I don't know. I certainly respect the author, but some of the better points and recommendations were hard to separate from emotion - and for an article that indicated the need to bring the military back to being more apolitical in its relationship with elected leadership there was a bit too much drama for me.
I would like to highlight this point:
bold added by RTThe next administration will need to establish a precedent for strict civilian control from the outset, all the while spending political capital on national defense and boosting the morale of what will likely be an anxious force.
There are different ways to interpret the implementation of that recommendation. Secretary Rumsfeld had a perspective on how to maintain civilian control, and while there should be an unequal dialogue, there must be dialogue.
The best way to exercise civilian control over the military in my opinion is to lead - to inspire confidence, to make smart decisions about the employment of military power and recognize it limitations to achieve political ends, to show wisdom regarding direction and the development of domestic and foreign policies, to publically articulate the congruencies between the two, to impart trust where it is earned, and to eschew demonstrating control just to make a point.
I'd agree that in terms of selecting civilian and senior military leadership, a potential president is far better served to consider temperament, candidness, ability, and personality to serve in those positions, rather then selecting them based off advocacy, sycophancy, nepotism, etc. It will take a strong leader indeed to separate out natural bias and resist temptation of serving personal or political agendas vs. serving the nation.
I think our military culture will scrutinize potential leaders more on their personal beliefs & commitments (meaning how they reflect those beliefs held closest by the military) and how they demonstrate them, vs. their allegiance to one of the two parties.
Best, Rob
Bookmarks