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

**Presley Cannady** · 05-29-2008

The apolitical US regular officer is barely as old as the large standing force; is there any particular reason for this cultural shift?

**Ken White** · 05-29-2008

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

The apolitical US regular officer is barely as old as the large standing force; is there any particular reason for this cultural shift?

existed in the regular force from the early teens through the 1960-70s. MY father and most of his peers did not register, did not vote and did not discuss politics. He served from the 30s through the 60s; didn't vote until he retired. If you'll check, you'll find that lack of an absentee ballot process in many States was a big issue during the Korean War and both Congress and Truman tried to jawbone the States into fixing that -- with little success. As late as the early years in Viet Nam, absentee ballots were spotty at best and no one in the regular forces was political to speak of.

Were there occasional exceptions and people who didn't play fair? Sure, always are -- but the regular, active duty Armed Forces didn't start registering to vote and making much noise about politics until the 70s. Even then it was relatively muted. As it should be.

**sandbag** · 06-06-2008

Marshall had it right all along. As an officer, it's OK (and maybe even important) to know how politics and government work, but taking sides is foolish vanity.

**taschnack** · 05-03-2011

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:

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

**JMA** · 05-04-2011

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.

**Stan** · 05-04-2011

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)

**JMA** · 05-04-2011

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)

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

“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.

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.

**Presley Cannady** · 06-23-2011

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.

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.

**Ken White** · 06-23-2011

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.

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.

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...

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...