Question: how are partisan politics separated from policy development/promotion (on all levels)?
Question: how are partisan politics separated from policy development/promotion (on all levels)?
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
It has always been difficult to find the balance between the politician and the soldier. As a professional Army made up of citizen soldiers, I think it is unrealistic to expect us to remain steadfastly apolitical. As Ken noted, we are a reflection of the society from which we came. Furthermore, we are a key component of this nations power and to suggest that we not have a voice in how that power should be used just because we are soldiers is irresponsible, in my opinion. These days, the average American probably doesn't even know anyone who has served all that well and gets much of his view of the military and its members from movies and TV. Our elected officials aren't going to change that except as it suits their needs and desires. A nice quiet apolitical military is not doing this country any favors. We are the ones who have the knowledge and experience about this key element of American power, about its capabilities and limitations and about the real cost of its use. I think that it is worth noting that the Wehrmacht of the 1930s was proud of how apolitical they were and when they saw the bad road that they were on most of them chose to ignore it because it was not their place to say.
Now I am not advocating getting on the soapbox in uniform. Certainly overpolitization of the military isn't going to do the country an favors either but I have always found it odd that we are expected to do the most and have the most to lose while simultaneously having the least voice in the matter.
SFC W
I avoided opening this thread because the title seemed like it would lead no where productive. I was wrong.
Ken... Thanks for the always insightful and well cited lesson in Military 101 for dummies. I want to be clear, that is said with the utmost sincerity. We too often get too fond of hearing/reading our own words. I shall now prove my point
CAVGUY... Great example of the GS employee who thinks their cubicle is campaign central, and that their non-verbal message is welcome and needed to educate the ill-informed masses. Unfortunately, GS and (to a lesser extent) contractor employees are the most poorly supervised elements of the Army team. As further example, we both know that there is recently publicized guidance regarding this type of "political activity" here at FTLKS. I think the supervisor needs a call.
WM... Can you imagine trying to enforce UCMJ action on the collective group of retired officers... Wow what fun!! It will never happen, but we can all envision the food fight. Just the thought of seeing the type of outcry that would accompany trying to shut down political activity would be amazing... ACLU and GEN McPeak on the same team... This is a great concept for a screen play. On a more practical note, it is pretty tough to call down the fire on a community of folks if in the recent past DoD used the same group to carry the STRATCOM water in the media.
UBOAT... I understand your frustration and perspective. Clearly there is an intuitive logic that says, "if you want an expert opinion, ask an expert." That works well until you ask that same expert to include the domestic political ramifications associated with the military actions under consideration. Then things are in danger of coming off the rails. I agree we should all participate in the political process as a citizen, and we should exercise those rights to the fullest extent consistent with our interests. None of that activity is curtailed with the exception of political activity in the work place and perhaps political advertising in Gov't Housing areas. However, for the same reasons that I think our gov't gets carried away by comparing every penny ante dictator to Hitler, I also think you carry your analogy too far when you compare the dangers of an apolitical US military to the 1930's Wehrmacht. The biggest difference we have a well established process checks and balances and method for managing the peaceful transference of power every 4 years. Not sure you could say the same for Germany in the time of the Fuhrer.
Schmedlap... I disagree regarding whether a person's personal experience in the GWOT ought to be brought to bear in their own political campaign. I don't even know how it would be possible for the candidate to not reference his/her previous experience (for most at least last 8 years) in forming their opinion wrt a compeling campaign issue. I'm not saying you must/should agree with same opinion based on their "personal experience" (we are all victim of our experiences), but to call the candidate unprofessional is a step too far. That's OK, we are just exercising our freedom of speech and right to agree to disagree.
Finally 120mm... My first thought was the same as yours. Was this open letter/directive really needed? For the majority, no! However, for that pesky minority who seem to always consume a disportionate amount of a leader's time, the answer seems to be yes. Not to mention as Ken noted, the differences between dirt CTC and dirt D.C. worlds are distinct and to a large extent nausea inducing.
Again, many thanks to all for one of the more plesant surprises this week.
Live well and row
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
You're right. I just went back and read what I wrote, and what I wrote made no sense. What I should have written was:
"I refuse to vote for any candidate who makes their service in our current conflicts the central part of their campaign in order to exploit the celebrity status of veterans..."
That would be anti-/un-professional in my opinion. The original statement was describing a different peeve of mine that is unrelated to the topic but was on my mind because I had just talked to someone about it just before posting. (That peeve: people who justify a worthless opinion on some strategic issue by preceding it with, "well, I served 3 years in the Marines" or "I was in the Army in 1983" - like that makes the person a strategic planner or something - totally off topic, but I guess it was still on my brain).
The apolitical US regular officer is barely as old as the large standing force; is there any particular reason for this cultural shift?
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
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.
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.
In other words, since the dawn of the large standing force.
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.Even then it was relatively muted. As it should be.
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
Bookmarks