Military's officer corps: too political?

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 28, 2004 edition | Brad Knickerbocker

[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."

[Leisler]

Let me be blunt. America is defended by Republicans. Liberals/leftist don't serve, they suck. Yeah, somewhere, some paper is going to find a lefty kid, but it is so rare as to be news.

[Riley]

Agree. People who actually give a crap about America, instead of indulging in risk-free theoretically-based bull-sessions in college, actually DO something about it.

I question the patriotism of ALL Liberals. No, I DENY it. None of you leftist assholes care a whit about this country. Put your money where your mouth is, as I have. Then we'll discuss.

[omega4412]

So the officer corps is almost as slanted against the Democrats as the press corps is slanted for the Democrats?

[Restorer]

"But no other president that I can remember has so tied his political fortunes to military success - not even Lincoln in the Civil War."

A serious contender for the idiotic statement of the week award.

[jwalsh07]

Of those surveyed, 64 percent identified with Republicans, 17 percent with Independents, and only 8 percent with Democrats.

What this proves is that the left is sitting in the war wagon and the right is humping it up the hill.

It is not a comment on the military, it is a comment on the left.

[mrsmith]

"Any "reporter" who would quote a credential-less know-nothing" like me is a joke!" 'says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org'

[Bringbackthedraft]

""He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." AMEN TO THAT!

[Leisler]

"..John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org'"

Why do I feel that Pike couldn't secure a gold cocktail purse from a bump and run by a hairy legged, stiletto pumped dwarf with a bad dye job, let alone the security of the world.

And another point. Why isn't he head of UniverseSecurity.org, instead of just the world. Why so humble?

[Leisler]

If it is fighting, making, doing, it is us. Leftist just pick up checks and bitch.

[Leisler]

Good catch. But don't be so cocky, there's still two days left, and there are millions of know-it-all, blovating leftist.

[Billthedrill]

Unprecedented? Good grief, does this reporter read history at all? How about a general named McClellan, who ran against his own president in time of war? Shall we speak of Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower? They were all generals. HERE is a list of the military records of the Chief Executives - of them, only 12 did not serve in the military.

"They're a Praetorian guard who will take over" is one of the oldest arguments in American politics, older even than the Constitution. Instead, every one of them - every one of us who serves or served, took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. One hopes for a similar integrity from our political class.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[conshack]

I'll second that statement-for I too am one of them. Twenty years active duty and currently working for the Army. The vast majority of both career military and career civilian workforce are on the right(also correct) side of politics. Thank God !!

[conshack]

If liberals were capable of making tough decisions-as military officers MUST do-you'd find more of them in the military. But, as most of us know, they can't.......So

[RobbyS]

The Republican Party has been the party of choice for the military ever since the Civil War, reflecting the indifference to the military found among Democratic politicans. But FDR, Truman, JFK all ore or less rejected this point of view. Not until we get to McGovern, who was a socialist despite his own service in WWII, do we find a party hostile to the military. Clinton and Kerry are only typical of leaders who are at best ambivalent about military action. Zinni and other generals who served under Clinton simply reflect this ambivalence. They only want wars in which we have overwhelming preponderance and no casualties. So they agree to a military that is too msall to conduct anything except small wars and humanitarian assignments.

[NoDemocrat]

As a Captain in the Active Duty JAG Corps, I can attest to the overwhelming support for conservative idealogy in the Army. It's such a welcomed relief to encounter so many like-minded individuals.

[Terabitten]

Let me be blunt. America is defended by Republicans. Liberals/leftist don't serve, they suck.

That has to be the most accurate line I've heard all week. TRUTH, my FRiend, you speak truth.

The percentages they give, 64% Repub, 17%independent, 8% Dem, are for the Army overall. I served for eight years in the infantry and I can honestly say I never met a fellow officer (including minorities) who admitted to being a Democrat, much less being liberal. Come to think of it, I don't recall meeting a NCO above the rank of E5 who admitted to being a democrat or a liberal. In the combat arms, I'd guess the numbers are closer to 95% conservative.

[LibKill]

Sadly, my experience with officers is that they will do whatever they need to do to get promoted.

In nine years in the Marines I never saw an officer leave on a point of principle.

I did see a lot of Commanding Officers promote enlisted womyn over more qualified men because they were afraid of DACOWITS. I saw a lot of ass-kissers make Colonel because they would promote womyn no matter what. I saw one eminently qualified Colonel destroyed because he questioned the integrity of a 2nd Lt., who happened to be a well-connected womyn.

Fortunately, I got out before the KKKlintoon years.

I probably would have died from vomiting.

Officers like Douglas MacArthur, like George Patton, who dared to PUBLICLY disagree with the CINC over honor, over reality, are no more.

Oh, by the way. Before you flame me consider this. I made Corporal, and Sergeant, Meritoriously. In peacetime.

Flame away. I won't bother to answer.

[section9]

I love Republicans. I am one. And I love Republicans in uniform.

But there's something in my gut that tells me that political involvement among the Officer Corps is a profoundly corrosive thing. Marshall and Ike were political generals, within the service. Only after they had retired did they make their political preferences known. Marshall, for his part, became the greatest Secretary of State of the 20th Century, despite his preference for liberal Democratic politics. Ike became a moderately conservative Republican President, and his tenure was marked by peace and prosperity. I will stack Ike up against any postwar President (with the possible exception of Reagan, who actually won the Cold War) as the "greatest".

Each man remained rigorously devoted to civilian control of the military and noninvolvement in politics. WWII was a profoundly political war, but each man remained focused on his task. Neither individual was diverted by any attachment to "faction".

Non partisanship is the best approach for the professional officer corps. It remains so because, at bottom, the Corps must remain loyal first to the Constitution, then to the Country.

Faction falls way down there on the priority list.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Cannoneer No. 4]

the first extended US combat with live TV and soldiers on the ground sending home e-mails and digital photos

Soldiers' doubts build as duties begin to change course

Guardsmen complain about convoy assignment

Soldiers in Iraq too vulnerable, says Army specialist