Against Politicizing the Military

Posted By Grim

I'm thinking this morning about the Harpers' piece that conflated military officers with "the administration," the Kos video, and and today's piece in Salon from Mr. Greenwald.

Until this moment in the conflict, the military has been recognized as an apolitical, professional force that protects all Americans.  It is engaged in a controversial war in Iraq, but it is a war that was authorized by both the Congress and the Executive branches.  One of the points the Kos satire makes is this:

And we should say we support them, because, frankly, it just doesn’t get said often enough. Imagine, for example, if anytime any politician mentions any aspect of the war they prefaced their statement by saying ‘I support our troops’, or ‘I support our brave troops' ....  And not just politicians, but religious leaders, news people, commercial businesses, beverage makers, car companies, defense lobbyists - they should all say they support our troops whenever they’re trying to sell their products or pimp their talking points.  Because it’s the right thing to say.   

He's right to point out that the phrase is a commonplace of American society.  And he's right about the reason:  because it's the right thing to say.  These guys are fighting at our orders.  They are dying at our orders.  Our representatives either voted to authorize this conflict, or found themselves in the minority in opposing it.  The military is not a political creature.

That was what struck me first about Mr. Silverstein's piece:  that he asserted that the Blogger's Roundtables were about 'parroting the administration,' when no one from the administration participated.  We have spoken only with professional military officers, career men.  These are not political figures. 

The reason absolutely everyone in America says they support the troops, from beer companies to politicians of either party, is that the troops belong to all of us.  They serve and defend all of us.  We all owe them true faith, friendship and loyalty in return.

What we are seeing now is an attempt to drag the military into the realm of politics.  Mr. Silverstein already refuses to recognize that the military is not part of the Bush Administration.  I wrote Harpers' to demand a correction, but as yet there has been no response.  I hope they will recognize that this is a fundamental mistake, and correct themselves in the future.

Today, in Salon, Mr. Greenwald asserts that the military is politicizing itself.  He cites an exchange of letters with Petraeus' office, trying to get an interview with the general like Hugh Hewitt did.  You can read the exchange for yourself at the link above.  What strikes me about it is that the PAO replied professionally and politely, even though Mr. Greenwald was trying to bait him; and the PAO pointed out that the general would not involve himself in political questions, which is exactly correct.

The military has to stay in its lane, as we discussed in the piece on Silverstein and Harpers.  Nevertheless, there are questions of fact as well as the political questions, and the military is specially placed to answer those questions of fact.  To what degree is the surge working as hoped?  To what degree is Iran or al Qaeda involved?  What's going well, and what isn't?  These and other questions aren't political questions, but factual ones. 

Mr. Greenwald and others assert that General Bergner is involved in politics, because his answers to some questions of fact match the White House's answers.  One is surprised by the assertion.  The intelligence the White House is using is likely arising from military operations, after all.  It's not really shocking that the assessment of those in the elected, civilian branches is similar to that of the military professionals who saw the intel on its way up.  Indeed, we'd expect that to be the normal condition.  We'd be surprised when it was not that way.

Instead, Mr. Greenwald essentially calls General Bergner a liar and a tool of the administration.  The first question is one of honor, to which I expect the General is able to reply on his own if he feels Greenwald is worthy of a response.  The second one is a genuinely dangerous assertion.

The attempt to conflate the military with the administration; the assertion that the military is acting as a mouthpiece for the administration; and the attack on the underlying public support that nearly all Americans have heretofore felt for the military are of a piece.  It is these men who are trying to politicize the military.  I gather they are doing it because they do not like the answers to the "questions of fact" that the military are giving; so they would like to portray them as "questions of politics" instead.  But they are not forays into political questions:  they are a provision of facts from the ground.  Those facts may inform the political debate, but they are not a part of it. 

The Republic is stronger because Americans know that -- however divided we may be on political questions -- we have a common defense.  The military swears its oath to the Constitutional order.  That order is the space in which all our liberty exists, in which all Americans flourish and prosper.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/20300840

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Against Politicizing the Military:

» H&I Fires* 24 Jul 07 from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. You're advertising here, we should get an... [Read More]

Comments

[Rovin]

The military swears its oath to the Constitutional order. That order is the space in which all our liberty exists, in which all Americans flourish and prosper.

The difference is the anti-war left's agenda is for political gain and not for the "order" that benefits everyones liberties. They see no further than their immediate selfish needs. You will rarely see them use the word "patriotism" accept when their's is being questioned.

[FbL]

Re: Rovin's comment

Or another way of saying it is that if a political group does not want America to win its wars (whether or not those wars were wisely undertaken), then the military cannot help but be politicized. The fundamental problem isn't the desire to politicize the military in pursuit of their personal ends; it's the fact that their politics have put them exactly counter to the organization that gives Americans the space in which to flourish and prosper. Thus that organization becomes part of the political enemy.

It's downright frightening.

[FbL]

On more thing,

Grim writes, "To what degree is the surge working as hoped? To what degree is Iran or al Qaeda involved? What's going well, and what isn't? These and other questions aren't political questions, but factual ones. "

Sadly, by default they are political. Today we are allowed to have our "own facts." There are people who--due to ignorance or willful blindness--do not believe anything positive is coming out of Iraq at all. Because of that, anyone who asserts positive facts is believed by them to be a liar. The only question then becomes "Why are they lying to me?" The simple answer: they must be political tools of my opponents.

[Grim]

Well, FbL, a question like "is the Surge working?" is political because the political parts of the government have taken opposing views. Reid declared it "has failed" some time ago, while Bush is on the other side. So there is a political question there.

On the other hand, there also really is a question of fact, an empirical question. The military is always intensely interested in empirical questions. Anyone who has been in the military or worked with the military has encountered the acronymn MoE, for "Measures of effectiveness." The military tracks MoE on everything, period. It is always looking for hard, measurable data that it can use to judge its progress on any goal, whether that goal is reducing toilet paper waste at the FOB or suppressing al Qaeda activity in a province.

Whether the military's MoE are the right ones or not is a question you can examine; but you can't reasonably accuse them of not being empirical and fact-based in their methods. If the military asserts X, it is because they have measurements that suggest X is the case. They may be measuring the wrong thing, but there is no chance at all that they aren't measuring.

[Grim]

The other thing I'd like to say is to underline the dangerous nature of this attempt to drag the military into politics. Right now, we've got a Federal government that enjoys shockingly low support among Americans. We all know the approval ratings for the President, for Congress among Republicans, for Congress among Democrats, for Congress among Independents (eight percent!). The SCOTUS percentages are better, but not a lot better: somewhere between 34% and 51% depending on who is asking the question and how they ask it.

The US military is the last bastion of real public confidence in the institutions of the Republic. It enjoys a 74%-83% confidence rating from year to year. Its professionalism and apolitical nature underlie that confidence.

Those who are trying to drag them down for political reasons here are doing something terribly dangerous. They are taking a hammer to the last firm foundation of the Republic.

[crosspatch]

Someone should read General Grant's memoirs sometime to see examples of how politicized an Army can be (Re: personnel assignments during the Mexican War).

[FbL]

Grim, I obviously expressed myself poorly, 'cause I was mostly agreeing with you.

I was trying to say that many people don't deal on the factual level (they have their own facts and refuse to deal with the truth). I am NOT saying that the military is not dealing in facts, merely that there is a group of people who refuse to believe they are.

[daisycutter]

Recently the good folks here at Blackfive posted some interesting text from the “Strategy Page” dealing with similarity between Japanese propaganda efforts during World War II and the present unholy alliance between MSM, the Democratic Party, and some defeatist Republicans that don’t want anything to do with the tactical patience required for a war victory for the United States.

1.) Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2.) This war is illegal.
3.) You cannot win the war.

Sound familiar?

More recently I read the following in “The Initial Benchmark Assessment Report” on progress in Iraq:

“The increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term commitment to Iraq has also served in recent months to reinforce hedging behaviors and made the hardest political bargains even more difficult to close.”

The defeatist leadership in Congress and the Senate made a pretty big discussion wave about the report but seemed to miss this comment in the report. So did just about all the MSM.

Coupled with prior comments and votes of no confidence in our troops we now understand what slow bleed is and what the anti-war folks and Democratic leadership have in mind in the troop support department.

1.) Undermine and discredit the mission
2.) Defund and undermine all troops support

That’s what they did to us in Vietnam and that’s what they intend to do to my son who has done his fair share in this war.

The defeatist left have never really been in this war. While the rest of us have endeavored to stand strong in the face of terror and have supported an offensive effort designed to keep the terror force off guard and hopefully change the nature of a violent region in the middle east, the defeatists and protesters have had to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way. Now, our troops are required to fight not only the forces of terror but our own internal subversive elements working in favor of terror and against free government.

While I really do believe in the freedoms our troops fight to protect, such as freedom of speech and press, there is a point at which actionable and irresponsible political activities conducted by political leaders may cross the line into unconstitutional or subversive activities.

What would cause the MSM to start considering factual or truthful reporting of conditions surrounding our war effort?

While I don’t really want to prosecute some of these poor wretched souls, it might be interesting to get a legal opinion or study conducted by a grand jury whether the recent round of political acts meant to cause failure of a military effort are indeed subversive acts. If the MSM and surrender minded politicians won’t meet on the field of logic, honor, and bi-partisan American effort ............. Then perhaps a group of those of who are vested in the conflict (perhaps parents of soldiers and veterans) should urge a US Attorney examine the following:

TITLE 18, PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 115

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. ...................

I’m not comfortable with the present Congressional or Senate disregard for these laws or their support and encouragement of news organizations which promote the present subversive efforts of the anti-war and enemy sympathizer crowd they are linked with.

Politically we went into this war together. We were right to knock over Saddam’s goons that had aligned with the Taliban and AQ. If some want to try to re-write history they can try, but the one thing we did right was take down Saddam Hussein. From there on out it’s pretty much been a hard fought soap opera according to the MSM. But we haven’t lost anything. The only way for that to happen is by forfeit. (Harry Reid Style) I remember their speeches in Congress and Senate before we committed to Iraq. This is war. The enemy fights back and this one fights politically.

Our troops command better quality leadership from the all ranks of government. Kind of hard to figure why the media goon’s are down on the military for executing the executive branch’s mission when that’s they way it’s supposed to be. Congress and the Senate can stand down the entire war on terror if they want. Our supercritical journalist friends need to spend some quality time out with the basics. In truth it is the mainstream media effort that has been beaten to a pulp by the superior propaganda efforts from the Middle East. If anyone should withdraw from Iraq, perhaps it is the Mainstream Media. Section 2388 above is “The Fairness Doctrine” during war.

[Ymarsakar]

Everytime the Left talks about politics in the military or about the military, it reminds me of what Stalin did before WWII. Purged the best and most patriotic Russians from the Russian military.

Trotsky

He purged 60% of the Marshals. 87.5% of the Army Commanders. 89.55% of the Corps Commanders. 68.3% of the division commanders. 55.66% of the brigade commanders.

[Mr.Sparkle]

Read Smedley J Butler, one of the highest decorated US Marines with 2 Medals of Honour (should have been 3 but for regulations), if you want politicised military.

He's someone who wouldn't suck the **** of PotUS, Congress or Wall Street!

[Mr.Sparkle]

Er Ymar what are you talking about my friend. If Stalin is your "Leftwing" analogy then Hitler will by my right. Heavy over management, idealistic over stretch in his military, gross failure to admit defeat...

No.

When I read the Left I think of Butler:

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

This decorated Marine, who understands and documents in detail the exorbitant profits that a select few insiders (hence the term "racket") make from war, proposes three specific anti-war measures:

1) Take the profit out of war. Nationalize and mobilize the industrial sector, and pay every manager no more than each soldier earns.

2) Vote for war or no war on the basis of a limited plebisite in which only those being asked to bear arms and die for their country are permitted to vote.

3) Limit US military forces, by Constitutional amendment, to home defense purposes only.

Wow the "left" sure hates the fighting man.

[Consul-At-Arms]

Excellent post and your arguments well stated and to the point.

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-against-politicizing-military.html

[douglas]

If you're on the left, EVERYTHING is political. It is religion to them. They can't IMAGINE someone, like a career military officer, being apolitical in his work. Can't imagine it because they know THEY couldn't function that way, and they assume everyone is like them.

As for Butler, great field Marine- lousy at understanding the bigger picture. Let's take #2 that you posted:

2) Vote for war or no war on the basis of a limited plebisite in which only those being asked to bear arms and die for their country are permitted to vote.

That would be unconstitutional for starters. It would also be assinine. You might well be able to get enough people to support a war with their bodies and it might still be a bad idea.

That's a good enough example. And I seriously doubt you actually would like to see that enacted.

[Mr.Sparkle]

It's not whether a war is strategically a good idea or a bad idea. It's whether it is for a just reason or not, whether it is in service of their countrymen or whether they are being used, and it's what sort of man is leading you into the fray.

#2 is absurd, however it disappears with good leadership, with a meaningful engagement.

Butler fought in many wars and showed his bravery and heart, and he was promoted for courage and valour. Later he began to see how he was being used by the fat civilians in the administration and in banks and industry, one of his most famous quotes is the best way to understand this:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." [p. 10]

If the Left have crimes against service, the Right have a crime of ignoring the abuse of their military by money interests and corrupt civilians. It seems they like their Generals most when they are obedient, commanded by pampered civilians with velvety soft skin in the Whitehouse, not when they are retired and airing their grievances.

[liontooth]

All of this noise over the politicized military has been building up because Petreus has the final word. Congress praised him as an expert and there was a consensus he knew his 'stuff'. If Petraeus says we're winning, then the expert will need to be discredited in September if you want the US to leave. What other option is there?

It's come down to the General. Bush unfairly put the burden of the success on Petraeus' shoulders instead of waging a political war for 6 months of trying to win back public support. And F--- the argument that it's the MSM's fault because there was nothing stopping the White House from paying and running infomercials for the last 4 years showing progress in Iraq, spending their own money on translating the Saddam documents, or of bring up Bill Clinton's claims about Iraq for 8 years during his presidency.

This political war started in the US after no stockpiles of wmd were ever found in Iraq which meant a new political strategy was needed. But the Bush Administration instead decided to surrender the political war at home. Anyone remember the 1997-98 innoculation of the ENTIRE military against Anthrax and which country was one of the reasons? Have we heard that brought up at all since May 2003, let alone repeatedly?

For several years now the US public has been indoctrinated that Iraq was a mistake and a lie. Bush has done nothing to counter it. The US military unintentionally played a part in this by being a cold war military when Baghdad fell and was forced to relearn COIN. The enemy now is time, and the longer and longer Iraq has gone without a final act, its added up to the public seeing Iraq as pointless. The showdown over this war WILL BE in September.

Mr. Greenwald ... cites an exchange of letters with Petraeus' office, trying to get an interview with the general like Hugh Hewitt did. You can read the exchange for yourself at the link above. What strikes me about it is that the PAO replied professionally and politely, even though Mr. Greenwald was trying to bait him;

If he had 'legitimately' tried to set up the interview, he could have accomplished something by either making a case if the interview was denied or ambushing Petraeus during the interview. Way to blow an opportunity!

[jordan]

Mr. Sparkle, as heartwarming as it is to see all the concern and sympathy on the left for the well-being and health of our military, they still undercut the troops by forgetting this important point: this is an all volunteer military. Soldiers aren't helpless victims.

When volunteers sign on, of their own free will, they're saying they accept the possible consequences and burdens of defending their country. When they sign up, they're saying they're prepared to give their lives in our defense. Amazing, huh?

They don't need the left's concern, sympathy, and exploitation of the troops' problems as a soapbox to achieve other leftist political goals, and call it sympathy.

Daisycutter points out above what the goal of all that "sympathy" is: undermine and discredit the mission to land a blow on Bush, and what they view as "rightwing extremist Neocons", regardless of the cost to our country.

Like the general population, military people can see things in different ways. But like the opponents of the Bosnia intervention and bombing of Serbia, once the system spoke, they closed ranks behind the mission -- because they understood doing otherwise would weaken American prestige and interests globally, and only prolong the conflict. Unfortunately, the libs didn't return the favor on Iraq, which is in part why the war has taken as long as it has.

Lefties and libs don't seem to understand that the military obeys executive branch orders whether they're from a Democrat or Republican. Are they saying when the current administration leaves, the entire military also resigns? And that the rescues, defense, provisions of humanitarian aid, and medical support the country needs will now be taken on by the Pelosi kids, or the Kennedy kids, or Chelsea Clinton? Don't hold your breath.

If Hillary wins, it'll be her in a CINC leather jacket addressing the troops on an aircraft carrier, beckoning them forward for whatever cause she sees fit, whether Somalia, Darfur, Kosovo, Haiti, or wherever.

[Subsunk]

Grim,

Great job, son. As usual, you put the rest of us to shame with your analysis. Your viewpoint is so close to mine we can't slip a sheet of paper between our positions. Excellent job.

Subsunk