Top-ranking officer warns U.S. military to stay out of politics

Jason Dempsey writes about partisanship in his book, Our Army. Very good read backed up by analysis of survey results, specifically of junior officers. With a large majority of senior officers identifying with the Republican Party, there are clear impacts on organizational culture. Results of questions about pressure to identify with the Republican Party are also interesting.

Mod's Note: 'Our Army' was published in 2009 and a little more on:http://www.amazon.com/Our-Army-Soldi.../dp/0691142254

Oddly with one review and I noted this:

Quote:

---

Congratulations to LTC Jason Dempsey (Ph.D. 08) on his appointment to the 2010-2011 Class of White House Fellows.

---

.

Link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/a...low/index.html

Yes keep the military out of party politics... and throw those who don't out of the service.

Now the bigger current problem is to keep the politicians from attempting to micro manage the military, as is happening in just about every democratic country around the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

Now the bigger current problem is to keep the politicians from attempting to micro manage the military, as is happening in just about every democratic country around the world.

---

All politicians that tend to meddle in military-related affairs should be remanded to conscript military service for a period of one year beginning with the humble rank of E-1 to include the humble wages afforded to those who risk life and limb for their country(ies) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

All politicians that tend to meddle in military-related affairs should be remanded to conscript military service for a period of one year beginning with the humble rank of E-1 to include the humble wages afforded to those who risk life and limb for their country(ies) :D

---

Go back 80 odd years and read what Major-General John Frederick Charles Fuller said of command deficiencies:

Quote:

---

“The common deficits in command are ...calling conferences in order to pick the brains of subordinates and lack of originality which often leads to doing something which the enemy expects in place of what he does not look for.”

---

...but our civilian masters turn what in the military would be considered in the military to be a fatal flaw into the preferred and indeed seemingly required course of action. They call it workshopping or brainstorming and Obama did it in grand style (it appears) in the lead up to the hit on Osama.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4MeqJOnL_o...in%2BLaden.jpg

Both US and Brit special forces have much experience in HVT hits so the military probably took the whole op in their stride and seemingly performed magnificently (I say seemingly as with each passing day new and conflicting information is released but give the soldiers the benefit of any doubt in the matter).

But can you imagine going round the table with all the "military experts" (sarcasm) at the table (above) whether the intel is good enough to give the military the go ahead? The thought is absolutely horrifying. Little wonder why there was so much dithering over decisions re Iran's Green Revolution, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and Syria. Government by committee and little wonder Obama's presidential style has been described as leading from behind.

And after all this committee work there is still a major PR cock-up through the release of conflicting information.

BTW have you noticed how much presumably classified information has being flowing from various government sources? Daniel Ellsberg, Deep Throat even Manning must be amazed at what is going on these days.

I am hoping that this session was to direct branch planning for the iieventuality that the operation was executed but the location turned out not to host the desired target. The military experts may well have done exactly as told, but the political fall-out would not fall upon them it would fall upon the elected leader. Consider the animus directed toward George Bush (who accepted the risk of believing his Director of Central Intelligence) as no WMD were turned up over a period of years of occupation being compressed into a time frame of days if it became obvious that the dead folks were not bin Laden associates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Bennett

I am hoping that this session was to direct branch planning for the iieventuality that the operation was executed but the location turned out not to host the desired target. The military experts may well have done exactly as told, but the political fall-out would not fall upon them it would fall upon the elected leader. Consider the animus directed toward George Bush (who accepted the risk of believing his Director of Central Intelligence) as no WMD were turned up over a period of years of occupation being compressed into a time frame of days if it became obvious that the dead folks were not bin Laden associates.

---

I'm still not sure you need a twenty person round the table discussion on this Op.

We don't know the intel available for this Op, there was clearly some AQ presence in that house with a (IIRC 60-80%) chance of OBL being there.

Some speculation... So if you hit the jackpot thats great, but if he is not at home maybe you sell the Op as being targeted at the courier network and the gathering of data on site. If you can lift the courier(s) in the process that's great but once the shooting starts all bets are off and if anyone is taken alive he is likely to be severely wounded.

The explanation of the military side is (should be) pretty simple if you keep the report short and cryptic... and don't let someone like John Brennan have a runaway-mouth during a briefing.

The big question would have been how to explain/justify the raid into the heartland of Pakistan's military base area where the Pakistan government was not informed in advance. But do you need a 20 man committee to discuss this? Is this not a State Department matter?

President to Sec of State: "We are putting a hit in on a house in Abbottabad where hopefully OBL is hiding, if not then at least an AQ courier or two. Go figure out how to spin this to the media and explain it to the government of Pakistan... and no more than you and two others to be in on this. Get back to me with your information plan in 6 hours."

Rule by committee does not work.

Though US is no Pakistan, the military not being apolitical is dangerous.

I saw a film titled 'Seven Days in May' when I was a cadet. Was it in 1963? It was a fictional theme wherein a certain section of the US military plotted and executed a coup against the US Govt. Of course, the film showed it failed. It was a gripping story and till today, I have never forgotten it.

Compare India and Pakistan Army. Same legacy inherited from the British Indian Army. Yet see the difference. One is apolitical and the other not only embroiled in governance, even now, but also controls a major part of the national economy through their Fauji Foundation.

One country is a successful democracy and the other is in a total mess!

The military personnel can use their vote as per their conscience but they should not wear their political preference on their sleeves or meddle in politics.

*************

Rule by committees does not work, but on a knotty issue, it is better to gather as many opinion as possible and then the Commander should take a decision.

Command by Consensus is not possible. The Commander is the sole one to take the call.

First, does the excerpted item from the UCMJ apply to retired members of the Reserve Components (RC) who are drawing retired pay? Second, by tradition, if not by law, retired membersare civilians, not military. Third, what about active members of the RC who run for public office, e.g. Maj. Gen. Barry Goldwater(USAFR), Col. Lindsay Graham USAFR, and Beau Biden Del Army NG (sorry, didn't bother to look up his rank - 0-3 - 0-5)?
Third, to ODB's point about direct election - as a card caryying political scientist I used to sympathize with him. But moving from Ohio where I grew up, to Maryland (with many stops in between) to Oklahoma made me realize that in our Federal system it is essential to preserve the weight of state political culture in presidential elections. That is why our electoral system is really 51 simultaneous elections for president with votes weighted by population but guaranteeing all states at least 3 electoral votes (one for each US Senator and one for the sole Congressman guaranteed a state).
Fourth, different leaders handle their advisors differently. Some hold fairly large meetings. Some let their advisors run off at the mouth in those meetings. Some hold very tight control over what goes on. Some (LBJ) had minimal membership meetings with the Statutory members of the NSC minus his VP every Tue over lunch. The bottom line is that the only decider in the end is POTUS and the outcomes depend not on how he organizes his advisors but how he uses them

Cheers

JohnT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

existed in the regular force from the early teens through the 1960-70s.

---

In other words, since the dawn of the large standing force.

Quote:

---

Even then it was relatively muted. As it should be.

---

Why? American governance survived five generals before Lincoln, a century and a half's worth of an extraordinarily politicized officer corps, and Teddy Roosevelt. To that end, I doubt the cult of the apolitical officer exists for the benefit of the country at large. A case might be made on the grounds of professionalism: that an incestuous degree of closeness between the officer corps and the civilian paymaster breeds a corruption of sorts. On the other hand, there are so many other vectors of corruption it's near impossible to peg down the damage due to simple patronage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

In other words, since the dawn of the large standing force.

---

I cited an era with which I was familiar. Our large wars -- all the big foreign efforts -- created an expansion of the forces and politically inclined civilians cam in service in large numbers. As they departed, post war, the apolitical tone reasserted. That's true from the Revolution forward.

Quote:

---

Why? American governance survived five generals before Lincoln, a century and a half's worth of an extraordinarily politicized officer corps, and Teddy Roosevelt.

---

All Militia Generals except Taylor with Harrison as a mixed bag. I disagree on a politicized Officer Corps though acknowledge it was from time to time a bit though not ever "extraordinarily." No matter that, we can disagree. On TR, survived is a good word -- the guy did a lot of damage but he was NOT an Army person; he was a politician who decided it would be advantageous to serve. Lot of that going around, see Kerry, J.[/quote]To that end, I doubt the cult of the apolitical officer exists for the benefit of the country at large. A case might be made on the grounds of professionalism: that an incestuous degree of closeness between the officer corps and the civilian paymaster breeds a corruption of sorts. On the other hand, there are so many other vectors of corruption it's near impossible to peg down the damage due to simple patronage.[/QUOTE]We can also disagree on that. Though I'll admit my bias in regard to the topic -- I think both US political parties are venal, self serving and not of help to the Nation -- therefor IMO, anyone who willingly associated with either of them (or most other organized political aggregations) is suspect to me. YMMV.

The advantage I see to the nominally apolitical approach is that is that most Serving military personnel take their oath to the Constitution quite seriously. My observation is that very few Politicians who swear almost the same oath to the same Constitution take their oaths at all seriously. :eek:

That seriousness accorded the oath makes the possibility of a Coup highly unlikely in this country, a reason a good many politicians supported the idea of apolitical military folks -- until W. Wilson and Harry Truman decide to push people in the service to register and vote -- for them...:rolleyes:

I'd also note that I do not object one bit to Serving persons having political belief and supporting a party or person so long as they in no way transmit their beliefs to subordinates. Nor do I see a problem with former or retired military people being political or being in office. Just don't do it in your War Suit... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

On the other hand, there are so many other vectors of corruption it's near impossible to peg down the damage due to simple patronage.

---

Careerism, once confined to the officer corps, but now in the NCO ranks as well.

not me -- but you and he are both correct IMO.