Patterico's Pontifications

2/7/2005

What Role Should the Opinions of the Military Play in Whether We Start or Continue a War?

Filed under: War — Patterico @ 9:56 pm



Armed Liberal responds to the “chickenhawk” argument:

Can we just let the military serving in Iraq vote on the war and abide by their choice?

Armed Liberal is, of course, simply making the point that the military strongly supports President Bush’s Iraq war, as has been shown in poll after poll. Those who criticize hawks for not being willing to put their own lives on the line can’t ignore the fact that the war is strongly supported by those who do.

But it got me thinking. To what extent should the opinion of the active-duty members of our armed forces play a role in our decision to start or continue a war?

There are many factors to consider.

The most obvious is that it’s their blood being spilled. Who are we to tell them that the fight is (or isn’t) worth their lives?

Also, the military knows what is happening on the ground. If it really is an unresolvable quagmire, they know better than we do. They’re there. We’re not.

They also have a keener sense of the sacrifice of their brethren, and will be less prone than the politicians to throw that sacrifice aside for political reasons.

On the other hand, members of the military are taught to fight. They see war as the answer more readily than others might. As the saying goes, when you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Some military men think it’s “fun” to shoot the enemy — and as long as they keep their fool mouths shut about it, I can’t deny that we want our military men to have some degree of that attitude. But, obviously, there are legitimate factors that politicians are better positioned and equipped to consider.

I’m not sure exactly how I feel about this, but I thought Armed Liberal’s comment, while he may have meant it as a simple refutation of the chickenhawk argument, was worth considering on a deeper level.

As always, I am interested in the opinions of people with different perspectives on this issue.

10 Responses to “What Role Should the Opinions of the Military Play in Whether We Start or Continue a War?”

  1. They see war as the answer more readily than others might. As the saying goes, when you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    When I was on submarines in the Navy we were taught that if war did break out then it meant that we failed our mission. While it is true that Soldiers and Marines are taught to “break things and kill people”, I am sure that they also believe that if it comes to that then a bunch of other stuff has already failed. Most of those in the military only start itching for a fight when the enemy has made it clear that there will be no other alternatives.

    LBJ ignored this philosphy in Vietnam and himself was itching for a fight against “godless commies.” He lied about Tonkin Bay and got the war he was hoping for. Once he got his war he would not let his generals fight it. At the other extreme Jimmy Carter was loathe to do anything militarily and we ended up with hostages in captivity for 400 days, the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, and a couple of big holes in the ground.

    In spite of the actions of Johnson and Carter, the military does not want to make the decisions about war. A key aspect of Western Culture and our strength as a free people is that the military does not get involved in these kinds of decisions. It is left up to the politicians who are answerable to the people. The questions Armed Liberal has brought up were answered over 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers. The recent rumblings by the Dems about chicken hawks show that they have no understanding of our culture or the way a free people make decisions.

    Remy Logan (328fb7)

  2. While you’re right that the polls showing the military overwhelmingly favor the mission and are optimistic about it are important evidence in support of claims that it’s going well (and *have* to be relevant to anyone using some form of the chickenhawk argument, since they were using that argument before the war in tandem with claims that senior officers off the record opposed the war) to let the military choose the fight goes in direct conflict with the very foundation of our system. We have always relied on our military to tell us whether the fight could be won, and how (and that’s where many argue Johnson’s effort went off the rails.) But in a system of civilian control, only the civilian leadership can determine whether the fight is *worth* it. In fact, precisely b/c they so intimately understand the price of war, the military may well be less likely to want to use war as an instrument of statecraft — but that is a political, not a military, decision, which is why our entire system is predicated on the military taking orders from a chain of command that ends in political, civilian, decisionmakers, and why the chickenhawk argument is so fundamentally illiberal. It cuts against the essence of what makes the American system work.

    Dauber (752121)

  3. Hey, Pat, how’s the new host working out?

    Did you ever read the Robert Heinlein science-fiction novel Starship Troopers? In it, Heinlein postulates a society with a very intersting answer to the question you pose here.

    In Starship Troopers, only veterans (of federal service) can vote. Not those taxpayers who never served… and not those currently serving, either. Only those who served, but who are now out and civilians again. The idea, as explained in the philosophy-heavy novel (one of Heinlein’s best, in my opinion), is that the franchise be restricted to those who have at least once in their lives put the security of society ahead of their personal safety… but who are not currently serving under the orders of the society: they are free to make up their own minds, but they have earned the right to make that choice.

    It’s an interesting take: the admirals, captains, generals, colonels, chiefs, sergeant majors, and master gunnery sergeants — the career men and women — serve but cannot rule; they cannot even vote. But the businessman who served a term in the service can.

    It’s also an interesting commentary on who joins up and why: when the protagonist enlists, the world is at peace and has been for decades; shortly thereafter, however, war breaks out… and everybody in the service has to face the dramatic change of situation.

    I strongly recommend Starship Troopers, especially if you like thinking deeply about the social compact and how it collides with the real world.

    Dafydd

    P.S. Say, isn’t there some way we can preview our comments before posting? Or edit them afterwards? I miss that capability: I’m used to editing before I post!

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  4. Without a doubt, the decision to engage in hostilities needs to be reserved for civilians. That said, the military does have a degree of influence over that decision. The military, mostly through the Joint Chiefs, have input on not just strategy, but also on policy (e.g. Powell doctrine). I suspect their input is accorded considerable weight within the corridors of power.

    Although both cilivians and the military can be pro-war (Bob McNamara and Gen. Lemay spring to mind as notable hawks), I prefer that politicians who we voted for have the ultimate power to decide, especially during my three years as an infantryman (though I would have been seriously galled had I served while Clinton was CinC; he often seemed to use the military for political purposes).

    Pigilito (0be124)

  5. The military is an apolitical organization. Authority to engage in hostilities is vested in elected officials who are accountable to those who put them in office – the voters. It’s irrelevant whether the military wants to engage or not – its roles are advisory and a “cheery aye-aye” when told to back off or go get ’em.
    The military has political power only through the individual voting right of its members.
    This from a 20 year Navy veteran.

    Homer (e40c40)

  6. Dayfdd – I read Troopers five (5) years befor I went to fight JFK’s war. I agreed with him then and after fighting for freedom I am even mnor in agreement with him. If you care so little for your country that you are no willing to bleed and maybe die for it you have not earned the right to vote. Troopers was a sleeper it grew by word of mouth, took years to sell a mill. It was so popular after a few years that STRANGER jumped to the top of the list when it came out; but it got their off the Trooper following. The Movie was very untrue to the book – completely ignored the whole basis of lthe book; of course the movie was made in Hollywood.
    Remmy The Marines Invaded Nam in Jan 1963 at Chu Lai. I was in Chu Lai in 1967 as a member of the Fifth Marines. The war was well underway when LBJ was elected. As a mater of fact I heard him say at LB State in 1964 that if he won the election he would bring the 350,000 men home – while Goldwaster would up it to 700,000. Guess how many were there when I left? 750,000

    I admit I am biased in favor of vets but I think if you can not make a small sacrifice for your country you are too self centered to vote for the well being of all.
    ex Jarehead
    Cerritos

    Rod Stanton (833c82)

  7. As far as I’m concerned, the bottom line is that the decision to fight or not fight a war does not and should not rest with the military. Homer said it as well as I could have, and more succinctly than I would have. It’s funny; just the other day I was thinking about the fact that our military is a bastion of collectivism in what was intended to be — and what I hope will drift no further from being — a largely individualistic society. Strange, but true — and I think necessary.

    Matt
    USMC 1993-2000.

    Matt (318a08)

  8. The military is a tool of foreign policy and national security under civilian control, and should ALWAYS remain that. I’d value their input in terms of capabilities, plans and strategies, actually much more than any striped-pants Arabist in the State Dept (when will Condi clean house?), but they (Chiefs of Staff) should be ready to resign to show displeasure with ill-thought-out adventurism. A mass-resigning says more than any conference call or press conference would

    Frank G (78c097)

  9. My experience is only indirect, since I did not serve but my father was career Army. Nevertheless, those of us raised in the military (“brats”) were just like most other kids, in that our opinions were molded by our parents, and even if we rebelled, that rebellion was premised on what our parents thought. My own experience is that career military very strongly support political positions that are based on a willingness to use military force when required by circumstances – which means, generally, “right wing” politics. At the same time, there is a very strong ethos that the military obeys the civilian leadership no matter what.

    It seems to me that what happens in the military is that if the civilian leadership does not respect the military, and uses it to accomplish political goals rather than military ones, morale suffers and the soldiers vote with their feet by not re-enlisting. My father retired after his tour of duty in Vietnam, even though he was under 50 and had another ten years or so of soldiering in him. But he did not want to continue to fight in a war where military victory – even in a limited sense – was not the objective.

    Now, as to your specific questions:

    (1) The most obvious is that it’s their blood being spilled. Who are we to tell them that the fight is (or isn’t) worth their lives?

    Don’t worry about that. Death is an occupational hazard for a soldier. They are willing to die so long as you are willing to win, and as long as you have clear goals. But if they conclude that you have decided not to win the fight, or if you do not have clear objectives, they will conclude that the fight is not worth their lives.

    (2) Also, the military knows what is happening on the ground. If it really is an unresolvable quagmire, they know better than we do. They’re there. We’re not.

    If the civilian leadership has a military goal, there will be no “quagmire” as far as any soldier is concerned. You get a quagmire when you fail to support the goals you set for the military, or when you fail to set military goals (i.e., goals that can be achieved by the application of force.) A soldier can tell you that your goal is not a military goal, or that you are not supporting the achievement of the goal you have set. But that is a professional judgment, not a political one.

    (3) They also have a keener sense of the sacrifice of their brethren, and will be less prone than the politicians to throw that sacrifice aside for political reasons.

    I don’t think that most civilians are any different than most soldiers in this regard. After all, every soldier is someone’s father, brother or son. In fact, to the extent that there is a difference, I think that it is that civilians put undue emphasis on such matters. Most soldiers are prepared to die, whereas most civilians aren’t. At the same time, as Patton said, the job of the soldier is not to die for his country – it is to make the other poor bastard die for his.

    Let me say that there is a lot of fuzziness in these questions and, truthfully, in my answers. But the thing to remember is, I think, that soldiers are professionals, just like doctors and lawyers, Professionals can use their knowledge to leverage the client’s situation, to help the client make the best possible decision under the circumstances (subject, of course, to that human imperfection that resides in us all.) But ultimately, the client has to have an achievable goal, and has to make the decisions about what he is willing to sacrifice for those goals. The professional cannot make the decision for the client – all he can do is tell the client whether or not he can – or will – help the client, and how much it will cost.

    I think that the military ethos of subservience to civilian control is critical to the survival of our democracy, and that any attempt to give the military a non-professional role by allowing them to make political judgments would be disasterous.

    harmon (dcac79)

  10. A very good take on the question of “chickenhawks” can be found at

    http://www.techcentralstation.be/021505A.html

    Here’s the first few paragraphs;
    ——————————–
    Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a “chickenhawk” — no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.

    The problem isn’t chickenhawks — people who support the war but never served in the military, and probably never will.

    The problem is stateside armchair philosophers who oppose military action and military policy, even though they never served in the military. The problem is anti-war punditry from intellectuals who think that an IED is a contraceptive and couldn’t tell the difference between bounding overwatch and watching Baywatch. The problem is intellectuals who think their education and politically-correct ideology lets them know what the military needs — better than the military knows it.

    The problem is chickendoves.

    harmon (dcac79)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0721 secs.