General Lavelle, Again

Going back to the General Lavelle case, discussed here, Dr Charlie Stevenson, who was on the faculty of the National War College when I was there, had an OpEd in The New York Times in which he stated that given the circumstances the Senate did right to retire General Lavelle as a Major General, two grades down from his highest held rank.  In the beginning of the article presents his credentials and states his case:

Having worked for a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee during its initial investigation into the Lavelle affair, I believe that his rehabilitation could seriously undermine civilian-military relations during our own time of war.

The position of Professor Stevenson is that the General should have gotten it in writing and absent written orders, he should have stuck with what was written.

A core principle of our civilian control of the military is that a general should never act contrary to written orders, and certainly never on vague verbal cues. General Lavelle had no excuse.

This is the nub of the issue.  I am of the opinion that while written orders are good, they may not be forthcoming.  When I joined the Air Force there was still the term VOCO—Verbal Orders of the Commanding Officer.  Or in the quaint words of the day, "The exigencies of the Service being such as to preclude the issuance of proper orders...".

My comment back to the author, in an EMail, was

I agree with Charlie's point, but when the President or his Secretary of Defense gives you a wink and a nod, what are you supposed to do? My sense is that there was this winking and nodding going on.

The Professor ends with this paragraph:

In response to this posthumous promotion request, the Senate must reconsider General Lavelle’s actions. With the nation involved in two wars that at times have put significant strain on America’s civilian-military relationship, I hope it makes the right decision — again.

I agree with his point about having to be careful about civil-military relations. Part of keeping our Republic is the idea that the military remains subordinate to the civil government.

And, here is a letter to the Air Force Board of Correction from another Senate Armed Services Committee Staffer at the time, former Director of the CIA, R James Woolsey.  Mr Woolsey's conclusion is the opposite of Professor Stevenson's.

In all such cases, there are no final answers.  Nor are their right answers or wrong answers.  Most of life is an essay test, at least up until the end.

Regards  —  Cliff