I don't think it's a question of who's right or wrong so much as it is understanding the practical role that the US military often finds itself in. Historically, officers have been called on to be de-facto diplomats with surprising regularity. Some were successful, some were not, and others muddled through until the real diplomats arrived. In most, if not all, cases these officers were not trained for those roles...it was just something they did because it went with the job. It also wasn't something that was necessarily planned by the political leadership. A great deal of it is situational.
It's fine to have a dream role for soldiers...where they sit in the corner quietly and only come out guns blazing when called for and then go back again as soon as the last bullet is fired. But reality isn't like that. I can understand the desire for it to be so, but do worry that when we get too focused on what we'd like to see we end up gutting ourselves for reality. Quite often the line between war and peace is only visible in hindsight, and even then not necessarily with stark clarity.
Should soldiers be diplomats? Not under ideal circumstances, but it's a good thing if they are at least aware that they might have to act in such a role in some situations. By the same token, we've seen what happens when diplomats try to play soldier.
Bookmarks