A shot across the bow from Finel! (
On Civil-Military Relations):
“It is true that I’ve never sat in a foxhole — as Schmedlap will undoubtedly note — nor spent a lot of time being schmoozed by GOs — as folks like Ricks and Ackerman will note. But still I’ve been elbows deep into military culture — at least with company and field grade officers — since the very early 1990s.”
Okay, I don’t take this as a snide remark, nor do I think it was intended as such. It just kind of caught my attention because I thought, “is that how I come across?” Maybe. I don’t know. I can’t say I spend lots of time fretting over how I come across in poorly-written blog entries on my poorly-constructed website.
That was not the subject matter of his post. And the substance of his post does not hinge on that passing comment, so I did not want to respond at length there. But I figured I would stretch this out into a blog post because a response goes to the heart of a related matter.
Whether or not Finel served in the military seems irrelevant to me and is thus not something that I would note. I do not recall ever asserting that any military service is necessary to render an informed opinion on the military, other than an opinion of how things work on a day-to-day basis within the military. So, if I ever did write anything to that effect then please bring it to my attention. I do not think that I said what I said I thought, one way or the other, though I will clarify now. All that is necessary for an informed opinion is reliable information and sound judgment. Reliable information often need not be obtained from first hand experience. In fact, first hand experience has a tendency to make us excessively over confident in our views and to skew our perceptions. A soda straw view of combat from a Soldier is no more valuable than the big picture view of a reporter if (big if!) that reporter is doing his job. But for some reason that Soldier, no matter how uninformed and full of crap, can just assert that he was “there” and instantly his bullshit is credible.
I do recall questioning Finel’s assertion about the political views of officers in the military (I forget the name of the thread or when it was posted). That was a statement of his impression based upon his observations and I did question how representative the sample of his observations were. I think it is very relevant when someone asserts that "here is my observation and I regard this as a representative sample of the whole" to then rebut, "your sample poorly represents the whole" or "your observation does not seem accurate." Ultimately we agreed to disagree. I think I asserted that his argument was weaker due to an unrepresentative sample of observations, not due to a lack of service in uniform.
Anyway, I do have a problem with people doing the opposite – using their military service to strengthen a weak argument. And that is what leads to today’s tiresome blog entry.
I have long argued (more in real life or via email than online – but also on Bernard’s site) that one of the problems in civil military relations is the pedestal that service members are put on. They are above criticism – which is fine when they are following lawful orders and focused on their duties. But that immunity should not extend when a servicemember sticks his or her neck into the public arena and seeks to use prior service to the country as a bludgeon to squash political opposition. This incentivizes military service for a political purpose and attracts exactly the wrong people into the armed forces. The military is about serving the country, not serving your own selfish political aspirations.
You want to exacerbate problems in civil-military relations? Encourage people with political agendas to join the military. Encourage existing members of the military to run for office. Paint those in uniform who have aired no political views or aspirations as left- or right-wing, Democrat or Republican. You will create tension between the military and political parties. This will create incentives within the military to align with one party versus another to gain favor when power shifts in the government from one party to another. Rather than there being interservice rivalry, there will be political rivalry. That’s not good.
I got out of the Army shortly before the 2008 election. I had not voted in a national election since 1996, before joining the Army, specifically because I think the divide between military and politics should be thick and bright. Not only should Officers not air their views publicly, I do not believe they should voice them at all, whether through advocating for a candidate or even registering with a political party. When it comes to national figures, they shouldn’t even air preferences in the privacy of a ballot booth. In 2008, I was not all that excited about any candidates running in any office. But then I heard about one clown – a military officer whose platform revolved around his relatively risk-free and well-timed deployment to Iraq. This alone was what drew me to the ballot box, just to vote against him. And just for the record, I am registered as an independent and that candidate was a Republican.
I seem to be a lone voice on this issue. Generally that is a sign that you’re full of crap. But it is an issue that persists in nagging at me because, while everybody seems to disagree, I have not heard any decent reason why.