Petraeus Opts Out of Politics -- or Does He?

In a recent exchange with a reporter, General David Petraeus volunteered the following:

You know, I made a private decision some years back when I was promoted to Major General that I was just going to stop voting. And I did that, again, not for public consumption, although it's subsequently become public consumption. I did it because I thought senior leaders should be apolitical.

Pressed to expand on that comment, Petraeus went on to say, "I'm certainly not the first to do it. General (George C.) Marshall obviously quite famously did that as well."

Petraeus is right about Marshall. Chief of staff of the U. S. Army throughout World War II and still today the great paladin of military professionalism, Marshall believed that for officers -- especially very senior officers -- voting itself constituted a partisan act. It signified a preference for one party over the other. In Marshall's view, such preferences were at odds with an officer's obligation to serve as a disinterested servant of the state -- regardless of who happened to occupy the White House or which party happened to control the Congress. Committed to the proposition that the officer corps should remain above politics, Marshall therefore decided as a matter of principle to refrain from exercising the franchise. He understood that in all respects officers remained citizens. They could vote. He simply believed that as military professionals they should choose of their own volition not to do so. Marshall was leading by example.

General Petraeus -- easily the most influential military officer of his generation -- has now signaled his adherence to the tradition of General Marshall.

There is good news and bad news here.

The good news derives from the bad news. In the aftermath of Vietnam, the officer corps lost sight of the values to which General Marshall adhered. It took on a partisan cast. In the 1980s and 1990s, a military that increasingly saw itself as a bastion of "conservative values" in an increasingly "liberal" society began to identify its own interests with those of the ostensibly conservative Republican Party.

When the liberal Democrat Bill Clinton became president in 1992, members of the officer corps made little attempt to conceal their contempt for the commander-in-chief. One U. S. Air Force general described Clinton's chief characteristics as "dope-smoking," "skirt-chasing," and "draft-dodging." As soon as Clinton took office, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Colin Powell, seized upon the issue of gays-in-the-military to publicly humiliate their new boss. During the campaign Clinton had vowed if elected to issue an executive order allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. The JCS forced Clinton to back away from that promise, thereby demonstrating their ability to veto any presidential initiative not to their liking. Clinton found himself obliged in effect to bargain with and make concessions to his senior military advisers, with don't-ask-don't tell the result.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, one of the dirty little secrets of American politics was that far from standing apart from politics, the military had become a reliable constituency of the Republican Party. Just as blacks and members of teachers' unions voted Democratic, soldiers could be counted on to cast their ballots for the GOP. When the contested presidential election of 2000 came down to counting absentee ballots in Florida, Republicans rejoiced: since many of those absentee voters were soldiers and sailors registered in that state but serving elsewhere, Republican operatives were confident that George W. Bush enjoyed an advantage. They calculated correctly.

As the officer corps assumed an increasingly Republican coloration, Democrats fought back -- not by insisting that the officer corps abstain from partisanship, but by trying to demonstrate that there were plenty of officers who identified with their own party. Hence, the quadrennial competition to recruit retired admirals and generals willing to declare their presidential preferences. In the current cycle, Senator Obama seemingly won that competition by landing the endorsement of the hitherto-Republican General Powell. Yet Senator McCain immediately responded to the Powell endorsement by bragging that he already had a bulging roster of 400 former senior officers lined up in his corner.

So if Petraeus's statement that "senior leaders should be apolitical" reflects the beginnings of a retreat from the partisanship that has infected the officer corps, that will be all to the good. Indeed, General Petraeus will perform a signal service to the military profession and to the nation if he genuinely honors that commitment.

Still, one wonders. Since he burst upon the scene during the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, Petraeus has displayed a political sophistication and savvy not seen in any senior officer since Colin Powell himself left active duty. Among other things, the general possesses and does not hesitate to deploy (as did Powell) a remarkable aptitude for courting politicians and members of the press. Rather than seeing war and politics as distinctive spheres, with soldiers confined to the former and civilian leaders dominating the latter, Petraeus understands (correctly) that the two spheres are inextricably linked. To restrict soldiers to a specific arena of activity -- to limit their role to issues directly related to warfighting -- makes little sense and would be self-defeating. This is especially true in an era when the United States remains committed to waging an open-ended global war against the forces of violent Islamic radicalism.

The so-called "Long War" is a political war par excellence, with "politics" here having a domestic as well as an international aspect -- a reality apparent in the way that the Bush administration suppressed doubts about the "surge" in Iraq by employing Petraeus as its de facto spokesman. To criticize the policy became tantamount to criticizing the general, which few members of Congress or the media were willing to do.

Was Petraeus the administration's willing dupe? Or was he shrewdly pursuing his own game that just happened to coincide with the administration's? Who exactly was playing whom?

The question still to be determined is this: what role does Petraeus foresee himself playing as this deeply politicized war extends beyond the Bush presidency? Will he confine himself to rendering disinterested professional advice? Should Barack Obama win the election, will the apolitical soldier bow to the wishes of his new civilian master -- despite Obama's opposition to the war in which Petraeus built his reputation? We should hope so.

Yet by claiming to be apolitical -- someone who stands "above" mere politics -- Petraeus might also be positioning himself to assert a role not only in implementing policy but in shaping policy to suit his own agenda, in Iraq and elsewhere. In that event, General Marshall just might end up turning over in his grave.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.

Comments

[nirek]

Voting is not only a right , it is also an obligation as an American citizen .

[Spud777]

General Petreaus is a Bushie sycophant, who has supported Bush and his illegal war to further his career.

[Donald Wolberg]

Unfortunately confusion of what words such as "honor" and "duty" and "service" or "loyalty" are lost on those with little or no conception of history or service or selflessness so characteristic of the body of american officers and enlisted. Indeed, Mr. Clinton failed the test because of the alien nature of these concepts. Once suspects that they are but words to Mr. Bacevich as well without an intellectual foundation. It is just possible that General Patraeus has as a career goal, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and indeed, this is the trajectory of his career to date. Whether he or another is the most influential military leader of recent times is debateable although influence is more a matter of currency and popular rather than professional assessment. Of course the general has done more than anyone expected and seemingly has brought victory and vindication to the Iraq conflict. That nation is a functioning although imperfect democratic state in the midst of a chaotic region. General Patraeus and the bravery of American military did all this despite the nay saying of less than expert "experts."

[Berettasskeeter]

Well said, but I'm afraid most readers here will be scratching their heads in puzzlement, since the concepts are also alien to them!
Semper fi

[CalGoldenBear]

So "honor," "duty," "service," and "loyalty" are "but words to Mr. Bacevich" and he's presumably a "nay saying" [sic] academic who's one of a number of "less than expert 'experts.'"

Well, Mr. Wolberg, had you done your due diligence, you might have found out that COLONEL (U.S. Army ret.) Andrew J. Bacevich graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1969 and served a year in VIetnam (1970-71). He later served with the 11th "Black Horse" ACR in Germany, presumably in or near the Fulda Gap, as well as a variety of assignments in CONUS before retiring in the early 1990s.

And maybe if you knew something about West Point, you'd know that its motto is "Duty, honor, country," unlike the Naval Academy, which seemingly has none of those words in its motto.

And COL/Prof. Bacevich's son, 1LT Andrew J. Bacevich was killed by an IED on May 13, 2007 while serving with the 3-8 Cavalry, 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry "The First Team" Division.

So just go ahead mouthing neocon Repub talking points and casting aspersions on your betters.

BTW, how much time did YOU spend in a military uniform, other than perhaps at Halloween?

And it remains to be seen whether GEN Petraeus is Sam Damon or Courtney Massengale. While you may have no idea who I'm referring to, other fellow graduates of the school in Carlisle, PA, will know what I'm talking about.

[Berettasskeeter]

I don't know the author of the piece. Perhaps you do?! But there are a goodly number of people who served in the military, Academy grads and others, who've forgotten what "duty, honor, country" mean! Those are the ones voting for Obama, a man who would negate those ideals, in cahoots with a Socialist House Leader and a Socialist Senate Leader. "Country" means America FIRST. Obama has already said, many times, that he will negate that, when he has promised to meet without pre-conditions the enemies of our country. And no, I don't mean low level functionaries. He said HE will meet. Or was he using the royalty version of "He"?
Semper fi

[Carrie-On]

Here, here! I agree. Dr. Bacevich is a breeze from the ocean, with a well-earned, and acquired intellectual foundation. Someone (aka Wolberg) needs to at least learn to use a search engine.

Once Dr. Bacevich's books have been read - they do require paragraph absorption now and then, as other great authors are so gifted - one must realize Dr. Bacevich knows his subject matter, has given a great deal of thought to that which he was sent in to, and dutifully completed, but more importantly, is a credible author - my first requirement in reading anything.

If only all West Point graduates (and other military academy grads) come out of there with their brains still in tact, we would be in a far better world right now. Nothing is perfect but if our nation does not take the lead in a more creative, international "watch", instead of blowing out countries and their innocent peoples off the map, no one will succeed. The true roll of military academies are leadership; Bacevich is one of their stars.

While studying his writings, and learning more about this man, I had to wonder if he was already lined up as one of our next administration's top advisers. If not, he should be.

[HeevenSteven]

Before you accuse someone of lacking intellectual foundation, you really ought to do a little homework.

Also, Iraq was functioning a hell of a lot better before we got there, and the cost of keeping Sadam in check was a bargain in comparison. Victory is an meaningless work in this context and the General himself said he'd never use it there.

[HeevenSteven]

correction: work = word

[darthmaul]

"Victory and vindication in Iraq" are not what Patraeus brought to Iraq. What he did do was buy us some time so that we could get out in an organized fashion rather thenour withdrawl turn into a complete rout. Iraq is still a house of cards, and could easily fall apart, the minute we leave.

Why the military would think the republicans are their "friends" is beyond me. Bush has done serious damage to the military and is responsible for decimating the mid level officer ranks, by Officers who are leaving the service in droves, because they would actually like to have a family, wife and kids to come home to. The Iraq engagement has lasted longer then world war 2. Think about it.

[berrycooda]

We all know about Clintons record and shenanigans in the White House.

C. Powell is expecting to land a job in the White House with Obama.

Look how he beams when he gets in front of the camera. Where has he been the past few years.

And why was he so adamant about gays in the military..Did people forget what he stood for.
He seems pretty passive to me. And now has changed to the other side.

I can see his true colors coming thru......remember that song from a few years ago...

Petraeus is smart to stay out of politics. Wouldn't the press have a field day if he endorsed a candidate. He has been dragged thru enough from all the people who give their opinions on his
position in the military.

[billw8017]

Bill Clinton lied about a perfectly legal sexual relationship between consenting adults. George Bush gained and kept office by organizing vote fraud, lied us into war, and used the Justice Department for political purposes. And, that's just the start of a long rant!

Petraeus is hard to read. He seems to feel his duty to serve the President and to parse his words very carefully so as not to lie to Congress. Once upon a time, he took an oath to support the Constitution. I think he takes that oath seriously and actually believes in representative civilian government.

[Will-o]

The fact that more servicemen voted for George Bush in 2004 then voted for John Kerry does not mean that the military is in cahoots with the Republican party. It just means that servicemen thought of Bush has someone they would like to have a beer with and just could not picture John Kerry as someone who would ever drink beer - that Kerry, like Professor Bacevichwould, would probably prefer a nice Chardonnay.

[Bush 08]

i'd have to agree that a secular military is preferable... petraeus gets my respect for his "understanding" of that principle.
for the other part; i'd don't often like to speculate into the motives of individuals, i much prefer to look at past behavior and look for patterns. however, you do raise interesting questions; questions which i hope are remembered on the next occasion we call for his opinions and analysis...

[AM225]

Please! you can't know what the General thinks any more than you can proclaim to know what the man sitting next to you on the bus does. Do you really expect a man who has dedicated his life to the military, that achieved his rank and position, to speak out against the current admininstration? He could find himself forced to resign.

I 've met many in the ranks - they took an oath to serve, defend the Constitution of the US, and to obey the orders of those appointed over them. That's what they do, and they take the oath seriously. How do you know he wasn't ordered to parly information in a certain way? With all of the wranglings of the current administration from the recent Federal Judges scandal, and going back to its inception in 2000, how could you not think that?

I see the General as a professional officer, and I have no doubt he will serve the next adminstration to the best of his ability. The military can have their own political opinions, they can personally disagree, but they keep it to themselves and obey orders. If you want to know what the General really thinks/believes then you'll have to wait until he retires. Until then, anytime he speaks it will be as a representative of the military and of his commander in chief.
Patience.

[nomadic]

I've been married to a airman turned Officer for 26 years and i know for a fact how the upper echelons in the military feel; they are 90+% Republican. So much so I was once warned to watch what I said or risk my wife's career. when against all good reason she was passed over for her next promotion, a promotion everyone assumed was in the bag (and her first pass over ever in her career) I was consumed with guilt. Later she received a general's recommendation and was promoted in the next cycle. Even with the endorsement we did not take the impending promotion for granted. Whether I really had anything to do with her first passover is not relevant. How I felt based on that incident, does. As soon as someone is promoted to 0-4 it is very much political and it should not be.
There is that nonsense about military members being more socially moral than the average American and it's pretty stupid. Divorce rates, cheating spouses, gang affiliations, theft, alcoholism, drug abuse, spousal abuse, enabling parents and even child pornography are sad realities in today's military. In essence, due to the added stress they endure, things are often worse in the military than they are in the civilian world. I like these people. I've lived with them over a long period of time and admire some of them, many of them, despite their flaws and misinformation.
They are us if we were socialists.

[AM225]

"As soon as someone is promoted to 0-4 it is very much political and it should not be."

I completely agree, however, it is what it is. You have confirmed that.

All I am saying is that while he is still active, we will never know for sure the General's true leanings, or his thoughts, except through the current administration's filter.

[JoBangles]

Ever see the old early 60's movie Seven Days In May? I realize that a professional officer corp is necessary, but I still feel that they hold too much sway over foreign policy, and to a degree, domestic
policy. I can never come to complete ease knowing that the officer corp is just waiting, hoping for some action to further their careers. The whole Pentgon and military/industrial complex should be under constant observance for unnessary pressure for military action when diplomatic efforts are quite possible. We've been brainwashed into the warrior cult, and militarism dominates our lives
more than any other issue.

[jenrose]

This is a very good insight into the politics and I hope that the military has the right leadership. My son is a captain on 2nd tour 26 yrs old. 1st tour was Ramadi and he was 1st Lt. of 40 unit bradley tank unit.. That was a very horrific time and blood bath he and his fellow soldiers experienced. He battled and wittness so much death and destruction and sorrow of soldiers. He is very pro McCain and I do not want to give him any negative information because I worry about his mental health and staying positive to come home and still doo his very difficult job he has right now. If he could see this campaign closer he would think differently. But I dont discuss that with him for his protection.

I really like Patreaus this "Its not a war with a simple slogan" very true and the ":we need to win the war" by McCain i dont agree with that simple slogan that may mislead many people and soldiers by McCain. It plays to their emotions and it is wrong! We have made so many great strides in Iraqi and our military is still the best. it will not be if we stay in 2 wars or enter into another. The Russians ruined their economy fighting in Afhganistan.
We may have to end this because of economics!

[UltraClassic]

One other comment. Political posturing by ranking members of the military with out a doubt is a product of the Viet Nam war.

I'm not saying it's right but I understand how it occured. So much of the Viet Nam war was waged in the media to the point where it became hard to determine who was for you and who was against you. And let's face it, when you are out there leading troops and watching them get shot at as well as yourself, you do develope a sensitivity to this.

In an environment where sudden and violent death is a daily happening, you can get real sensitive as to who may be pulling for you and who may not be so enthusiastic about the missions you have been tasked to accomplish. As officers, it is our duty to brush those feelings aside and lead our men.

But in this modern world where you can get on a far left web site which portrays you as some kind of monster and then an hour later be in the field being shot at by insurgents, well let's just say you can get real conflicted feelings.

The Marines on Iwo and Oki did not have web sites, blogs and cable news to deal with. They fought, bled and died on nameless beaches and jungles. The mission was accomplished and the war was won. What a different world we live in today.

[cetacus]

"Duty, Honor, Country"?

This General is very conflicted with his latest statement about not voting in the Presidential election 2008.

This was the Major General who wrote an Op-Ed to the Washington Post prior to the 2004 Presidential Election promoting Bush as the only choice for re-election.

How can a registered voter with a college education paid for by the United States of America not assume the responsibility to vote, but you can break ranks and endorse a political candidate running for an elective office?

As a matter of "Honor" he should resign his post and return to civilian life!

Cetacus
Denver, CO

[UltraClassic]

Wow, what a great piece. I lived and breathed it for 26 years in the Marine Corps. Yah, we are the most conservative and pro GOP of the four services. Sure, lots of b!tching took place when WJC took over but I can tell you, we all did our job, what ever it was, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, you name it.

Give the officer core a little more credit. We took our oath and we meant it. Officers are professionals and take pride on accomplishing the mission, what ever it may be. That does not mean we might not sit around the O-club and slam back a few cold ones while b!itching about the wusses in DC.

BTW, I noticed not a word on MoveOn's assault on this officer in the NYT. I wonder why?

[davidpeace]

Interesting. Conservatives saw that as an "assault". Liberals saw that as "free speech". I wonder why?

[UltraClassic]

David, I have no problem with MoveOn's gripe against the general. In fact, you migh be surprsied to know that I think some of their points were borderline legit. But the NYT ad went over the line and was an attack on the individual officer and an attempt to belittle and demean his authority and professionalism.

Attach the message, not the man and I will back you up 110%

[Nooneyouknow]

I've been extremely disturbed by the U.S. military's obvious lean to the right in recent decades. There have been many reports that Democratic or liberal officers who let their views be known can have their careers derailed. In particular, the influence of Dominionists in the Air Force and the Pentagon is frightening. Bush got his surge; let's hope Obama undertakes a purge.

[Berettasskeeter]

If Obama institutes your "purge", God help the U.S. What will you have, a Denmark-style military that can vote to stay out of harm's way? A unionized military? The U.S. will die a sloppy death in that case. It's only those conservative values that you despise that give a person the heart to advance into the teeth of fire! A love of country and comrades is what drives them/us. Your Liberal/Leftist values, that despise the U.S., will not lead them there when needed! Or, can you contradict that with concrete examples, without pointing to forced labor?!
Semper fi

[mheister]

Bush had no problem firing generals who didn't share his worldview. If David Petraeus can't tow the line of the new commander-in-chief, whoever that happens to be on January 20, he needs to be shown the door.

[Garvagh]

Bravo! Clearly, Petreaus is an advocate of the imperial presidency, able to wage permanent war in the Middle East. Keeping the American public confused and afraid is a key part of this strategy. Iran poses no threat to the US, yet Petraeus and his underlings try to convince the public that their security is in danger, because of Iran! I see Petraeus as reprising the role of William Westmoreland, but with more sophistication.

[charles77]

"Iran poses no threat to the US"
Are you kidding!! Iran threatens us and our alies all the time.
They have rockets that can hit Israel and most of Europe.
Obama speaks of the threat of Iran all the time.

[Berettasskeeter]

Well, apparently Petraeus has more access to classified intelligence than do you, don't you think? So does Bush and his Administration, no? Your desire to think that Iran poses no danger is not borne out by their own words, or haven't you been paying attention?
Semper fi