In The New Republic, Lawrence F. Kaplan cites many problems with letting the genie out of the bottle–having 4-star endorsements for candidates.
All my military career I was, like the majority of military men and women, apolitical. I voted, but I didn’t get involved. The President, whoever he might be, was my Commander in Chief. I was expected to do what he felt was necessary. Period. There is no place in the professional military for politics. Military folks understand this. Politicians don’t.
During the eight years of Clinton’s Presidency, his wife was deeply involved in the promotion of flag officers. Kaplan mentions this as something of an aside. Everyone with stars gets them through approval of the White House, and eight years is a significant portion of an officer’s career. I have to wonder who we have at the top right now. Anyone with three stars or less was probably promoted during that time. I hope they were promoted on merit. I not sure that’s the case. For that reason, Kaplan’s analysis agrees:
The politicization also may have a longer-term pernicious effect. There is a reason–beyond the Constitution–that political neutrality and military professionalism go hand in hand: As the nonpartisan ethos of the Armed Forces weakens, so, too, can traditional measures of military effectiveness. “Politicization erodes the cohesion, morale, and professional dedication of the officer corps,” says Kohn, who points to a hemorrhage of officers during the Clinton era as evidence of what follows when the military adopts partisan views and expectations. And it has: According to a survey taken by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies before the 2000 election, 64 percent of officers identify with the Republican Party, twice the percentage who did two decades before, and only 8 percent list themselves as Democrats. Given recent history, this may stand to reason. But, now more than ever, the Armed Forces need to be able to retain officers, maintain morale, and operate effectively, regardless of the party in the White House.
It might surprise many Americans to discover that this separation is uncommon in the world. When this country was formed, it was unique. It is the reason America has never sincerely feared a military coup.
I’d say there are two polar opposites in this game which can help with the distinction. Merrill McPeak has been vocal, first for Dean and then for Kerry. He wants a job. He didn’t receive the respect he felt he deserved as Air Force Chief of Staff. Tommy Franks said nothing. He delayed making an endorsement, then backed away from the public eye once he did so. McPeak the opportunist, and Franks the professional.
They each fit the candidate they endorsed.
Bunker,
Two names for you regarding politicizing the promotions of general officers by the Clintons:
Wesley Clark
Hugh Shelton
One an ass-kisser
One a boot-licker
Not much of a distinction, I know. I served under Clark twice in the 1980s. Ugh, what a snake in the grass.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — September 6, 2004 @ 6:39 pm
I’ve never met anyone with good things to say about Clark.
Comment by Bunker — September 6, 2004 @ 7:46 pm
I served with, and knew, Hugh Shelton [though not well] whilst in the 25th Div. decades ago. Always had a high regard for him..though didn’t really follow his career in detail later.
Strangely, the two guys whom I know still on active duty are both Four Stars now. Gen. Dick Cody, Army Dept CofS and Gen Tom Hill, SOUTHCOM Commander…..I trust their professional decision making abilities implicitly. Tom and his wife are two of my best friends, and when I asked Tom last year about his feelings about Gen. Clark, he was to much the professional to offer a comment. But his wife was under fewer constraints..suffice it to say I think Wes is not one of their favorites.
Comment by Wallace-Midland, Texas — September 6, 2004 @ 9:57 pm
By the way…..Galloway had a good comment piece on this same subject on his online report of 8/18/04.
And…I haven’t pulled up your source code, but I wonder why when I try to “copy” a bite from your text, that it highlights everything previous up the page? Inquiring minds and all….
Comment by Wallace-Midland, Texas — September 6, 2004 @ 10:23 pm
It may be uncommon in the world but it is the case in Australia as well. I’m not surprised about 64% of officers identifying with Republican Party either. I only knew one officer who identified with the Australian Labour Party although being apolitical we didn’t discuss the subject too often.
Comment by Kev Gillett — September 6, 2004 @ 11:34 pm
Interesting, Wallace. I just tried to highlight and got only the text I wanted. These damn electrons keep running around so fast it’s tough to catch them.
Kev, You Aussies have much in common with Americans, but even more with Texans.
Comment by Bunker — September 7, 2004 @ 5:52 am
In honor of Wallace I will retract my naming of Shelton, who received some nasty press in the mid-90s for being a hack.
But, Clark is an ass-kissing boot-licking snake in the grass.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — September 7, 2004 @ 6:51 am
Hey, we’re all entitled to an opinion. As I’ve said before, getting a star in the first place means you’ve done something right in your career. Hell, I retired as a captain!
Comment by Bunker — September 7, 2004 @ 8:13 am