POLITICIZING THE MILITARY

Of all the really sorry things that have come out of the Iraq fiasco so far, politicizing the military is one of the worst. There has always been a certain amount of this. I don't think we've seen the level of it as we now do. In books like Fiasco, it is ever so forcefully pointed out, exactly, how the Administration (old SecDef especially) chose leaders who would say what they wanted them to say--mainly the rosy picture of Iraq.

In fact, in a recent unusual stance for a member of Congress, John McCain voted against General Casey, former top General in Iraq, as the Chief of Staff of the Army because he said Casey had to bear responsibility for the rosy pictures he gave of what was happening. Exactly.

The media plays into the politicizing of the military so we can't totally blame the top military types. Headlines sell newspapers. Casey is quoted "the troops will be home by Christmas" as a headline and relates little to the truth or reality. (My view has always been: let's get the generals off TV, let civilians speak for them. Having these generals before the public constantly compromises who they are. Am I a voice crying in the wilderness. I think so).

We can't deny that those like Casey painted a picture that was vastly different from what we saw.

It is hard to know what all of this means other than bemoaning this mixing of politics and war strategy. For instance, I hear nothing but good stuff about the new commander, Petraeus, and I think it is relatively true. He has earned his stripes in many ways but let's face it, he is not a miracle worker and in my estimation, it really may be too late for Iraq or at least what we would hope to accomplish. However, here is how someone like Petraeus is politicized. The President in griping about the recent wimpy non binding resolution said something like, "this may be the first time in history that the Congress has said to its field commander, we don't support you and don't think the strategy you have chosen will work."

First of all, we don't know if Petraeus chose this strategy: the so called, "surge." It doesn't seem to make sense with all the rhetoric I've been reading about him. He is the godfather of counterinsurgency, meaning that he wrote the manual. (He really didn't write it but some of his minions did but he had to put his stamp of approval on it). Also, it is his background. So, why would a General who is a Special Forces type, believing in the Bible of counterinsurgency--working with the people, being somewhat clandestine, in the background, not looking like soldiers: why would he agree to use conventional soldiers even in greater numbers in a city when he knows that it goes against the counterinsurgency model? The president, his commander in Chief, has gone on record as saying that this is the new general's strategy, "surge." See what I mean: politicizing the military.

To me, another example of how we have messed up in fighting this war on every turn.

So, what is my suggestion of how to avoid this politicization: let's get the generals off TV, let civilians speak for them. Having these generals before the public constantly compromises who they are.

Am I a voice crying in the wilderness. I think so. And, the discouraging thing to me as an armchair cowboy strategist is that it appears that I am the only one in America who getss it.