Civilian Control

Kevin Drum's right about this but also wrong. Yes, I would like the principle of civilian control over the military to be upheld whether or not I like the civilians who are running the military. But in the real world the way the principle of civilian control operates is that when Republicans are president, we do what Republicans want with the military, whereas when Democrats are president, we do what Republicans want with the military. We all recall how Colin Powell relentlessly battled civilian policymakers and for his trouble became a reviled national figure huge media star.

It'll be the same when Barack Obama is president. If a single four-star general agrees on the merits with the GOP talking points of the day, suddenly General Republican will become the greatest military thinker in American history and disagreeing with him is basically the same as pissing on the corpses of our dead troops. We remember the surge flip-flop, don't we, where disagreeing with Bush's Iraq policy was considered treason until Bush decided he wanted to shift policy, cashiered his old generals, brough in some different guys, and then blindly supporting Petraeus became de rigeur.

That's just the way it is, just like the press is suddenly going to rediscover "the rule of law" as a concept.

Comments

Clinton should have fired Colin Powell the first time he opened his mouth. I hope Obama or Clinton have at least learned not to make that mistake again.

Posted by Th | March 12, 2008 2:32 PM

We all recall how Colin Powell relentlessly battled civilian policymakers and for his trouble became a huge media star.

Huh. I thought he became a huge media star because he won a war. Thank you Matthew for setting me straight that actually he became a media star because he battled Bill Clinton. My bad.

Posted by Al | March 12, 2008 2:33 PM

When push came to shove, Clinton acted like a fucking coward. That was the first time Democrats ever had a problem with civilian control over the military - all because Bill pissed his pants.

Posted by blah | March 12, 2008 2:36 PM

The Bush administration is well within its rights to fire Fallon. At the same time, after an administration politicizes its military leaders like the Bush admin has done, a general of Fallon's stature is well within his rights to make certain kinds of statements about what he is trying to do. Fallon never crossed the line, in my view, of specifically disagreeing with Bush, much less suggested disobeying him.

As long as the military doesn't cross those lines, in my view, it is the responsibility of the civilian administration to insure their control over the military. And they have ample tools to do so, including the ability to encourage his resignation.

Posted by mpowell | March 12, 2008 2:47 PM

The big military/media star to emerge from the first Gulf War was Norman Schwartzkopf.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 12, 2008 2:47 PM

This "civilian control" meme is beyond stupid - nobody, including the generals who are criticizing certain policies, wants to give up civilian control. Or has anybody ever said that the military ought to be able do what it wants to?

Posted by novakant | March 12, 2008 2:48 PM

getting a touch cynical aren't we. (But its all true, of course). :-)

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 12, 2008 2:53 PM

Matt, I always appreciate it when someone calls Powell's bullshit. When it comes to fighting a dumb war, he's first to cave. But god forbid we let gays serve openly in the military. That's where he draws the line. He's a media darling because his priorities reflect those of our frivolous press corps.

Posted by Ryno | March 12, 2008 3:00 PM

I hate to agree with Al, but he's right: Powell became famous during the Gulf War, before Clinton took office. His later battles with Clinton had nothing to do with it. I also agree with "blah," however: Clinton screwed up on gays in the military. He looked weak, backing down in the face of military opposition, and it probably ruined the rest of his presidency.

Posted by Matt Stevens | March 12, 2008 3:16 PM

If lefties hadn't kicked the ROTC off of so many of your elite university campuses decades ago, you might have had more general officers today who shared your sensibilities. With typical liberal short-sidedness, you only saw the ROTC as the presence of the military in your universities; you never considered that it was also the presence of your universities in the military.

"At the same time, after an administration politicizes its military leaders like the Bush admin has done"

If anyone has politicized military leaders it has been the Left, e.g., taking out a full-page ad in the NY Times to effectively accuse a serving general of treason.

Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 3:16 PM

Meant to point this out earlier, but on a somewhat related note, isn't Fallon getting forced out break the whole notion of the "Surge" working? I mean, he is the commander of that region. There's definitely a lot more to this story than what's out there.

Posted by Tokay | March 12, 2008 3:16 PM

If lefties hadn't kicked the ROTC off of so many of your elite university campuses decades ago, you might have had more general officers today who shared your sensibilities.

Not every liberal thought that was a good idea, then or now.

Posted by mpowell | March 12, 2008 3:24 PM

Ah, nuts. There are plenty of liberal military leaders.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 12, 2008 3:26 PM

Generals won't f*ck with Bush because their heads will roll. Rumsfeld had a familiarity with the Pentagon that let him take names, and I don't doubt that Cheney knows how to pull the right levers, too. Was Les Aspin going to do the same?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | March 12, 2008 3:26 PM

"This "civilian control" meme is beyond stupid - nobody, including the generals who are criticizing certain policies, wants to give up civilian control. Or has anybody ever said that the military ought to be able do what it wants to?

Novokant,

If the stories about Fallon are true (and to be fair, he has denied them), then he has already undermined civilian control. It's difficult to pursue a diplomatic strategy that relies on an implicit threat of the use of force as a last resort when your theater commander is telling the press that such use of force isn't an option.

Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 3:29 PM

There is a difference between liberal and lefty. The lefties on campus who wanted to kick off the ROTC to demonstrate their ideological purity are not representative of American liberals.

Posted by blah | March 12, 2008 3:29 PM

If the Democrats learn one thing from Bush they should learn that squashing a general from time to time keeps the rest in line. Clinton showed them he could be bullied..big mistake.

The next Dem president should learn this lesson and teach it by putting some brass in a vise if need be.

Posted by jvoe | March 12, 2008 3:31 PM

There is a difference between liberal and lefty.

It's a distinction of convenience. Sometimes, "lefty" means the left-most 1%. Sometimes, Hillary ia a "lefty".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 12, 2008 3:33 PM

"Not every liberal thought that was a good idea, then or now."

Fair enough, mpowell.

"There is a difference between liberal and lefty. The lefties on campus who wanted to kick off the ROTC to demonstrate their ideological purity are not representative of American liberals."

I haven't seen a lot of American liberals trying to get ROTC back on elite college campuses.

Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 3:34 PM

I haven't seen a lot of American liberals trying to get ROTC back on elite college campuses.

And they are not trying to keep them off either. It's not an issue that most liberals are even aware of or in a position to do anything about. For the most part, the issue does not resonate beyond the elite college campuses.

Posted by blah | March 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Every few years, the [president] needs to take some shitty little [general] and throw them against the wall.

Posted by MikeJ | March 12, 2008 3:49 PM

If lefties hadn't kicked the ROTC off of so many of your elite university campuses decades ago, you might have had more general officers today who shared your sensibilities.

The absurd idea that needs to be countered here is that "elite university campuses" are somehow monolithically "ours" in the first place. Like no conservative ever went to Harvard or Yale. Yes, all those "masters of the universe" types with their Ivy League MBAs are well known for their progressive politics.

No, I'm willing to bet that if ROTC was allowed on these campuses, a majority of students signing up would be conservative, just like at schools where ROTC is allowed, and, shockingly, liberals attend too! Not to mention the self-contradictory idea that liberals both want ROTC off campus, and yet would join ROTC if it was allowed.

That's not to say that keeping ROTC off college campuses isn't pointless and stupid, but the idea that doing so is somehow causal to the military being generally conservative is ludicrous.

Posted by Phaedrus | March 12, 2008 3:50 PM

It'll be the same when Barack Obama is president. If a single four-star general agrees on the merits with the GOP talking points of the day, suddenly General Republican will become the greatest military thinker in American history and disagreeing with him is basically the same as pissing on the corpses of our dead troops.

No commanding officer in the field has a right to air their policy preferences in public, whether they agree or disagree with any President. That's a given. Here's where there is a difference. Based on the commander in chief capabilities shown by the last three Democrat President, and in only one case (LBJ) was a Democrat President actively engaging America's enemies whereas the other two did nothing and made things much worse (especially Clinton with his idiotic downsizing and truly pissing on the troops), conservatives don't expect a President Obama (or President Hillary Clinton) to do any different as those Democrat Presidents or anything right as commander in chief of the military.

Posted by SteveIL | March 12, 2008 4:06 PM

For one thing, Matt isn't ridiculously stupid, so my jaw is on the floor with the "Kevin's Drum's right but also wrong" thing. Nope, Matt, he's right, period. You see any place for caveats or "except when"'s in civilian control of the military and you're too dumb to be a political blogger. And you usually aren't.

For another, Powell didn't fight the civlian government. He _was asked_ by Congress -- for which, as commissioned officers, _we work_, that's who issues the commissions, is the Senate -- to weigh in on Clinton administration policy, and he did -- and there's much of what he said I might or might not agree with, but he said it, with vigor, sure. And in fact Congress agreed with him on some of that stuff in the end.

Of course John C. Fremont _did_ become a hero after telling the government to stuff it, so, there's still counterexamples. Hell, some Presidents have become heroes for saying, the hell with checks-and-balances too. Doesn't in any way make it desirable.

Posted by Sanjay | March 12, 2008 4:45 PM

The lefties on campus who wanted to kick off the ROTC to demonstrate their ideological purity

I'm pretty sure this is not how they would characterize their motives. There are actual, you know, arguments in play. If you don't believe they deserve the respect of a fair hearing, and can be airily dismissed as mere ideological posturing, well then, you're no liberal, let alone a lefty.

On balance I think I'm opposed to excluding ROTC from campuses, but you can't pretend that, e.g., protesting formal discrimination against one's fellow citizens is a frivolous, self-indulgent stance.

Posted by Ryan | March 12, 2008 5:00 PM

There is a difference between liberal and lefty. The lefties on campus who wanted to kick off the ROTC to demonstrate their ideological purity are not representative of American liberals.
Posted by blah

A battle the Lefties won, which is testimony to the strength of liberals in academia, the law, and in the Democratic Party as compared to the clout of Lefty activists. And testimony to the clout Lefties have over conservatives as well as liberals when battles are waged on campuses or
solid blue, anti-American battlegrounds like San Francisco.

*****************
Phadreus - The absurd idea that needs to be countered here is that "elite university campuses" are somehow monolithically "ours" in the first place. Like no conservative ever went to Harvard or Yale. Yes, all those "masters of the universe" types with their Ivy League MBAs are well known for their progressive politics.

The ones with the clout on campus are not the "come and go" students, but the hard ideologues of Faculty protected by tenure and career "university employees" likewise picked for ideological purity. At Elite colleges, employees have been found to be 80-96% (Brown has the record) registered Democrats, with the remainder independents and Republicans. In undergrad sciences and engineering, as well as graduate business and even law school, numbers of Lefties actually tail off as teaching ability matters more than identity politics.

Their ongoing power to enforce the ROTC ban and continue the demonization and leperization of the military they loath was displayed in the recent "Give Us the Head of Larry Summers" episode that had the HarvardTrustees cave in like wet cardboard.

***********************
Also, while the principal of civilian executive control of the military and Congressional funding and oversight exists, and duty to strict compliance with Chain of Command exists, the military otherwise is like any other group of employees under civilian government command.

The military folks may be no more blindly compliant to leaders out to punish them and put them in jeopardy to their safety, financial interests than - say, teachers. They can push back in a wide assortment of ways if they lose confidence in civilian supervision or are being forced in a direction they see as harmful to themselves and even the country.

**************
The basic answer to Matts question is that we know that norms and laws and rules exist in any human group - and that that is repeated biologically in all animal societies. And those structures always call for enforcers and fighters. To protect from threats within and from threats without. Without a military to protect from raiders, all commerce would be impossible. Without enforcement, all laws and rules and norms are meaningless.

The military, like the farmer, the craftsman, always was. They are an inherent part in any society. "Hating them", makes as much sense as hating homemakers, carpenters or medical staff.

Having the military with disproportionate power and influence is not what we would consider optimal in a society. It is something people generally agree must be fought against to give the rest of society their due say and consideration. But the same could be said for Jews having too much power and wealth - well outside all proportion of their numbers, or Lawyers claiming that they get to run all branches of governments while other trades and professions are cut out of a say.

Posted by chris ford | March 12, 2008 5:03 PM

On balance I think I'm opposed to excluding ROTC from campuses, but you can't pretend that, e.g., protesting formal discrimination against one's fellow citizens is a frivolous, self-indulgent stance.
Posted by Ryan

The ROTC bans were in place long before anyone was wrapped up in homo rights. They were put in place when Lefties took power in universities and condemned American soldiers as evil, murderous baby killers.

Homo, or gay rights, is just a recent dodge masking the real reason the military is held with such hatred and contempt on Elite campuses and within certain quarters of the Democratic Party and various liberal "Fronts".

The same people who claim that they are so against gay discrimination flock to the defense of "persecuted Muslims" who don't "job discriminate" or maintain "don't ask, don't tell". They kill or imprison gays. But the Left sees Muslims as natural allies because they hate America, the West, the American military just as much as Lefties do.

Posted by chris ford | March 12, 2008 5:17 PM

"On balance I think I'm opposed to excluding ROTC from campuses, but you can't pretend that, e.g., protesting formal discrimination against one's fellow citizens is a frivolous, self-indulgent stance."

Chris Ford is right that the military's policy on homosexuals isn't the reason ROTC was kicked off campus in the first place, but, to extent that is the stated rationale now, it's a lame one, for a couple of reasons.

First, the military didn't create the "don't ask, don't tell" policy: the civilian leadership did, during the Clinton Administration. Blaming the military for following the policy established by our elected government makes no sense, especially if you believe in civilian control over the military.

Second, elite American universities have been accepting tens of millions of dollars from Arab governments that are openly hostile to gays, and establishing campuses in their countries. I happen to think it's a good thing for American universities to set up shop in the Arab World, but it's more than a tad hypocritical to rail against the fairly innocuous "don't ask, don't tell" policy while partnering up with autocracies that actually persecute gays.

Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 6:04 PM

Some random comments on some of the comments above

You can go to Harvard on a ROTC scholarship - I worked with an officer at my last job who did this. And have worked with several that have gone to Cornell.
Like some other cities, Boston has a 'Rotc consortium' where you attend the ROTC drill periods at a specific campus (IIRC the boston one is at Boston U) but attend school at whatever university you want.

My commission was not given by the senate, it was signed by Bill Clinton.

Powell was actually famous even before Gulf war 1 as the public face of the Panama Campaign. Plus he was well known by that time in defense circles as a up and comer due to being a Reagan protogee.

Posted by Kolohe | March 12, 2008 7:18 PM

Re: We all recall how Colin Powell relentlessly battled civilian policymakers and for his trouble became a reviled national figure huge media star.

Actually, I don't recall this, I recall Colin Powell meekly following George Bush's orders (both George Bushes in fact) in both Middle Eastern wars. The only new idea which seems to have been uniquely his own is the Powell Doctrine as to when the US should wage war and when it shouldn't, and that was torpedoed in Iraq with nary a peep out of him.

Posted by JonF | March 12, 2008 7:24 PM

Colin Powell was a star even BEFORE The Persian Gulf War. He was famous (and well liked on the Hill) when he served as President Reagan's National Security Advisor, the first African-American in that job.

Posted by beowulf | March 12, 2008 8:38 PM

I just looked at my commission, framed and hanging on my wall, and it's from the President. Make of that what you will.

Posted by guineapigfury | March 12, 2008 9:12 PM

I see no reason why, in an (allegedly) "free" society which included freedom of speech, an officer should not be allowed to speak his mind freely to the public about political policies.

As long as he's not disobeying orders in furtherance of those policies, he's not doing anything any other citizen isn't doing.

I see no reason why a member of the military is required to give up any rights he enjoys as a citizen just because he's under the command of political authority.

Either the political authority's policies are wise in military terms, or they are not. The politician and the officer should be allowed to make their cases to the public, and the public can make up their own minds.

Either the officer, despite misgivings, obeys the orders of the political authority, or he, as Napoleon once advocated, resigns "rather than being the instrument of his country's defeat."

What is said publicly should have no bearing on those two options.

A political authority who chooses an officer to carry out military policy should presumably be choosing an officer capable of doing so. If the officer does not agree with those policies, that may be taken into consideration in the choosing, but once chosen, that should be irrelevant unless, again, it is preventing the officer from carrying out those policies.

Now, in the case of Fallon, the suggestion has been that his public opposition to an attack on Iran has undermined some sort of supposed Bush strategy of "scaring Iran" into stopping enrichment. This is bullshit.

First, because there is absolutely no evidence that there is any such strategy on Bush's part.

Second, it does not matter that the opposition of some of the military to an Iran war reflects a division in the US government. Iran is not going to change its policies solely on the basis of some belief that the US does not have the political or military will to launch an attack on Iran. Iran knows perfectly well that should Bush give the order to attack Iran, the US military will do so. Iran and most other governments in the world know perfectly well that the US has no history (recent, at least) of the military refusing its orders, conducting coup d'etats or anything else common in Third World countries. What matters in the US is the political authority, not the military authority. What matters in the US is the authority of the White House and to an unfortunately lesser degree, the authority of the Congress - not the authority of the Pentagon. Iran knows this.

Therefore the notion that Fallon somehow was "undermining US strategy" is completely bogus.

Where the problem really lies is in the domestic struggle for the neocons to rally the US public to the notion of attacking Iran. This is where the opposition of military officers like Fallon is a threat to the political authority.

And so it should be. Again as Napoleon said and as the oath of a US officer states, a military officer is devoted to supporting the United States Constitution and the country, not the political authority. Therefore, any public (non-mutinous) opposition to that political authority's use of the military by the military should be permitted - by law preferably.

It should be obvious that the country needs and should want to have military officers who will publicly say, "This is an asinine policy, and will cause serious damage to the US military and US foreign policy and possibly even the US economy."

Especially when you don't have a media willing to offer the opinions of outside military experts and retired officers about the issue at hand.

Nobody wants a "Seven Days in May" or "Triple X: State of the Union" scenario. But forcing an officer to resign because of opposition to a specific military policy is nothing to the purpose - as long as he's carrying out orders.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 13, 2008 1:25 AM

Is Fred Al's stupider brother or something? Al is dumb but he sometimes makes sense kind of. Fred just says stupid shit all of the time.

Posted by merlallen | March 13, 2008 2:38 AM

We can't all live up to your example of wit and erudition, merlallen.

Posted by Fred | March 13, 2008 2:50 AM

Colin Powell had actually been getting some media attention since he debuted as the primary spokesman for the attempt at covering up the My Lai massacre, and afterward at downplaying it.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | March 13, 2008 5:00 AM

I know a young man who got admitted to Princeton and promptly got an offer from the Navy that they would pay basically half of the cost, would he join Navy for 5 years afterwards. Also, at large state universities you get liberal to lefty humanities professors who are attacked by Horowitz with relish, and ROTC. Lefties do not rule universities. Humanities do not rule universities. Trustees are typically quite conservative.

Now, if military gave equal rights to homosexuals, it would be a more hospitable place for liberals and somewhat less hospitable for religious nuts. It should be done as soon as Democrats control both houses of Congress and presidency. In spite of a period of ca. 12 years of conservative ascendancy, the country is much more tolerant than 16 years ago.

Posted by piotr | March 13, 2008 6:12 AM

Should a carrier employee of NASA or EPA be allowed to criticise Administrations policies on space exploration and pollution? I say, yes. If they are wrong, an Administration has the ability to convey its case. Same for the military matters.

And, of course, Democratic leaders are criticised all the time, so IOKIYAR principle suggests that this position will not be detrimental to Democrats.

Posted by piotr | March 13, 2008 6:20 AM

I think you guys are wrong. My commission is signed by the President -- but it was issued by the Senate Armed Forces Committee. It's their job, not his. In the same way the boards recommend and sign off on your promotions -- but the Senate is really the group that issues them.

Posted by Sanjay | March 13, 2008 11:51 AM

It's well-known fact that "anti-Semites" tend to claim that "all Jews are smart" (though they generally tend to use highly-negative synonyms such as "crafty", "sly", or "sneaky" instead).

Fortunately, we have "Fred" here to endlessly disprove this fallacious claim, and demonstrate that the "anti-Semites" are dead-wrong.

I really think the ADL should give some sort of lifetime achievement award to "Fred" for his outstanding work in the never-ending struggle to debunk this aspect of "anti-Semitism"...

Posted by RKU | March 13, 2008 12:07 PM

Given that War is Bad, and soldiers at least sometimes know this better than civilians, I think that military disagreements in the direction of "we shouldn't do this" should be privileged over the opposite tack.

That said, I think the better course would have been for him to keep it in-house (or in-Senate) and do a resign-and-criticise if things got bad...easy for me to say, given hindsight.

Posted by Michael | March 13, 2008 2:38 PM