Civil-Military Relations vs. Political Advantage (or Ackerman gets it wrong)
Spencer Ackerman does some really superb reporting, but sometimes he confuses the issues. This is clearly evident in his views about what I wrote about the “Petraeus Doctrine.” Look at when he writes here:
ATTACKERMAN » Stanley McChrystal Is Barack Obama’s General
There needs to be some stress placed on that. Petraeus was an energetic advocate for a strategy he was hired to implement, and which he had done a great deal of intellectual spadework to engender. But he did not “intervene” in domestic politics. If anything, Petraeus’ famous testimony in September of 2007 occurred at the behest of congressional Democrats, who compelled that testimony because they thought, mistakenly, that the surge would be such an obvious disaster that Petraeus would have no choice but to say so in testimony and the final Bush effort at escalation would shatter.
…
All of this is a far cry, you’ll notice, from Petraeus playing an unprecedented or dangerous role in domestic politics. The way the GOP used Petraeus is a separate question, and he’s not responsible for that.
My beef with Petraeus is not that he was being partisan — although his intervention in the 2004 election is unforgivable. My beef with his is that he was overturning norms of civil-military relations by becoming a public advocate and defender of a specific policy choice. I don’t think he was doing it to help Bush. I think, in fact, he was doing it because he thought the surge was the right policy and someone had to defend it. But regardless of his motives, it was still inappropriate because civilians ought to be the ones both shaping and articulating policy choices for the American people, not serving military officers.
Furthermore, Ackerman is simply wrong to argue that Petraeus was just dragged into this by Democrats in 2007. Petraeus had been actively mobilizing support for his policy preferences since 2003. When he returned from his first tour in Iraq, he was running around telling all and sundry about how brilliant he’d been in Mosul — cultivating press and Congressmen in the process — something he continued to do in 2005 when he spun the whole story into a Tal Afar vs. Fallujah narrative. And this was not a private, internal campaign. It was an active effort to build a coalition inside and outside the Administration in support of the kinds of changes he wanted. Again, this is inappropriate. He could have resigned his commission and then gone about lobbying for his version of pop-centric COIN, but instead he used his position (and stars) to lobby for policy changes.
Similarly, McChrystal’s MacArthur-like leap into the debate over Afghanistan is not just business as usual as Ackerman suggests here:
The Washington Independent » McChrystal Speaks in London, Defends Obama — and Karzai
The New York Times plays up Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s contention before a British think-tank audience that the U.S. ought not to adopt a counterterrorism-heavy strategy that’s agnostic to the overall stability of Afghanistan. But really, what else can you expect an Afghanistan commander to say?
What was he expected to say? Really, Spencer, you don’t know the answer to that? The answer is simple: “As you know, these issues are currently under consideration by the President. I have given him my recommendations, and I look forward to implementing whatever orders are given to me following those deliberations.” Or “It would be inappropriate for me to comment on on-going strategy discussions.”
But instead, he decided to poison the well and take a swipe at the Vice President’s position. That is simply UNACCEPTABLE. And it is shocking that a reporter and analyst of Ackerman’s standing does not understand that.
The issue — again — is not that Petraeus and McChrystal are right-wing hacks engaged in partisan power plays, the issue is that Petraeus and McChrystal are serving members of the United States military who are seeking to affect policy in ways that are inappropriate given norms of civil-military relations. Generals have lost their jobs for less overt interventions in policy debates.
“Intervention?” How, pray tell, did a single op-ed in the Washington Post constitute such a dire term? The implication of the word is that Petraeus materially shifted national public opinion by saying there was progress in Iraq in 2004… a view that just happened to mirror the Bush administration’s official stance as well. Does parroting your own Commander-in-Chief now count as unforgivable intervention in domestic politics?
You’re blowing this WAAAAAAY out of proportion, Bernard.
Meanwhile, I’d love to know how and why your views changed over the last year, when you were complaining that we were not involved deeply enough in Afghanistan. What, suddenly a Democrat gets in charge and your views flip?
Joshua, oh come on man, six weeks before a national election a serving officer of the U.S. military comes out and basically blesses our policy in Iraq… and that is not inappropriate? It would have been just as bad (probably worse) if he had come out with the alternative argument…. but what about just shutting up? I mean, there used to be tremendous reticence among serving officers to comment on policy in public. And that was a GOOD thing. Now, in this case, it is made worse by the fact that I don’t think Petraeus actually believed what he was saying. He paints a happy picture of Iraq in the paper just before the election, but at the same time he’s running around telling all and sundry have screwed up our approach in Iraq is and how we need to change how we do business to his plan. Finally, I never said he swung the election, I said his conduct was inexcusable. And it is. And if you can’t see that, well, I just don’t know what to say. I’d love to know what model of civil-military relations you think is appropriate then, because if Petraeus did not violate a basic norm with that op-ed, I don’t know who ever did.
About Afghanistan…. good question. And I think my answer would unfortunately have to be that I was being flippant and hadn’t given it enough thought and was just parroting conventional wisdom. Though, I am not sure even then that I would have wanted us to be sending tens of thousands of more troops. By deeply involved, I meant at least in part more focused on developing a plan to achieve some reasonable end-state. But I have already pled guilty numerous times to using “ignoring Afghanistan” as a convenient cudgel to bash the Bush Administration. I wish I hadn’t done it, but there you go. There is a difference now in that I really, really don’t want to bash Obama. I supported him from very early — well before Iowa — and continued to do so in the general — gave money, made calls, knocked on neighbors doors.
I’ve been pretty hard on Obama and his team, so I am not sure you can ascribe a partisan motive to my arguments.
How about just shut up? Look, unless you take away their right to vote, the military DOES have the right to speak about the wars that are going on. Petraeus didn’t violate any oath — he neither endorsed nor denounced an elected politican — he tried to defend his command from the media criticism it had received. That is neither unprecedented nor unforgivable.
And if you’re going to call it an “intervention,” let’s see some data that indicated it had any effect — ANY — on the outcome of the election. Even a marginal effect, I’ll take anything at this point.
I base much of my understanding of civil-military relations on Huntington’s The Soldier and the State. What do you base yours on? The entire panoply of anti-Afghanistan types were *remarkably* silent when Generals spoke out against Iraq. It’s only when they speak in favor of something you dislike that suddenly it’s a crime against civilian government.
That’s really hypocritical.
I’m not ascribing a partisan motive to your arguments, I’m just curious how they’re evolving. Inconsistency is no crime, but when it occurs among someone with so many public opinions, an explanation is usually a common courtesy.
Which active duty generals spoke about against Iraq? I remember praising Newbold for resigning rather than implementing a policy he disagree with. But as I recall, he didn’t speak openly until after he resigned. Similarly, my recollection is that a number of flag officers came out against the war, but were all retired (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html). Who are you talking about? I mean, it is possible I am being hypocritical on this score, but I just don’t remember ever praising an active duty general when he publicly questioned the civilian leadership.
Now, that said, I have complained about the CJCS failing to present his own military advice to President Bush (which he is entitle to under statute) after Rummy laid down the “DOD speaks with one voice” edict. But that referred to internal debates, not public speeches.
And sorry, I do think that going to a public forum as an active duty officer and saying, in short, “I think the VP is full of sh_t” is pretty close to unprecedented.