Politics At The Pentagon

I've been to the Pentagon three times. I have a Pentagon coffee cup and a Pentagon raincoat that I bought at the Pentagon gift shop and I still have the badge I was given while I was escorted through the building. I'm guessing musicians don't often get invited to the Pentagon.

We never talked politics at our meetings. Looking back, our conversations were mostly analysis. Once I was even shown a map and asked to interpret it.

The organization MoveOn brings up an interesting point. If the Pentagon is going to get involved in politics, shouldn't they be open to political criticism? If I'm being updated on a war, I don't want the politically correct assessment. I want the facts. I want to know, and need to know, whats really going on. If I'm being briefed on Iraq, and the facts are being presented in a way that doesn't reflect whats really going on, then I'm being betrayed and the American people (especially the voters and the soldiers) are being betrayed. I'm not being betrayed by a general representing the military establishment, I'm being betrayed by a general defending a political point of view.

A candidate running for President of the United States has to be free to criticize the Pentagon. If the future Commander in Chief doesn't agree with the way the our military is being used by the current Commander in Chief, then he or she has to express those views and differences without being taken to task on their patriotism. Agreeing with, or trying to defend a failed policy doesn't equal patriotism. The public needs to know when a candidate disagrees with policy. The public needs to know what it's options are. For example; if Rudy Giuliani, the tough guy, disagrees with Bush and actually wants to double our troop levels in the Iraq region as a nod to the NRA, then we need to know about it. By the same token if Hillary Clinton wants to depoliticize the Pentagon, we need to know about that too.

Comments

[KenoshaMarge]

05:12 AM on 09/23/2007

Petraeus will have sleepless nights? Doubtful. He charted his own path and it was not a path that was loyal to the men that serve below him or the people of this nation. He chose political loyalty to a pinheaded president in hopes of personal gain. If that isn't a "betrayal" I don't know what the word means. Unless you count the 22 spineless Democrats that voted to condemn the MoveOn.Org ad that not only called a spade a spade, but the called him a fU**ing spade.

[SergeantD]

12:15 AM on 09/23/2007

A once proud general has become a spineless, policy-pushing shill.

He knows it, his superiors and subordinates know it, and now the American public knows it.

Petraeus has a whole lot of sleepless nights ahead of him.

[Boomerwoman]

10:53 PM on 09/22/2007

I anxiously watch America slide away from our constitution and closer to the military industrial complex of Eisenhauser's warning. And I recognize from my travels around the world that this is what 3/4 of the rest of the world experiences: Tinpot dictators cozied up with a politicized military and both beholden to the weapons makers. Look at any South American country for insight into what we will be like unless we address this travesty.

[Budh]

10:07 PM on 09/22/2007

Patraeus forgot the lesson of Colin Powell , the venerable general of years of gallant service to this country who goes before the world and blatantly lied about the WMD in the UN .He betrayed his country and its people to push the war agenda of a maniacal war monger, and in the process disgraces himself for posterity. Patraeus is obviously following Powell's example as all good soldiers do, follow the leader.

[BillZBubb]

08:14 PM on 09/22/2007

It appears that several of our more ambitious generals failed to learn one of the many major lessons from VietNam. That lesson is that the Pentagon and it's generals should STAY OUT OF THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

Once they have taken a political position, they should expect to come under scrutiny. As in VietNam, once they start cheerleading for a war, they own the responsibility. Once they start attacking the patriotism of war opponents, they can expect their public esteem to plummet.

Petraeus has taken an extremely political position. He's betting he'll get another star for pimping for Bush. Betray us indeed.

[dadw5boys]

07:39 PM on 09/22/2007

DE-POLITICIZE THE PENTAGON?
Truman had to remove General Mc Authur when he started trying to make laws and be political.
There is a line that can't be crossed between the military and politics.
There needs to be a line established between Home Land Security and Politic too.
If any General allows his self to be palced in the Political Arena then his has crossed the line or he has an agenda he wants to sell.
It is not up to the Military to sell any Presidents plans for war. They might as well be selling death.