"The only thing wrong with peace is you can’t make no money from it."
- Gil Scott Heron "Work for Peace" Spirits, 1994
Nor can you maintain unlimited military financial support.
I am increasingly dismayed by a number of things going on in the US military, beyond the obvious damages of war—DADT, mass, chain of command approved (perhaps sponsored) baptisms, generals publicly advocating policy ahead of the decision of the commander-in-chief, military privatization, open political activity in the ranks, etc. But when senior officers trot out a group of junior officers for the purpose of advocating policy, I think the politicization is almost complete. There is a short distance between advocating policy in the ranks and advocating for those who support that policy.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the young officers in believing that they need just a little more time doing what they are doing in order to make a difference in Afghanistan. The problem is that they have a tactical viewpoint, not a strategic, political view and all wars are political tools, nothing more. Those with a strategic view, the generals, have massaged and hidden the facts on the ground toward gaining more support in the domestic court of public opinion (the Pat Tillman story comes to mind).
The generals know that the end of combat operations means the end of blank check military support and many military careers. Our "Reduction-in-force" history following the end of all major combat operations at least since WWI points to our logical reduction of financial support for the military when we’re at peace. That reduction affects military personnel rapidly.
After growing up Army and a 16 year reserve officer career of my own (HD, left on my own), I’ve come to know a few things about the military system. Another issue playing in the background for the officer corps is making rank. The US military is an "up or out" system for officers with a relatively small number of senior positions available. That means the higher one goes, the greater the risk of topping out and losing one’s job because one didn’t get promoted. Combat experience is a key competitive factor when comparing military careers. Those with it have an advantage over those who don’t. It makes sense for an organization built to wage war. In such a system it makes sense for younger, career minded officers to support the continuation of conflict since combat gives one the chance to actually do the job for which he has prepared and it helps toward job security.
For many, including me, the military provided one of the few places where a very young person could have the chance to lead and be responsible for the lives of others in a framework of meritocracy. Though that meritocracy is far from perfect, it is robust at least at the junior officer level. There are far more examples of the "right" people getting promoted than the obviously political ones.
For officers in the military, the peace paradigm is a difficult one as they work toward mission completion (peace) with an eye toward the next mission. Peace marks the end of a great deal of military financial support and military careers. For senior officers, it seems that the peace paradigm is long gone in favor of doing whatever it takes to frame information for the continuation of combat—including public advocacy. From MacArthur, Le May, and Westmoreland, to McChrystal, and Patraeus, the list of general officer war advocates continues.