Serve the Servants

by Eric Martin

Andrew Bacevich has an interesting piece on the the ways in which the military has asserted itself in recent decades, and become somewhat independent of civilian leadership, despite the illusion of civilian control maintained for popular consumption.  Along the way, he makes a good point about the selective outrage concerning leaks:

...With President Obama agonizing over what to do about Afghanistan, The Washington Post offered for general consumption the military’s preferred approach, the so-called McChrystal Plan. Devised by General Stanley McChrystal, who had been appointed by Obama to command allied forces in Afghanistan, the plan called for a surge of U.S. troops and the full-fledged application of counterinsurgency doctrine—an approach that necessarily implied a much longer and more costly war.

The effect of this leak, almost surely engineered by some still unidentified military officer, was to hijack the entire policy review process, circumscribing the choices available to the commander-in-chief. Rushing to the nearest available microphone, members of Congress (mostly Republicans) announced that it was Obama’s duty to give the field commander whatever he wanted. McChrystal himself made the point explicitly. During a speech in London, he categorically rejected the notion that any alternative to his strategy even existed: It was do it his way or lose the war. The role left to the president was not to decide, but simply to affirm.

The leaking of the McChrystal Plan constituted a direct assault on civilian control. At the time, however, that fact passed all but unnoticed. Few of those today raising a hue-and-cry about PFC Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeak-er, bothered to protest. The documents that Manning allegedly made public are said to endanger the lives of American troops and their Afghan comrades. Yet, a year ago, no one complained about the McChrystal leaker providing Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leadership with a detailed blueprint of exactly how the United States and its allies were going to prosecute their war.

The absence of any serious complaint reflected the fact that, in Washington—especially in the press corps—military leaks aimed at subverting or circumscribing civilian authority are accepted as standard fare. It’s part of the way Washington works.

True enough.  Although Petraeus has replaced McChrystal, plus ca change:

Within the past week, complaints dribbling out of Petraeus’s headquarters in Kabul—duly reported by an accommodating press—indicate growing military unhappiness with the July 2011 pullout date. Now, Petraeus himself has begun to weigh in directly. This past weekend, he launched his own media campaign, offering his “narrative” of ongoing events. Unlike the ham-handed McChrystal, who chose a foreign capital as his soapbox, Petraeus sat for a carefully orchestrated series of interviews with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NBC’s “Meet the Press,” each of which gratefully passed along the general’s view of things.

In the course of sitting for these interviews, Petraeus placed down a marker, one best captured by the headline in the Times dispatch: “Petraeus Opposes a Rapid Pullout in Afghanistan.” Or, as The Daily Beast put it, adding a twist of hyperbole, Petraeus told “David Gregory that he has the right to delay Obama's 2011 pull-out target for troops in Afghanistan." A bit over the top, but you get the drift. [...]

At the center of [the Afghan policy] battle will be a very political general, skilled at using the press and with friends aplenty on Capitol Hill, especially among Republicans. To have a chance of winning reelection in 2012, Obama needs to demonstrate progress in shutting down the war. Yet it is now becoming increasingly apparent the general Obama has placed in charge of that war entertains a different view.

One, but not both, will have his way. Between now and July 2011, when it comes to civilian control, even the folks in Peoria will have a chance to learn what the civics books leave out.

This is going to get ugly, unless either Obama is in full agreement with Petraeus, or he knuckles under without much of a fight.

Comments

[cleek]

pull out in opposition to the opinion of the Warrior Hero General four months before a presidential election ?

yeah right.

[Fr33d0m]

I don't doubt that McChrystal's behavior was as you report it here, but it seems to me that Petraeus' is simply a regurgitation of the plan, which was never about pulling out rapidly. That isn't to say that Petraeus doesn't want to stay in and isn't trying to angle toward that end, I just don't see the same level of BS involved.

I also think you all tend to believe entirely too much in the reasons given for staying in a Afghanistan. I'd bet there were other considerations that went unspoken for a reason.

[nous]

I can only hope that Bacevich keeps up the fire here and that people start paying attention. America's militarism is outta hand in a big way and it does pose a threat to our democracy -- not in terms of a coup, but in terms of skewed priorities. We are deep in economic trouble and we keep throwing away money for no long-term economic or foreign relations gain. This six-gun diplomacy was already more expensive than Vietnam two years ago. And just because the casualties are an order of magnitude smaller than in Vietnam and composed entirely of volunteers does not mean that we should continue to throw lives away waiting for a decent interval in which to declare mission accomplished and freedom on the march or a democratsunami or whatever.

The problem, as always...how to do that without killing our economy further because of all the military-industrial complex jobs being propped up by six-gun socialism -- which is really what our military is.

[Tony P.]

Generals who are eager to fight wars are like firemen who are eager to fight fires. Some call them commendable; I call them suspicious.

It's too bad the US no longer has a cavalry. Leading a parade, astride a horse used to be glory enough for most generals. Cheaper for us, too.

--TP

[Jordan 1]

In your blog you can always find something useful.

[opit]

Generals who are eager to fight wars aren't in the 'field of fire.'
Talking about calvary reminded me of ex Civil War hero General Armstrong Custer, who embarrassed the President by exposing the scams his brother was perpetrating on purchasing military supplies.
We know where he ended up safely far from the halls of power : Injun Country.
I don't think he would have worked for Blackwater/Xe either. He liked chasing a fantasy heroism in a culture dedicated to snowing impressionable young men.
Things haven't changed much.
Petraeus ? He knows the waltz.