Long wars are antithetical to democracy. Protracted conflict introduces toxins that inexorably corrode the values of popular government. Not least among those values is a code of military conduct that honors the principle of civilian control while keeping the officer corps free from the taint of politics.
So begins a very important op ed in today's Washington Post. The author is himself a retired US Army officer and graduate of West Point, whose son, also a West Point graduate an officer (thru OCS) [h/t IRR Soldier], died in Iraq. Now a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, Andrew Bacevich may be one of the most important voices to which not enough pay attention.
Think if you will of just this. US involvement in Vietnam still remains our longest conflict: while we were involved in SE Asia from the 1950s, major combat was 116 months, from August '64 to April '75. Afghanistan is now 2nd, and Iraq is now 4th.
Bacevich is a powerful writer. He reminds us of our traditions. For him McChrystal himself is unimportant, because, as he puts it "The fate of any one general qualifies as small beer".
But indications that the military's professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms.
Bacevich provides context that too many either do not know or choose to ignore. He reminds us of the words of George Catlett Marshall, warrior and diplomat, that a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War. Vietnam was longer than that. As Bacevich notes
The citizen army that was sent to Southeast Asia fought valiantly for a time and then fell to pieces. As the conflict dragged on, Americans in large numbers turned against the war -- and also against the troops who fought it.
So we turned to the all-volunteer military.
Let me offer a context which Bacevich does not provide, perhaps because he was Army in the post-Korea period. From 1950 until the draft was abolished after the Vietnam conflict, this nation had a military draft even in peacetime. For the Army. Our four other military services (Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard) were volunteer services except during serious conflict. Looking back, we had had drafts before only during the Civil War (Army only), World War I, World War II and Korea. We had fought other wars only with volunteers - American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican, Spanish-American, the various conflicts with Native Americans. And we had used all volunteer forces in a way not inconsistent with what Bacevich now criticizes, as Smedley Butler, looking back at his own highly decorated service (two Medals of Honor) with the Marines acknowledged.
For most in Government today, their memory of the military and conflict extends back only to Vietnam and the conflicts since in Asia. There are a few, such as Charlie Rangel, who served in Korea, but that fighting ended almost 6 decades ago (although technically the war is still on even without conflict, since we have a truce, not an agreement to end the war), and in many ways it is now a forgotten war (although the Memorial here in DC can remind one of the suffering our troops experienced).
We converted to an all-volunteer force, a professional military, what as Bacevich notes the Founders would have called a "standing Army." In the context of the world today we must have a fairly large ongoing military, whether it is staffed by draftees or enlistees. It may not need to be as large as it is. If you have any doubt, listening to any broadcast of the World Cup should remind you, as you hear that the games is being broadcast over the American Forces Network to troops serving in 175 nations.
Bacevich calls our turning to a professional army something that for a while
appeared to be a master stroke. Washington got superbly trained soldiers and Republicans and Democrats took turns putting them to work. The result, once the Cold War ended, was greater willingness to intervene abroad. As Americans followed news reports of U.S. troops going into action everywhere from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans, from the Caribbean to the Horn of Africa, they found little to complain about: The costs appeared negligible. Their role was simply to cheer.
He says that now appears to be unraveling in what even the Pentagon calls its Long War. And he writes
The Long War is not America's war. It belongs exclusively to "the troops," lashed to a treadmill that finds soldiers and Marines either serving in a combat zone or preparing to deploy.
During the many years going back to before Bush 43 illegally invaded Iraq, some have pointed out that because so few of them had kith and kin at risk in the military, it was far too easy for political leaders to commit our men and women to conflict. I almost wrote "young men and women" but then remembered how shocked we were to see people in the 50s being recalled to active duty in combat and combat support units, as the war ground on and the willingness of people to volunteer dissipated. Many here are opposed to the idea of a military draft, or even of mandatory service of which military service would be only one option among others. Yet Bacevich argues, I think powerfully, that were more at risk in our conflict because of a draft, the willingness of the people to allow presidents (including the current one) to extend our combat operations might not be present. Since it is other people's children and spouses and parents, we do not feel the cost as heavily.
Soldiers (and their families) are left holding the bag.
It is in this context that we get the Stanley McChrystals. Bacevich terms the attitude "praetorianism" seeing it in a history going back to the time of the Romans, with
warriors becoming enamored with their moral superiority and impatient with the failings of those they are charged to defend.
He argues that McChrystal and those around him, with their disdain for high civilian authority, demonstrate that the American officer corps is not immune to such attitudes. He offers the words of a currently serving officer that McChrystal is far from alone, that it is becoming pandemic. Let me push the limits of fair use by quoting the following:
Among his peers, a belief that "it is OK to condescend to civilian leaders" has become common, ranking officers permitting or even endorsing "a culture of contempt" for those not in uniform. Once the previously forbidden becomes acceptable, it soon becomes the norm.
"Pretty soon you have an entire organization believing that their leader is the 'Savior' and that everyone else is stupid and incompetent, or not committed to victory." In this soldier's view, things are likely to get worse before they get better. "Senior officers who condone this kind of behavior and allow this to continue and fester," he concluded, "create generation after generation of officers like themselves -- but they're generally so arrogant that they think everyone needs to be just like them anyway."
Generation after generation of officers like themselves . . . here think of how in recent decades the bishopric, especially those who are Cardinals, of the Roman Catholic Church have become increasingly conservative as the result of 32 years of two pontiffs determined to turn the Church in a more conservative direction. While it is true Presidents and the Congress have some major control over the senior most positions in the US Military, like any bureaucracy it has the characteristics of perpetuating itself through those whom it singles out for advancement. if the Praetorian attitude displayed by the likes of McChrystal is as wide-spread as the correspondent of Bacevich alleges, this country may be at risk. And while David Petraeus is far too astute a politician to ever get caught making similar remarks to the press, does anyone doubt that he is as political as any senior military leader in the past several generations, which is why, as Bacevich notes, he appears on many short lists of possible candidates to oppose Obama in 2 years (fortunately his accepting the responsibility for Afghanistan probably removes him from the 2012 cycle).
Bacevich takes us back to the words of a Roman Centurion Marcus Flavius to again remind us of how ancient such attitudes have been, before he concludes with a warning to his readers, that the American people reclaim ownership of their army.
What would that mean? Either we insist Washington abandon the policy of our two most recent presidents of apparently endless war, or else we should choose to be fully at war
with all that implies in terms of civic obligation, fiscal policies and domestic priorities. Should the people choose neither course -- and thereby subject their troops to continuing abuse -- the damage to the army and to American democracy will be severe.
The damage will come about with other four stars, whose arrogance will continue to grow, who will not be so stupid as to allow a reporter full access to their thinking and thereby expose their arrogance, their unwillingness to submit to civilian authority.
Where then will be our democracy? I wonder.
War is used to justify secrecy. War is used to limit rights we otherwise expect to have guaranteed. War consumes our treasure, making it difficult if not impossible to devote the resources to other needs.
Which is why we need to end our wars.
Which is why it is totally appropriate for me to end this posting in my normal fashion, now not as a request or a hope, but as a demand:
PEACE!