Schmedlap.com

A weblog of periodic insights from a former know-it-all Infantry Officer

I don’t think I said what I said I thought

Posted by Schmedlap at: 12:02 PM on 03 JUL 10 | Comments (94) | Reply to this post

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.

Posted by Schmedlap at: 12:02 PM on 03 JUL 10 | Permalink | Comments (94) | Reply to this post

Comments...

1. kenjohnston2 says, in response to the original post:

Cutting to the heart of what you are saying is Where is the observers chips placed? Where is the civilian contractor/reporter/other strap hangers investment? It always shines through brightly. I doubt that anyone will ever know the cultural implications if they have never worn the green or if they did it selfishly(politically). Tricky ground indeed. Are you back in yet?

Posted at: 12:30 PM on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - Reply to this comment
6 response to this comment by: Schmedlap wrzgkdcy lilemilyhodge zexyzefron Lexapro oribermudez

2. Schmedlap says, in response to kenjohnston2 :

Nope, not back in yet. I'm waiting to see what course we're taking in Afghanistan. If we're going to slug it out, I'm game. If we're going to draw down, someone else can do the paper shuffling. If I go back in, this blog will disappear. I think service is incompatible with politics AND blogging (no offense to the milbloggers).

Posted at: 12:47 PM on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - Reply to this comment
3 response to this comment by: newc DreyXx supaxsol

3. Bernard Finel says, in response to the original post:

Agreed

Yeah, no, my comment was essentially in response what you've said before, namely, that my exposure was largely to an over-educated sub-set of the officer corps and that my insights were not necessarily applicable to the officer corps as a whole. At NWC I had a few students who took pride in the fact they they had never had an assignment that required them to wear anything other than BDUs. I acknowledge, I don't have a ton of visibility into those folks -- precisely by virtue of having never been in a foxhole. Anyway, the point is, I was just trying to acknowledge in advance that my sample -- though large -- was not perfect. I certainly didn't mean it as a shot.

Posted at: 1:05 PM on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - Reply to this comment
4 response to this comment by: aidanlove BoogieBop Margaretto Cialis

4. kenjohnston2 says, in response to the original post:

If we go back to peace time army I will open a cellphone store or sno cone shop or something

Posted at: 1:30 PM on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - Reply to this comment
4 response to this comment by: Schmedlap khccxfwoapy jackassjurk Nu-Cloxi

5. Schmedlap says, in response to kenjohnston2 :

The real money will be in drip pans and chock blocks. The motor pool nazis ensure there is perpetual demand for both. With a lack of FOBs, take a short position in reflective belt manufacturers.

Posted at: 1:33 PM on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - Reply to this comment
5 response to this comment by: itstime4lunch Alexeoth nbourre Xanax ILKalot

6. newc says, in response to Schmedlap:

Ergo, no one that serves for the Federal Government should vote or espouse political opine? Service is service, and public sector is meant to serve all populace the same. (apolitical) Interesting concept.

Posted at: 3:08 PM on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - Reply to this comment
4 response to this comment by: Schmedlap Viagra Adipex Ricadamu

7. Schmedlap says, in response to newc:

"Ergo, no one that serves for the Federal Government should vote or espouse political opine?"

No, not ergo. I think it is quite clear that I am speaking specifically about military service members. In the two paragraphs that discuss the issue, I use the words "military" or "service" (referring clearly to the armed forces) or a pronoun clearly referring to the military in nearly every sentence.

"Service is service, and public sector is meant to serve all populace the same."

If I am reading your comment in proper context, I think you are narrowly and improperly defining terms in order to fit them to an argument, rather than relying on terms as they are generally understood. If I understand your assertion correctly, you are redefining terms in an odd and narrow manner in order to avoid a logical fallacy that would occur if they retained their generally understood definitions.

Your first sentence uses the phrase "serves for the Federal Government" and your second refers to the "public sector." It sounds like you are equating the two. If so, then you are incorrect. Some portions of the public sector surely are service, but not all or most of it. Generally speaking, if your job does not involve a significant subordination of your interests to a greater good, then it is not service. It is a self-interested, mutually beneficial exchange of your time and labor for compensation. It is difficult to assert that one is significantly subordinating one's interests for the greater good when, in conjunction with one's employment, one is a member of a labor union that subordinates the employer's interests to those of the employees through adversarial proceedings involving collective bargaining and public airing of grievances intended to influence public opinion. To qualify as service when represented by a union, one's employment would need to entail a subordination of one's interests in significant excess of the interests advanced by the labor union (example: law enforcement).

Second, even if one concedes for the sake of argument that the public sector can be broadly equated with service, it is still incorrect to characterize all or most service as substantially similar to military service (which, again, is what I discussed). It seems that you are trying to infer that connection as well. If so, I think you are incorrect. The military service is governed formally and informally by a separate and distinct set of norms and laws than other types of service. Consider Article 88 of the UCMJ. Essentially, one is to keep one's negative and contemptuous views of his civilian leaders to himself, whether he is ideologically left, right, center, up, down, etc. That is not true of all members of the public sector and may not be true even of those members of the public sector who are generally regarded as servants.

So, if you are equating military service and public sector work, or military service with service in general, then you are incorrect. If you are further asserting that what is true of one type of service is true of all types of service, then you are incorrect again. If you are relying on those assertions to assert that my statement, taken to a logical conclusion, requires that no public sector employees or no federal employees may espouse political views, then you are wrong for a third time.

Posted at: 5:53 PM on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - Reply to this comment
1 response to this comment by: lordsocharis

8. wrzgkdcy says: