yes, the military personnel I have observed across civilian institutions exactly reflected my comments above.
