Did the NRCC Really Say Nancy Pelosi Should Be Put in Her Place?
The NRCC issued a statement this week attacking Nancy Pelosi for daring to question General McChrystal and calling on General McChrystal to "put her (Pelosi) in her place." The NRCC is charged with defeating the Democratic congress, so attacks on Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders should not, in general, be cause for too much anger or surprise. However, the specific language used by the NRCC reveals the contempt with which the NRCC holds not just Speaker Pelosi, but the some of the basic ideas on which our democracy rests as well.
McChrystal will not, of course, put Pelosi in her place. The voters of San Francisco and the other members of the House of Representatives have already done that and put Pelosi in her position as Speaker of the House. By questioning McChrystal, Pelosi is fulfilling her constitutional duty. Civilian control of the military is a core component of American democracy. Silence by Pelosi would amount to shirking these duties. All Americans, regardless of party affiliation or views on the war in Afghanistan should be grateful that members of congress like Pelosi challenge McChrystal and push him to make his arguments as strongly and persuasively as possible.
Military leaders, such as General McChrystal, are charged with determining how best to achieve military goals. The nature of that position leads them to frequently call for more troops, more equipment, stronger US commitment and the like. This is simply the bureaucratic logic of the military. McChrystal's call for more troops is appropriate because that probably is necessary, although, sadly, far from sufficient, for the US to achieve its goals in Afghanistan.
Military leaders, however, are not policy makers, so should not be expected to determine priorities, be concerned about what the American people want or even consider the global impact of military actions in a specific questions. This is the purview of our elected leaders. By raising these and other questions Pelosi, and others in Congress, are pushing for a discussion of goals, strategies and priorities not just tactics.
The NRCC statement reflects a lack of understanding of this basic principle and asserts that "Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country's military policy." The proper response to this is that of course she is better suited to craft our country's policy. Unlike McChrystal, Pelosi and her 434 colleagues in the House of Representatives were elected to craft US policy, military and otherwise. Pelosi, and others in congress, absolutely should seek the expertise of McChrystal and others and even defer to them on technical matters and military tactics, but should not allow unelected generals to make major policy decisions.
While McChrystal has far more knowledge of military tactics, war and Afghanistan than Pelosi, unlike the Speaker of the House, nobody elected him. He is a bureaucrat charged ultimately with implementing the will of the people, as determined by their elected representatives, in his particular sphere of expertise. Calling for unelected bureaucrats to put elected officials in their place simply because the latter are doing their constitutional duty by challenging the former sets a chilling tone for our democracy. It is an unambiguous attempt to stifle debate by trying to shout down those, including the Speaker of the House, who would dare to question the military.
The questions which congress should be raising about whether this war is worth it, how long we will be there, what some of the other consequences of the war will be and how the US might more effectively combat Al Quada are questions which are important to many Americans as public opinion begins to turn against the war. For this reason, the NRCC statement is, of course, not just about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is a tough and professional politician who, at this time, has little to fear from the NRCC. The nature of the attack on Nancy Pelosi is, however, implicitly an attack on all of us who think questions about the war should be raised. The NRCC thinks all of us should be put in our place and all of our questions should remain unasked.
In some respects it is a mistake to read too much into this latest NRCC statement. It is one of many statements which the NRCC, RNC and other Republican organizations make on a regular basis critical of President Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats. However, sometimes in these quotidian statements, the Republican Party shows a little too much about its true understanding and beliefs about how they would like the US to work. This is one of those cases where the NRCC made it clear that their understanding of the relationship between the military and its civilian control is disturbingly tenuous.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"All Americans, regardless of party affiliation or views on the war in Afghanistan should be grateful that members of congress like Pelosi challenge McChrystal and push him to make his arguments as strongly and persuasively as possible."
Pelosi didn't tell him to make his argument, she told him to shut up. She was out of line. He had already submitted his opinions to his BOSS, and had cleared his speech and remarks with the Pentagon. Pelosi rebuked him for speaking out and defending his report, and that was uncalled for.
She was not out of line, and she did not tell him to "shut up". Jim Webb also said that McCrystal's comments were odd. http://the
The statement from the NRCC about putting her "in her place" was inappropriate and ignorant of our system at best... blatantly sexist at worst. But not surprising. You say he already submitted his comments, etc. Just because you say it doesn't mean its true... Provide a link or something please.
A good article. But, the most important thing he states, and I agree with is; the R's, NRCC, et al,. do not seem to understand how government works. The relationship between Congress and the Military. The NRCC's collective ignorance frightens me.
"Pelosi is fulfilling her constitutional duty"
That must be what's upsetting them.
Very good piece. The sexism and racism displayed by Republicans of late is an easy thing to attack and should be addressed, but you can't lose sight of the fact that underneath it all, their agenda is the same -- regardless of Obama's race and Pelosi's gender, even if those two things are heightening their passion. Their language reveals their contempt and disregard, but I'm starting to wonder if that isn't on purpose -- rather than the expression of deep-seated biases of which they themselves are only partially aware. That was what I used to think.
But then I see how many points they score with their base each time Democrats issue cries of racism and sexism, and they get to go back and tell more stories about our (I'm black and female) whining. These men aren't stupid or naive. They know they haven't lost the country to evil socialist feminist/reverse racists, but they also know how much money they raise when they say that they have and that they're fighting to take it back. It's slick and disgusting. Those of us on the other side need to keep focused their real agenda.
In which branch did Spain serve? May we see a copy of his discharge? Have they stopped teaching the Chain of Command?
I was kinda hoping the General would be stupid enough to allow himself to be talked into trying to put Pelosi in her place. That would have been the shortest speech of his career. She would have his head stuffed and placed in her hallway at home by now. Republicans sure are dumb.
Yeah, um, no, it wouldn't be in Pelosi's hallway. You folks have a lot to learn about where Generals go when they retire, forcibly or otherwise. Don't make this about the military.
Could you expand on your comment?
Very good analysis, Mr. Mitchell, and good exposition of some of the national issues this raises besides the sexism.
However, we can't separate out the astonishing sexism and misogyny driving much of the near-constant attacks on the Speaker of the House, and not just about a woman daring to speak authoritatively to a military man.
Although the Rethuglicans have very deliberately used this code phrase to appeal to the worst emotions in the people who form the party's base, the sexism, like the hatred of our President, nestles so deep in the right's vision of the world that they themselves don't know the extent of their rage that women and nonwhite men are achieving power in the country.
Exactly!
I think you took a great tact in this piece. Many are calling the NRCC anti-feminist for the comments. I think the views stated in this article are much more to the point. When has it been the military's job to put elected officials "in their place". The power to declare war comes from congress. The military's funding comes from congress. And yes, the military's highest honor comes from congress. They have a symbiotic relationship. Not a dominant/s
I think the NRCC thinks that they have the power to order Generals about...wh
WHO elected them???
No, the military's highest honor doesn't necessarily come from Congress. More often than not these days, the Medal of Honor is investigated and awarded through the military awards process. That it is rendered by the President on behalf of Congress is largely ceremonial.
Elected officials also, as a point of fact, have a dominant relationship over the military. The military does not have license to be heated in return to elected officials.
Exactly right. Pelosi as every right to question General McChrystal. It's his job to state what he needs to do the job given to him by the Commander and Chief. It's her place to probe the request but not because " she is better suited to craft our country's military policy." That's exactly WRONG! Policy decisions and "crafting policy" rest with the administration, The White House. Members of Congress are put in office to craft and vote on legislation. They can and do pass on the voters policy wishes to the current administration, but they are not the people in government that set this nation's policy on anything.
Not true. She is better suited to craft our country's military policy because she is an elected official. She is one of those that create legislation that becomes law. This is turn crafts our policy. The President decides the policy but congress has to craft it, they have to hammer out laws that allow it to be understood and implemented. You sound a George Bush worshiper for he thought he held ultimate power. We have a system of checks and balances in this country. The president may set foreign policy and determine how and where our militaru fights but congress puts on on papper to make it a law ans that is where the carrying out of policy is crafted. The military follows orders. You tell them to take that country without killing more than X number of people and they will but it is never left up to the military to decide who to fight or where to fight. The military tells the commander in chief when they have achieved their assigned goals and then the commander in chief decides if the mission is accomplished.
Rriiiiggghhhtttt. That's why they have armed services committees, because all elected officials are suited to shape policy.
The fact is, the administration does shape policies, not Congress. Congress can set the budget, affect laws, but the prosecution of war is in fact within the purview of the President once declared by Congress. Didn't the Congress' only recourse during the Bush years teach you anything? The only substantial policy they had over military affairs was the purse strings, and strangely, this Congress seems more willing to use it now than with a GOP President.
You guys that like the sound of your own typing do more harm than good to the cause when you have your facts in error.
" putting someone in their place" = don't get uppity ..........
This is something that most dark people and some poor whites are very familiar with.
Our inability as a nation to deal with our problems seriously makes me think that in a few years we will look back at this time, when we had the internets & the leisure to visit these sites.
In other words : lotta talk & not enough appropriate action.
Big changes are coming, we are not preparing for them and that is unfair to our children.
It also reveals anti-woman bias, and like the racism that our president endures, this bias makes ugly attacks both more common and more ugly.
Thank you for this piece - it is precisely what went through my mind when I read that NRCC presser.
When has a General ever not asked for more troops or arms? I am always amazed at how certain segments of the public react to a military man asking for more stuff. It's always "see, they need more, let's just give them what they want. If you don't, you just want them to fail and you're unpatriotic".
If you just gave the military everything they wanted we would all be in the army and every idle car plant would be making planes and tanks. According to them they never have enough troops or armor to do the job they want to do. We need to stop letting military people decide our policies. They only know one policy and that is how to wage war. More stuff, more war.
Why does this have to be about the military? Yes, you're right, it's a given that a military leader will always want more troops to carry out the mission (most troops, I can tell you firsthand, want more troops to carry out the mission, because you try going out on a 48 hour patrol with 6 hours between them).
You need to stifle yourself, because there is no better people to tell Congress how the military should carry out its assigned mission than the military. If the Congress limits our resources, as is their right to do, we carry forward. I won't call you unpatriotic, but I will call you uninformed.
Your right we should leave the military out of this. However, Pelosi has a right to speak about military issues, she is the Speaker of the House and third in line to be president. We should focus our ire on the NRCC. Politicians have a right to shape policy. So she can speak.
The no. 1 reason why Repubs ha.te Peolsi is because she is a woman who is in a high position over them. They de.spise that more than her liberalism.
You said it! They are intimidated by strong, intelligent women...be
I took their statement to mean they wanted her "back in the kitchen"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
