The Politicization of Military Commanders

Since when did American military commanders start inserting themselves into political debates? When did men in uniform -- honored, but never elected -- start giving the American people lectures on politics? Evidently, when the Bush administration told them to, as part of its "surge" against American public opinion.

But officers should be reminded: "Just following orders" is no justification when an order goes against the American historical and Constitutional tradition. And it's also in statute, specifically, the National Security Act of 1947, the preamble of which reads:

"In enacting this legislation, it is the intent of Congress...to provide for... unified direction under civilian control."

And that means you, Major General Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of American forces in northern Iraq. You are a repeat offender. In one such instance, on July 13, Mixon ends his response to a question regarding the much-debated decrease in troop levels by delivering these instructions to Congress as it seeks to craft an Iraq strategy:

"...[It] needs to be well thought out, and it cannot be a strategy that is based on 'well, we need to leave.' That's not a strategy, that's a withdrawal."

In looking at Mixon's words, which is more obvious: his condescension toward Congress -- or his contempt for Congress?

And yet at the same time, a Member of Congress might well be intimidated by such talk from a general. What Iraq War-skeptical but also risk-averse politician would wish to be put in a position where a general, invoking all the prestige of his position, would accuse the politician of "not thinking through" a strategy. In the game of politics, not many politicians want to confront not only their natural political opponents, but also the weight of the institutional military.

And in fact, the Founders of the Constitution didn't want that, either. That's why they enshrined the principle of political control into our politics, much to the dismay of, to name one celebrated example, Douglas MacArthur, when Harry Truman fired him during the middle of the Korean War.

Indeed, to this day, there is such a phobia about letting people use their American military uniforms to make a political statement that even Iraq War veterans, Corporal Adam Kokesh, Marine Sergeant Liam Madden, and Corporal Cloy Richards, were busted for wearing a stripped down uniform in the course of protests. Although maybe that was different, since Kokesh, Madden and Richards were wearing their uniforms as part of an anti-war demonstration. Wearing a uniform to protest the war is bad, we might conclude from the Bush administration's actions and inactions, but wearing a uniform to promote the war -- now that's good!

In addition to Mixon, let's take another example:

Reporters at the Pentagon asked Army Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the Multi-National Division-Center, Friday (who joined them via teleconference from Iraq) to remark on GOP Senator John Warner's recent comments to President Bush that, "[He] can initiate a first withdrawal. [He] can pick the number. It will send a signal to the Iraqi government that matches [his] words. His words being, 'We're not going to be there forever.'"

Lynch, adding insult to Mixon's injury, replied, "Only when the Iraqi security forces come forward and say, 'OK, here I am, I'm trained and equipped, I'm ready, I'm the Iraqi army or I'm the Iraqi police,' can I turn those sanctuaries over, and that's not going to happen between now and Christmas... [we] would take a giant step backward."

First of all, isn't a decrease in troop levels by definition "a giant step backward?" I would argue that indeed it is, and 'backward' is, in this case, is a positive characterization of necessary action. As in, we'll -- at some point in the near future -- leave (or, in Lynch's vague terminology "take a giant step backwards." Just as when we arrived, we took a giant step "towards" Iraq. I'll accept that interpretation as legit logic; though I think it's clear Lynch was taking a swipe at the growing number of war critics who've been left wanting objective information.

And secondly, it's doubtful whether the Iraqi security forces will ever come forward and say, "I'm trained and equipped, I'm ready, I'm the Iraqi army or I'm the Iraqi police." So, in other words, Lynch is implying an indefinite extended-stay in Iraq.

Unfortunately for the cynics, the Department of Defense under Gates is no different than it was under Rumsfeld, in terms of utilization of a war propaganda machine. This time around, though, the Pentagon is calling it a "War Information Room." Worry not about its purpose, however - Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell assures us that "[He] would not characterize it as a war room." He insists, "It's far less sinister than that. It's more like a library."

Aside from this laughable attempt at public manipulation, there is no evidence that the military is making much of an effort to establish a reputation for legitimate data dissemination. What's strange about this oft-unnoted fact is that nobody should be more eager to keep clear of politics than the military itself. The armed forces enjoy their unique status in our national life because they are uniquely isolated from politics. And that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Because law has blatantly failed to preclude political interference by civilian military generals, action must be taken to reprimand the offenders. The Bush administration holds ultimate responsibility in reacting harshly to comments made by Major General Lynch, Major General Mixon, and others; and while its certainly in its best interest to do so, I have my doubts -- and in such a case, it's up to the Congress to remind the Pentagon of the rules, perhaps by terminating a career or two.

Why act so definitively? The paramount principle of civilian control of the military is severely compromised if one party can invoke the prestige of our armed forces in a dispute with the other party. Generals aren't meant take sides -- well, I take that back -- generals are meant take our side, the side of the United States.

If that's not a given, then the integrity of the military is at stake; and I think we can all agree that if there's one place politics ain't allowed, it's the military's sphere. A symbol of our nation, glorious and independent of mere partisan bickering and press-jabs, the armed forces simply cannot be made into just another political tool.

Who are we if not governed by a limited Executive Branch, and protected by a civilian and objective military? I, for one, am reluctant to accept anything short of such an arrangement, lest we fall prey to self-interested figures in the guise of civil servants -- a la General MacArthur, who recognized that his opinion, as a powerful military general, could sway the American public's political temperature when it became necessary in strategic planning and decision-making.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

I read that even Dick Cheney himself said that invading Iraq was a Big Mistake back in '94.
These people have dug a huge hole, and dumped our military into it, along with about 1/2 trillion dollars in irrecoverable tax revenue.
Any way you slice it, any perspective you look at it from, this pig is the Ultimate Revlon Challenge, and the sooner that the august bodies and powers-that-be finally decide that it's over and done with, the better off we'll be, and the sooner we'll really start investing in Better Answers To Chronic Energy Problems instead of machine gun bullets and recruitment bonuses or whatever.

I think the service has been deliberately changed, twisted, altered, reformed into a shape that craps the most money possible into
certain hands, Smedley Butler, Eisenhower, and others warned about this phenonomenon in years past, both of those guys were generals, one went on to be president, but apparently military-industrial warnings fell on deaf ears...

[consstance]

FYI, here's the vid of Cheney's '94 comments: http://consstance.com/2007/08/14/hes-his-own-best-critic/

[Miked1960]

I actually know General Mixon and he is on America's side. He was simply reminding everyone that withdrawing the troops will take more than sending a bunch of planes to Iraq and have everybody jump on board. There is a lot of equipment that will be turned over to the Iraqi Army/police and much will have to be shipped back or destroyed in place.
MG Mixon is answerable to civilian authority. If Secretary Gates has no problem with MG Mixon's comments then Congress can complain to Mixon's Commander in Chief. He does not take orders from Congress. That is what is spelled out in the Constitution. No doubt If the Democrats win the next election he will be asked to resign and he will.
It should be of no surprise that General Lynch was a brigade commander under MG Mixon. He tells the truth no matter how much it hurts. You may not like what he says or how he says it but it will be the truth. General Lynch is a very aggressive commander, exactly the type you need in Iraq. I know he and his soldiers would love to be back home but there is a job to do and they mean to do it well. When Congress and the administration determine it is time to come home , General Lynch will follow those orders as well. Take up the fight with the Civilians running the war and let the Generals do their job.

[altohone]

The "job to do" in Iraq was contrived.

We don't exactly need agressive commanders in Iraq, we need no commanders in Iraq.

You say "take up the fight with the civilians", yet we have Generals selling the politics, not the truth. Your admonition should be aimed at them.

[TimeToThink]

I can tell that there are a lot of opinions about the military from those who have never been in it. But the central question raised by the post remains a good one.

Yes it's illegal to voice political opinions publicly as an active member of the armed forces. And that means opinions either way. Anyone can cherry pick through the corps of general officers to find one that supports a specific goal of an administration or oppose it. The military command always prefers them to support the goals of the President, and the President and Defence Secretary are going to prefer the top brass to be unwaveringly for them. After all, they are at the top of the chain of command. It has always been so.

MacArthur was fired for insubordination in not following his superior's (Pres. Truman's) direction to cease making comments to the Press about HIS view of what the Military strategy should be in Korea. Patton was almost fired and finally disgraced for public self promotion and offering his own political opinions.

Any officer knows that if his loyalty to his chain of command becomes intolorable he has only two honorable choices. Either to bear it and continue to say 'yes sir!', or resign or retire. Only after the latter choice is he free to say what he will.

But if he supports the chain of command above him, his duty is to simply do his duty. If asked in a public forum his opinion of the policies he supports, he should only restate the command's position as his mission. Or, if the urge to cheer lead in public is irresistable, then he too must resign or retire first.

But remember, a call by Congress to give his opinion to it trumps everything always. I just don't see the issue the post raises in that regard though a response that is negative to the position of the command should result in his voluntary resignation or retirement. The last is a pretty hard situation for such an officer, and Congress should recognize that.

[Zenobius]

War is now, and always has been, political. See Clausewitz, Sunzi, Caesar, and Romance of Three Kingdoms.

The problem is that we expect military officers to serve the country, and the constitution. This requires that the country be reasonably close to united in support of the policy they are to implement; and that the administration respect the constitution. Continuation of the war in Iraq does not have the unified support of the country {and pulling out does not either}, and the administration does not respect the Constitution. This puts officers in the position of having to think for themselves about what serving the country really means. Some will think one thing, some will think another, and some won't think at all.

I'm willing to believe Generals Petraeus, Mixon et al are honestly trying to serve the country. But when they offer a view that the country would be better off staying in Iraq {or for that matter, that General Odom, when he offers the view that we would be better off retreating} they are speaking as citizens, not officers.

[altohone]

Pulling out may not have unified support, but support for pulling out is far greater than the support for continuation.

Since the administration does not respect the Constitution, military officers should not respect the administration. They are violating their oaths by going along.

Regurgitating what Bushies tell them to say may be good for their careers, but it is bad for the country. When Mixon and Petraeus sell the Bush view as officers, they are not being good citizens.

[serialcoma]

Bush is ultimately reposonsible for politicizing the military by his dismissal of leadership that told him the truth about Iraq and promoting and supporting military "leaders" who told him what he wanted to hear.

There is no part of America or its government that bush hasn't tainted, corrupted, politicized and ultimately diminished with his ignorance and arrogance.

george bush is a threat to the United States.

[Destin]

I guess folks need to start calling out these so-called "leaders" on the UCMJ barring them from not only being political, but USED as political tools by the Presidents. They are barred from both.

But they get forced into it anyways, when Bush smirks and hides behind the Generals. Deflecting questions towards them, then smirking as if daring the press corps to challenge the assertions of a hand-picked "yes-man" General.

[pahpah25]

INSITUTIONALIZED MILITARY..........THE FOUNDING FATHERS WORSE NIGHTMARE HAS COME TO PASS....WE HAVE ENORMOUS MILITARY ACADEMIES, TURNING OUT OFFICERS BY THE HUNDREDS....BUT IT IS THE ENLISTED WHO FIGHT AND DIE IN THE WARS.....I WONDER WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE ACADEMY GRADUATES ACTUALLY SEE COMBAT...HOW MANY IMMDEIATELY SNAG A DESK AT THE PENTAGON, NEVER TO SOIL THEIR UNIFORMS WITH BATTLE FIELD BLOOD AND GUTS.

[PoliceState]

In all my years in the Army I, too, grew to loathe USMA (West Point) grads.

They suffer the same air of invincibility as athletes. They think they are on top of the world. Even in photographs, they'll condescend for a unit photo and then immediately break down into a separate, West Point clique photo.

I can tell you the best officers are those coming from OCS and ROTC.

West Pointers are just like Bush, and that is their Achilles heel: they never take wise counsel from anybody. It's their way or the highway. When their plan goes horribly wrong, they find a convenient fall guy.

We should close all the service academies.

[OrvilleHLarson]

Interesting point of view, and thanks for it.

Speaking of closing the service academies: I believe that Lawrence Korb suggested this some years ago. Given the fact that they're hugely expensive to operate and maintain, and that the total cost of a cadet's and midshipman's education is a million (!) bucks, we might be content to get our commissioned officers from ROTC and OCS. (Service academy graduates make up only about 10 percent of all officers anyway.)

Of course, given that much of the military history of the United States was written by West Point and Annapolis officers, that might be a hard sell!

[joebaggadonuts]

So, the Reagan revolution is complete. Every branch of the government is broken beyond repair, and the Military has become a fawning sycophant to the Administration.

You say it's unacceptable? So do I. So does 75% of the American public.

Those are the facts.

In one's personal life, if one comes to the end of a road like this, one changes course. In the life of our society?

Let's change course.

[Zyzzygowski]

It is about the questions asked.

Will someone please ask the supporters of our efforts in Iraq -

"Do you trust the Iraqis? More specifically, do you trust the Iraqi Police? Do you trust the Iraqi military? Do you trust the Iraqi politicians?"

Why are we spilling American blood for a people unwilling to do the same thing? Yep, they are afraid, ... and American soldiers aren't?

Why are the Iraqis hedging their bets? Don't they believe in a stable democratic Iraq able to protect themselves and become and ally with the US against terrorism?

Ask the generals, ask the administration, ask an American politician.

Otherwise, Support the Troops. Enlist!

[Independent voter]

The military rewards ass kissers and yes men. I believe this is how Powell made it to the top and this is the mindset that caused him to lie his ass off in front of the UN about mobile WMD labs in in desert. Whatever the boss man says is what it is. No debate.

In a sad way, you can understand the plight of people like Peter Princple Pace. If you disagree with fearless leader ala Shinseki, your nice army career and fat army pension are toast. If you play a nice lackey, you get the gold star.

Just look how handsomely General Meyers was paid off for his "loyalty". His unqualified daughter was appointed head of ICE.

It's no wonder that this culture continues.

[PoliceState]

I agree completely. "RoveThink" has destroyed the military. I witnessed the Army transformed from a neutral, professional military organization into a neo-conservative, Republican establishment.

I resigned from the Army in large part due to this ugly transformation.

And I don't even want to get started on how our armed forces have become nothing more than an extension of Israel's armed forces and a leg breaker for Wall Street.

The Army I once knew is gone.

[ControlledBurn]

The U.S. military has always been Wall Street's leg breaker. Google Smedley Butler and
Mark Twain's 'To The Person Sitting In Darkness'

As soon as the Army finished cleansing the frontier, we set about colonizing the Caribbean, Central America and the Pacific.

[depjohnson]

This is a great piece -- Sere has done an excellent job of stepping outside the box/reframing the debate, reminding us of an extremely basic tenet of our nation: the civilian control of the military. We need only look at Panama under Noriega, Chile under Pinochet, Italy under Mussolini, etc., to see the disastrous histories of countries which come under military control.

Thank you, Ms. Sere.

[milo9]

Agreed, civilian control of the military, a concept that is fundamental to our country. The blurred line between the military and domestic politics is similiar the Bushies use of the "Faith Based Initiative". It would seem that Christian Conservatives presently control a wing of the Air Force. I think that Bush and Co. were setting up a framework for a totalitarian state. But hey I'm paranoid!

[Spookcatcher]

Goerring and Goebels spoke out on National Policy. So did Mussolini. They were Generals.

[1differentdrummer]

Mussolini was a general? Really?

[Dallas112263]

Goering and Goebbels... that's a double 'b' in Goebbels, single 'r' in Goering... were Nazi's and may have held General Rank as such in WWII... Goebbels was disabled, what was known as a clubfoot in those days, he never served in the Wehrmacht. A famous ace (22 kills) in WWI Goering rose to command the Von Richtoffen's squadron was awarded the Iron Cross and the Blue Max but he never rose to General Rank through the military, only through politics.

It is the militarization of political discourse in Weimar Germany that was the prelude to Fascism and what we need remain vigilant against now.

Dallas112263
Gore 2008

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

Mussolini was a corporal.

[Robert59]

There's a quick fix; ban all general officers from giving briefings to the public. Mandate civilian leadership give the briefings. Don't allow G.O.s to answer questions!

Either way you're going to get a political slant. What's really not fair is to ask G.O.s who have dedicated the last six years to OEF and OIF what they think of withdrawal. They have too much invested in the fight making them incapable of giving a detached opinion based on facts, not wishful thinking.

Tactically, Warner's recommendation is a nonstarter if it doesn't correlate with a reduction in the mission. You can't pull 5000 bodies out of the war unless you alter the mission and Warner isn't calling for that. Just what the Army and Marines need, doing more with less.

Warner's recommendation isn't bold but tepid. If he believes it's a lost cause join with Harry Reid and vote to end the war.

[1differentdrummer]

Under this maladministration generals may pander, preach and prosylitize. Get them out of policy and politics, they don't belong there.

[Diogenes]

What do you expect with all the endless, mindless "support the troops" malarkey that just goes on and on and on.

Including from so-called liberals. Stephen Colbert has donations to some take care of the troops; John Stewart's Iraq think was just some week long suck up to them. Enough!