Many others have linked to this piece by Andrew Bacevich in the Washington Post, but it’s worth a read. He suggests that Gen. McChrystal’s contempt for the civilian authority is the natural result of a long war in which the citizenry is detached from the war effort.
Either you keep your wars short or you fully engage the populace in the war effort. You can’t keep your military engaged endlessly while the citizenry goes about its business. The alienated military will grow contemptuous of the rest of the population.
Perfect title for what is happening in Afghanistan! Yet, all I hear Obama repeatedly parrot, is that we are there militarily, to stop the momentum of the Taliban. This from he who has never served in the military, and whose chief of staff has only agreed to serve in Israel’s military.
Did you see Sun. two-hour Dateline report on the destruction of a unit in Afghanistan, and the fathers’ wanting to know why. It was so disturbing, that I could not bear to watch it in its entirety. Yet, both President Obama and Mayor Bloomburg have forbidden a reopening of a commission to discover who did 9/11, although a hundred thousand citizens of NYC signed petitions calling for this. Why is that???
You know, I’ll bet we could get thousands of signatures on a petition for Obama to show his “real” birth certificate. People selectively reinforce their biases, dismissing evidence that contradicts their presumption and magnifying evidence that tends to support it. But that doesn’t mean we should spend a lot of time and money on the Birthers demands. The same goes for the 9/11 Truth movement, I think.
And Obama not serving in the military isn’t really an issue either. We put civilians in charge of the military for a reason. History is littered with nations where the military took over. Bush I was the last President who had anything like what I’d call real military experience; before him, Carter. But, like I said, I don’t think it matters particularly.
The author is not completely right, some of his analogies fall flat, and he (like anyone else) has an agenda drum he is beating.
Generals are political beasties. They have been ever since the Civil War. His critique of Vietnam is silly (and this is a tenured Ph.D in History and International Relations? Good grief). The military wasn’t the problem (although the draft was problematic in this period, see Cheney, Clinton, Quayle, Bush II, [i]et al[/i]).
Contempt for civilian authority? Oh, like that’s new. It isn’t the civilian authority itself that the contempt derives from, it’s the personalities. I don’t like Ambassador Holbrooke’s credentials much either.
I wish I could provide a more incisive critique, like DR often does, but I simply don’t have the time. This guy came to a conclusion, then developed “premises” to make his critique appear valid. I happen to disagree.
Instead of warrior presidents, perhaps we need generals who have some experience, skills and interest in peaceful pursuits. I fear that America is currently living by the sword. How does that end?
I don’t see an agenda as much. I really like this point here:
Point being, we’ve been half-assed into these wars from 6 months after the beginning of each. The author makes room for a point to continue in those places, but the whole country must become part of the war. Increasing taxes or crushing the budget so that we all feel the pains of war, not just the families that have loved ones fighting, is one example.
Jason,
The civilian authorities do “own” the military. It has been half-baked civilian meddling that has caused the problems ever since Vietnam. It wasn’t the military who decided that Iraq had WMDs and that we’re going to go take them out, was it?
The author’s agenda is “get out of Iraq/Afghanistan”. The author should own up to it. It’s not like it isn’t a valid point for discussion. But, actual debate about issues of import have descended into sloganeering and sound bytes. So, I am not holding my breath.
I think the issue is a little more than “get out of Iraq/Afghanistan” – at least, it’s get out *unless* whatever we’re doing there is worth going all in as a society, including raising taxes and civilian sacrifice.
Well Doug, you’re probably completely right about that.
It’s so interesting to look at WWI and WWII era posters from the government and discover that there was an expectation that people participate in rationing, that they recycle useful materials, that they sew, knit, bake and do construction work for service members and their families – and that this was a formal directive from the government. Imagine if people were told to do these things today — there would be cries of “communism!”
Please let me clarity, Doug. I do not agree with the findings of the 9/11 Commission that Obama said that he is relying on as justification for the USA continual war on the Taliban in Afghanistan, or whatever else we are doing there. I agree with those who want to reopen the investigation, so we can try to prove to the President, that he is not justified in continuing this disastrous war on the poor people of Afghan. War is murder, and I also do not agree with the plans to slaughter people in Iran.
There’s a lot to admire about that essay, and a lot to disagree with, beginning with this: Perpetual War began in 1946, not 2001, and if we want to “regain control of the military” then we have to address honestly how a handful of powerful interests sold the idea of a perpetual war footing for its salutary effects. For the powerful interests, that is.
I don’t believe that’s even remotely possible. I think the simple fact of the mater is that we like having the ability to push tenth-rate military powers around, and we believe we should do so, because we’re Good, and Right, or at least Well-Intentioned. I don’t believe the disconnect with Afghanistan is due to its length; I think it’s due to the fact that you can’t maintain the bunting-covered, shiny brass marching band God Bless Our American Heroes attitude that pays for it (here’s US Defense spending since 1946) while looking too closely at or thinking too much about the actual results. Which is the only lesson we were willing to learn from Vietnam.
There’s a simple solution: in this time of constant chatter, and blather, about The Founders and Original Meaning, return the debased War Powers clause to its rightful place and rein in the Imperial Presidency. Not gonna happen. We enjoy being the bully, particularly since God and Wall Street approve.
Two points. For varangianguard: I’m not sure what “excessive civilian meddling causing problems ever since Vietnam” is supposed to mean. Civilian leadership and domestic political gain has dictated the mission since the end of WWII. As for the military “not being the problem” in Vietnam, well, the American fighting man requited himself well, but the leadership was inept and duplicitous.
And Marycatherine, the US has been blessed with two military geniuses in the White House when we were most at risk: Lincoln, and FDR. The former had a laughable career as an officer during the Black Hawk War–no one laughed about it more than he–and the latter was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. That’s not to put Obama in their class–the basic requirement for gaining the Presidency nowadays is an unwillingness to learn anything that might affect our global military hegemony–but simply to note that the facts are otherwise.
For DR, (imo)
1) you (the civilian authority) give the military a mission, and let them handle the day-to day management of that mission. Didn’t happen during the Johnson administration (at the very least).
2) The leadership thingy was driven by the fact that those leaders were politicians in uniform (going back to my point that generals have been politicized since the Civil War).
Nice post, btw.
PreDoug and all, I wonder if you agree with Christopher Bollyn, in his article of June 25, “The Coming Anerican Revolution”, found at http://www.thepopulist.net. To lift his paragraph pertinent to Obama andhis insistence re Afghanistan, and my reasons for strongly disagreeing with him:
“President Obama says that US troops are fighting in Afghanistyan because of the terrorism of 9-11, but we have solid scientific evidence that the Twin Towers were demolished with an extremely powerful form of super-thermite made with nanotechnology. The government lies about9-11, and the proof cannot co-exist in peace, The discovery of super-thermite effectively marked the end of the criminal regime that runs the United States. Its days are numbered.”
“