More helpful advice from the chairman:
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.
Pity we can’t get the rest of the Federal bureaucracy to do likewise.
A good superior asks for and considers the advice of his subordinates. It is unfortunate that many subordinates wish to offer this advice via public speeches and Op-Ed letters. I suspect they do so because they are certain their opinion will not hold sway upon their leaders.
One must then ask, if you’re certain your opinion is not compelling, of what benefit is sharing it with thousands?
– Max
With the election cycle being where it is, and the polls showing what they do vis-a-vis McCain vs. Obama, could this open letter be considered “preparing the battlefield” in light of the strong possibility of November bringing us a President whose policies might differ from what the majority of the military wants? It just seems like it could be advice to keep unhappiness under the radar and not out in the public political arena.
“It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”
I am not sure that is objectively possible, and particularly in the “always” context.
Using reductio ad absurdum, should the military remain neutral if the state, even by popular vote, decides that everyone with hazel eyes is forfeit? And, predicting the “just resign” argument, would not those who choose to stay in and “remain neutral” also be choosing a side, and therefore be partisan? Is not the “I am just following orders” a claim of neutrality? And to preempt the “lawful order” defense, most descents into tyranny are always “lawful”.
Just sayin
He must see trouble on the horizon. I gotta think about this some more…I have never heard a JCS Chairman discuss such an issue. Sorta troubling and refreshing at the same time.
b2
Lots of things in play here, I suspect. There are multiple communication channels out there now, so it’s much more difficult for the corporate military to maintain message control. Winning or losing the war(s) has become a partisan issue rather than a national one. Passions are very high on both sides of the political aisle – one side exultant at finally having untrammeled access to all the levers of political power, and the other reeling and in search of a theory of government.
Apart from being right in its own sake, the chairman I suspect wants to make sure that everyone stays in their lanes, and out of the scrum. There’s no upside for the institution to be aligned with either political party.
Lotta downside though.
However, if one party is focused on loosing the war(s)… how can the military stay out of it?
This message has always been there-but no one ever put it in print before. It was always verbally passed via flag back channels. That is what makes this missive most unusual.
Wonder if this will lead to an anti-bumper sticker patrol for the MAA’s come the fall…………..
Oh, and neither party is focused on losing the war-that’s one of the problems with the rhetoric. We don’t lose either way-we simply decide when we have had enough of a loss leading investment.
Leaving Iraq-or Iraqifying the war is not losing the war. It is acknowledging that our work is done and OUR objectives were met a long time ago. Now its up to the Iraqis to take care of their own country.
Democrats need to fight back and not take this continuing talk that they are somehow not patriotic enough because they do not accept the current convential wisdom vis a vis Iraq.
Hmm…
The basic message is one that has been around for years…about 220 of them.
Ultimately, there are two questions.
First, what is the dividing line between personal off-duty political belief and on-duty obedience to superior authority?
Second, do any of the senior leaders have the guts to put their stars on the table?
The dividing line is the Hatch Act, which is pretty clear about what you can and cannot do.
Obeidience is the only thing that matters-not what you say while you obey.
Lex,
Agree totally with your assessment of why the message now. ADM Mike is intuitively trying with every means of communication available to him to make sure the position of Integrity we currently hold is maintained above all else. Politicians come and politicians go. The Country needs to go on….. for much longer than politicians. And the Institutions serving her are the means of propagating her survival. The US Military first and foremost among them.
Subsunk
yeah well, he can stuff it…
Obama,cutting the military by 25%, just like Clinton did in order to pay for social programs…
That worked out really well. Peace dividend indeed…