War Cannot Be Left To Generals

It is said that war is too serious a matter to be left to Generals. This is not to disparage the military character. But matters which affect the people intimately cannot be left to experts alone. The economy for instance cannot be left to financial gurus alone. Such knowledgeable people tend to be swayed by desiccated statistics which to them should determine our financial circumstances. But we know that we are not that all right when they parade inflation and macro-economic figures to show that our financial circumstances are good. I was, therefore, surprised to read comments by our military leaders which suggested that they call the shots with regard to war and peace. The Daily Graphic of January 12, 2011 had a news item on its front page which read. “The Chief of Defence Staff, Lt. Gen. Augustine Peter Blay, yesterday emphasised the position that the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) would not commit troops to Cote d’Ivoire should the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) go ahead with its decision to use military force to settle the political impasse there” This was a most unfortunate statement. GAF or the Chief of Staff cannot commit Ghanaian troops to any theatre of war. This most serious matter can only be dealt with by the President who is the Commander-in-Chief. The President acts on behalf of the people who elected him and his actions in this area can be questioned by the representative of the people in parliament. The Chief of Staff and GAF should always be ready to act on the orders of the President, the Commander-in-Chief and nobody else. The Chief of Staff and Senior Commanders can give advice to the President but this should be done in private. It is not for the top brass to expose the weaknesses of the armed forces in public. One need not be an expert to realise that this exposes the security of the state. In any case, can they tell the President, the Commander-on-Chief, that they are overstretched and therefore cannot obey orders to send troops to help contain riots in the north? The security problems we face are not unknown to shrewd observers. We have competent armed forces who have done very well at international peace-keeping assignments. We know their shortcomings which arise because of inadequate logistics and other resources. We, however, expect GAF leaders to work quietly through normal channels to have their needs supplied. They should not go public even if what they say is in support of the Presidents position. The President has come out openly against using force to resolve the Ivory Coast impasse. I consider this most unfortunate. I am not questioning his decision. He has all the facts and I do not. But Ghana was involved in the ECOWAS decision to use force if Gbagbo did not quit the presidency of the Ivory Coast. This, therefore, is a major part of the strategy to make Gbagbo accept the democratic process. A dissent by an important country like Ghana undermines the credibility and effectiveness of ECOWAS. One cannot expect Gbagbo to take the current negotiations seriously in such circumstances. If Ghana has problems, this should be discussed confidentially with close allies within ECOWAS. Ghana should be able to send a token force. But Ghana might be able to do more if specific help is sought from friends within the international community which is overwhelmingly against the usurpation of power by Gbagbo. President Mills is an honest man and would like to be frank. But circumspection is necessary in the real world. Sometimes, it is wise not to be specific. So far as we Ghanaians are concerned, we often want to support the leader in our own interest. As one minister said sometime ago “we were gaping sycophants”. If GAF openly supports the President today, what if GAF keeps quiet on another occasion. The wrong impression may be given. Silence by GAF would be taken to mean opposition because the organisation always openly supports the President. We should respect the practices which have helped us so far. Heads of government or state institutions should be careful about their public pronouncements. There is the feeling that open support for the government ensures survival and promotion. Government can do a lot to let the people know that competence determines selection to high office. The inability to promptly appoint substantive heads to ministries and some state institutions supports the view that loyal efficient and dedicated service over the years is no guarantee for promotion. To get on, one must dance to the tune of the powers that be. We cannot make the progress we all desire in such an atmosphere.