Posted on 05/27/2004 5:20:54 PM PDT by Leisler
The battle for "hearts and minds" in wartime has always been fought at home as well as abroad. It's the main lesson today's senior military officers learned as young lieutenants in Vietnam. This has never been truer than with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The war was controversial from the start. President Bush, the commander in chief, is running for reelection and slipping in the polls. Whether partisan or not, opinions are more visible and often polarized.
The senior officer corps is not immune from the trend. At recent media events at the Pentagon, in Baghdad, and this week at the Army War College, uniformed officers led cheers for Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. That may not be unprecedented, but it illustrates the more prominent role of public diplomacy and public relations in war. Some officers grumbled at the sight of senior officers participating in events with political overtones, at least in image value.
The trend is accelerated by advancements in the media allowing for real-time war coverage, which - in the eyes of TV producers - is made more legitimate with recently retired senior officers, preferably with pointers and maps, taking part. That, in turn, leads to more analysis, which - especially in a prolonged and divisive war - leads to more opinionating.
In many ways, the war is being run like a political campaign. For public relations and rhetorical purposes, senior commanders and uniformed spokesmen are taking their lead from civilians at the Pentagon and in the war zone. "When military guys talk about 'terrorist death squads' rather than 'irregulars,' they are following political direction from the White House Office of Global Communications passed through and coordinated by the political types," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. He notes that senior civilian communications officials in Iraq and at Central Command previously worked for the GOP on the Florida electoral recount.
In terms of political inclinations, military officers do not reflect the country as a whole. A year before the 2000 election, a survey by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies showed strong support for the GOP among officers. Of those surveyed, 64 percent identified with Republicans, 17 percent with Independents, and only 8 percent with Democrats.
One study shows absentee voting for the military (which started after the Vietnam War) helped lead career officers to think in more political terms. In a paper written while at the National War College, Army Col. Lance Betros concluded that "the officer corps' voting preference does not constitute partisan activity and is not, by itself, harmful to professionalism and civil-military relations." But Colonel Betros (who now teaches at West Point) also noted that such legendary military leaders as William Tecumseh Sherman and George Marshall stayed out of politics to the point where they didn't vote.
"They believed that meddling in politics, including voting in ... elections, eroded professionalism by weakening officers' military expertise and undermining their credibility in providing unbiased advice to civilian leaders," wrote Betros, who warned that the partisan trend could have "long-term harmful effects."
Today, however, it doesn't necessarily harm military careers. Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin told an evangelical group in Oregon last year that although Bush had lost the popular election in 2000, "He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." General Boykin is now deputy to Stephen Cambone, under secretary of Defense for intelligence and one of the most influential advisers to Mr. Rumsfeld.
Many analysts believe the warm response to Bush at the Army War College indicated how many officers see eye-to-eye with this administration more than they did with Bill Clinton - notorious among career officers for having avoided military service and instituting a "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing homosexuals to serve in uniform. "The military despised Clinton, so in Bush...they see a more principled president," says retired Army Col. Dan Smith. "That is, of course, arguable. But that's what is behind the applause lines."
Other observers see a trend toward "careerism" among the officer corps - working for advancement based as much on success in Washington as on competence in the field.
"Sea duty, for us Navy types, began to be a box to be checked between Pentagon assignments more than the point of one's career," says retired Navy Capt. Larry Seaquist. "It was a careerist's game. One's skills on the Washington battlefield were the personal, political skills of the staff officer and the courtier, not of the combat team leader. The result is, we have grown several crops of senior officers who are very good at Washington politicking, excellent at program acquisition, or at least PowerPoint program sales, but rather shallow on the combat command and troop leadership end."
Though some - perhaps many - career officers oppose actions of the president and other senior civilians in charge of the military in Iraq, they know that speaking out can quickly end a career - or worse. The Uniform Code of Military Justice states that "any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Such inside opposition is often communicated through retired officers appearing regularly on television. Others, such as retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who declared the administration's conduct in Iraq a "failure" last Sunday on "60 Minutes," are well known for their outspokenness.
"There is a lot of dissension right now about the Iraq war plan, or lack of plan, within the uniformed community, both at leadership and rank and file levels," says Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. "It may well be that more retired folks are speaking out because they feel that the uniformed folks cannot."
In any case, says a retired Army colonel, "Retired military's involvement pro and con is unprecedented in my experience and memory of history. Even with Ike [Eisenhower], it was much more muted than now."
The conflict in Iraq - the first extended US combat with live TV and soldiers on the ground sending home e-mails and digital photos - has brought the war directly into living rooms, which makes it especially political in an election year. This phenomenon may be all the more evident because so many reserve and National Guard troops are involved. These citizen-soldiers are much more inclined to speak out, especially when so many have had their combat tours extended and families back home are complaining.
"We are in a no-kidding war, and most people don't remember Vietnam firsthand," says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "Those that do remember Vietnam, remember it on tape in black and white, and this war is live, in color, and high definition to boot."
That's one reason the president has used military settings to counter bad news and emphasize his agenda, analysts say. Some in the armed forces may object. But most are either enthusiastic about Bush or used to saluting and doing what they're told.
"The military has no choice if the president chooses to use it as a backdrop. He is commander in chief," says Colonel Smith, now a military analyst at the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. "But no other president that I can remember has so tied his political fortunes to military success - not even Lincoln in the Civil War."
The officer Corps is entirely political. Your existence is based on a subjective evaluation from your superior. It is not at all a objective system and officers are expected to play ball. So are their wives.
A lot is based on appearances, perceptions and just the luck of the draw on who gets ahead. Of course those who do all state that it was their skill. In reality if you were in the Army in 1994 and a Captain you were sucking. Today, if you have a pulse you'll make it to Major. So much to skill.
There is no testing of knowledge in technical or tactical sense. Everything is based on your raters opinion of you. In reality it boils down to whether he "Likes" you or not. You do get some obviously stupid people in high ranks because of the Army's personnel system management which is a complete failure. Failure briefed as success, which is very common.
First, the disagreement. I do know officers who have resigned on principle: specifically, a friend of mine who was an RA Major (Artillery) who resigned rather than lie about an ugly, messy, illegal situation in the battalion to which he was assigned. Not an academy or military school graduate, he was, however, Philadelphia Main Line and a Cincinnati heir. That is to say, he came from the old upper class in the US, from a family in which the men, while not usually professional soldiers, all served as officers in time of war. What struck me at the time was how he was typical of the Old Army officer corps, but so atypical in the Army in the '70s and '80s. It even got me thinking and induced me to do some research.
My reserach, which I'll qualify by saying it is Army history I'm talking about, shows our officer corps has changed greatly.
Once upon a time, back in the Brown Shoe Army (pre-1957), the officer corps was apolitical, most career officers embodied the traditional military virtues, and the officer corps was uniformly upper-middle or upper class in values and outlook -- regardless of their backround. Before WWII, Army officers -- despite their poverty from Army pay -- moved in upper class social circles and were considered gentlemen. The career officers before WWII were almost all graduates of the academies, or the prominent military colleges: the Virginia Military Insitute, Norwich University in Vermont, the Citadel, or Texas A&M. There were some ROTC officers, but not many. And many of those who stayed on active duty from ROTC in the old days were graduates of the elite colleges and universities: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Lafayette, etc. back when those schools catered primarily to the upper class.
WWII saw a huge influx of officers from the middle class (ROTC and OCS), which changed the character of the officer corps. But, for the most part, the Army tried to have them behave like old-style officers, and very few stayed on after the war was over.
So, even after WWII, at least at first, the officer corps was not unlike it had always been. As we had a peacetime draft, a much larger peacetime army, much broader ROTC and the Korean War, things began to change, but , for the most part, young career officers were taught the old ways by senior officers (and their wives) brought up in the old school.
While a lot of officers date the changes to the Brown Shoe/Black Shoe changeover, the real change came with Vietnam. The demand for junior officers again surged and vast numbers were commissioned from OCS and ROTC. Only there was a big change in who was commissioned. Unlike WWII, you did not have the cream of the nations youth from elite colleges enlisting and going to OCS. You had kids who were avoiding being drafted. Likewise ROTC. Where it had once been mandatory for 2 years (which got a lot of men to try it and find they liked it), it became voluntary. And, many of the elite colleges and universities dropped ROTC, the units being picked up by the newly established state colleges and universities that sprang up in the '60s and '70s: the proverbial East Pottowatamie State Teachers Normal School transformed into East Pottowatamie University.
The result was a massive shift in the social backround of the average junior officer: as late as 1965, the average lieutenant was a graduate of an old-line private or state university whose parents were upper middle class professionals or businessmen. By 1975, the average lieutenant was a graduate of a second or third tier state college or university (or third tier private school) whose parents were middle class or working class.
This change was hugely significant in terms of careerism: in the pre-Vietnam Army, the average officer was personally secure (by both background and education) in his upper middle class status. His alternative to being in the army was a professional career in another field or the higher levels in business. His status did not depend on being in the Army. That status equivalent allowed an officer to stand on principles without other considerations.
The 'new' officers did in many cases owed their perceived upper middle class status to their position as an officer: their alternatives to an army career were lower level white collar positions or even blue collar positions. And, the ones who saw few decent alternatives in the civilian world were more likely to want to stay in the service. Hence, in the '70s and '80s, you saw an officer corps with a lot of officers who were very concerned about staying in the Army. And, given the rating scheme where anything less than a perfect report would end a career, you had to please the boss. Men like this were much more vulnerable to pressure from a senior officer to do unethical things or just to say what the boss wanted to hear, than they were to stand on principle.
If he had the ENTIRE administration start openly and aggressively naming names and discussing all we know about the frauds wherever and whenever there is a press conference, and if he does a 'Major Political Address' saying point blank, that if the UN doesn't allow total transparency, and come clean...we are pulling out of this corrupt and tainted charade. We will no longer be a party to 'globalization' and UN control. There IS NOTHING the UN gives us in any situation that we can't do better by bilateralism and alternative regional organizations. As one instance, certainly the IRAQIS don't feel that the UN mandate will give them any 'legitimacy' for their government. Quite the opposite.
And the problem of Liberals in our officer corps has been a problem right along. I remember the case of a small cadre of criminally marxist Admirals, who constantly would say things to attack the Reagan Administration during the Cold War like, "We don't need any nuclear weapons beyond, oh, 300 or so warheads" DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR when the USSR had stockpiled like 30,000 nuclear warheads. Admiral Eugene Larocque (USN) was one of their ilk. Thank God their were real american heroes in the officer corps to oppose these Fifth Columnists...men like the late Admiral Thomas Moorer, and General Singlaub...
Military officer corp political?
Those five years I spent in D/E ring OSD offices would have NEVER clued me into that fact...
Apparently not, nor do they understand that to make a good leader, one usually has to serve/follow at some point.
Someone's got to look out for America. Most of the politicians don't.
Bump, had to read that one three times!
In time of peace or of intermittent non-serious wars, what else can you really expect? Show me any military in history where it has been otherwise.
In time of serious war (threatening survival of the state or nation) the political generals quickly fail and the warriors come to the front. This of course takes time and sometimes the army in question doesn't have time to work through the process. And the process is very wasteful of human life and other resources.
WWII was serious by this definition. Korea, Vietnam and the two Gulf Wars were not.
BTW, if you think we have a problem with officers being promoted for political rather than leadership reasons, imagine the problems any Arab army has! Being a real leader there is likely to get you executed.
Agreed.
Which has me wondering... if Saddam Hussein did NOT approve of Ahmed al-Ani meeting with Mohammed Atta in Prague, then why did our troops capture al-Ani ALIVE in July of 2003, 22 months AFTER the attacks, and 25 months AFTER the alleged meeting that the Czechs insist occured?
In time of peace or of intermittent non-serious wars, what else can you really expect? Show me any military in history where it has been otherwise.
As I stated - it’s always been that way.
In time of serious war (threatening survival of the state or nation) the political generals quickly fail and the warriors come to the front.
As with all ranks, there is the warrior and the parade ground soldier. Seldom are the two the same.
I am in a very strange environment. It goes without saying the military I work with are all pro-Bush as are the civilian employees, for the most part anyway. The ones that throw me for a loop are the contractors. The majority of them are anti-Bush, we need to have never gone to Iraq types. The contractors are geeks for the most part, living and breathing in bits and bytes if that has anything to do with it. Everyonce in a while one will try to get me into an arguement, but I usually just remind them who is paying the bills and walk away. I imagine my "Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry" bumper sticker drives them crazy.
Aw, the hell with those twidget pencil neck geeks.
I agree. But I will also say that almost every officer I have ever met is overtly non-partisan (with very few exceptions).
Almost all I know have very strong political beliefs, and yes, the proponderance of these fall clearly to the right of center and to Republicans.
But these are rarely expresssed publically, and almost never (and should be never) to those in their command.
When I left battalion command, not a soldier (or officer) in that command had any idea whether I was Rep, Dem, or neither. I wanted it that way. I can say I had no idea how a single boss of mine voted during my entire active military career, which is in its third decade.
The only ones you really hear of are these old retired guys. While they often get under my skin for talking about things they really are not fully up on, I am not sure you can keep them from talking so much.
Can anyone really name more than a couple (if that) senior officers on active duty who are overtly partisan? I can not.
As for the visit of the President---the Commander-in-Chief---to the War College and the response they gave him. If everyone had sat on their hands the media would have made a big deal about it and would claim the military do not support him. Seems to me everyone there was very respectful but it was not like they were screaming "four more years or anything."
I think we have two different discussions of political going on in this discussion thread.
On one hand, we are talking about political partisanship---support for Dems, Reps, etc. I do not believe our officer corps is overtly partisan in the sense they tell their soldiers how to vote in the upcoming election, campaign for one candidate or the other, or even go actively pronounce their beliefs to their subordinates. Before everyone sends me an example, I am saying it is very uncommon (I actually have never heard or seen it happen, but I do not doubt it has somewhere/sometime). It should not happen.
The political many are referring to here are basic office politics. Gaining favor with your immediate superiors to make rank, being political correct, etc. Of course that happens, as it does in every profession. Not saying it should, just saying that is reality.
The author of this article is also confusing the two.
Gotta agree with that. I guess what is strange is the fact they are working on technology that will assist in the war on terror efforts, and they do so knowing what they are doing. Sort of a double standard if you ask me.
Unprecedented? Good grief, does this reporter read history at all?
Short Answer...NO. And why should he, he's a journalist.
If I may add to your list the names of some other "political" officers, James M. Gavin, Alexander Haig, Colin Powell, Stansfield Turner, George Marshall.
America's officer corps political? The writer really needs to visit (name your favorite 3rd world country) and see what a real politicized officer corp is like.
Any word if Ahmed al-Ani has cracked and talked yet? Perhaps this is a job for Lyndee England....?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.