The U.S. military 'must remain apolitical' -- but McCain doesn't care
In the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal widely distributed among officers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff writes a welcome but unusual open letter to everyone who wears an Armed Forces uniform: stay out of the political arena during the election season.
“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”
It’s good advice, and a good policy. Mullen realizes that there will attempts to politicize the military, and with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan playing a huge role in the election-season debate, there will be opportunities for politicians to try to exploit those in uniform for partisan and/or electoral gain. Mullen wisely counsels the military to steer clear of the political morass.
Regrettably, John McCain’s campaign didn’t get the message.
furst again?
And the same is supposed to be true of government employees.
Oh come on. The military brass has always overwelmingly supported the Republican party. Now, when the tide is changing and the troops can see the madness of King George for what it is, now Mullen says no no to getting political?
Tough. It's about time someone wised up.
Now what would you call McCain's proposal to go to Iraq with Obama? Isn't that politicizing the military?
p.s. Please vote for my Netroots Nation scholarship. Thanks.
With all due respect, Steve, either you haven't actually thought this through or else you're taking a careless and harmful anti-free-speech stance. I hope it's the former. Moreover, do you actually believe that the military is or could be "apolitical" to begin with? It's difficult to restrain myself from expressing how strongly absurd an idea that is. It holds as much water as the myth that the media could be "objective." Withholding one's political views is a political act and carries political implications, just as voicing one's opinion. Your post is utterly silly and careless at the very best. So frustrating to see it appear on what is supposed to be a liberal blog site.
To be specific, you say "there will be opportunities for politicians to try to exploit those in uniform for partisan and/or electoral gain." Of course, NOT speaking one's opinion is a sure way to be exploited by politicians and the media as well. The people in the military, just like the people outside the military, should SPEAK THEIR MINDS!!! That's the only way to possibly have ANY chance at all to STOP the kind of exploitation you're supposedly concerned about. Think this through Steve, please, and add a correction to your horrendous and ludicrous statement here. Thank you.
Mullen also notes in the article that military personnel have a duty [which I did when I was in the military] to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Fortunately, those in the GI resistance during the Vietnam conflict took that duty seriously by protesting and speaking out against the illegal policies of their government some thirty five to forty years ago. The IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] is carrying on that same tradition today.
Soldiers-resist-by saying NO to the U.S. war machine.
Nico @ 5:
"The people in the military, just like the people outside the military, should SPEAK THEIR MINDS!!!" Extremely well said.
how is this directive going to apply to petraeus when he goes before congress next time shilling for chimpy?
Yes, the armed forces must remain apolitical (as must every department and agency of government). If not, we will spawn more banana republic oligarchs. The armed forces must also return to being secular. Otherwise, we will continue to encourage a military of crusading Templars. Individually, either of these conditions pose a grave threat to the republic. Combined they will kill it.
I agree, if it's not just a conduit for "catapulting the propoganda".
Be nice to see Wesley Clarke as SecDef. He reminds me of Ike. Warrior / thinker. PNAC would've burned IKE on a cross.
Sidewinder Express! Next stop, Backpeddle Junction!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/30/la-times-john-mccain-has_n_1044...
mullin should get the fundies out of the air force then.
Do you not see how preposterous this notion is? I mean, on its face even!! Every governmental agency and department must remain apolitical? What could you possibly mean by that?? Do people really believe that ANY decision made by a government can be "apolitical"? Even every decision (to act, not to act; to speak, not to speak, etc.) by citizens is a political decision with political implications. That's one reason why we have a responsibility to make the right decisions. It's surreal to me to see such poor thinking displayed on a site like this. The point I'm making here is that the military is NOT apolitical and could never be. It is explicitly and manifestly political to its core, always has been and always will be. Because it serves the (political) governing class!
Asking the military (or anyone else for that matter) to remain "neutral" or silent or "apolitical" really means asking them to acquiesce to the present-day status quo and to affirm its legitimacy by not questioning it. I would really hope the people on this site would not be useful idiots for such a harmful end.
"... Mullen wisely counsels the military to steer clear of the political morass."
um, well, NOW he does... now HE does...
now that a DEMOCRATIC overhaul is looking inevitable...
they sure weren't talking like that before...
he was instructed by politicians to make that statement. fuck him.
CoIntelPro for Democratic Party Victory @ 15:
Excellent point, dude! Which is precisely why Mullen's saying that he wants the military to be "apolitical" is so deceitful. What was Steve thinking when he wrote his post? I hope he was simply not thinking at all...
McCain may need to politicize the military especially right now. We all recall that Admiral Mullen noted several quotes from military personnel in his letter regarding a possible Democratic White House. What wasn't mentioned are the numerous times the Republican Party has screwed over that same military. Multiple deployments, an over stretched ground forces component, McCain's opposition to increased G.I. Bill benefits, etc. All of these play on the minds of the military and reduce morale. Not to mention the fact that the military probably has little confidence left in the Republican Party leadership overall. McCain needs to spin everything in order to boost their appearance in the eyes of the military. This is typically what a leadership will do when they are losing their military.
Once again, I'm really surprised the US military hasn't stormed the White House and arrested everyone given how appallingly they've been treated in the last few years.
I suppose Mullen would want to say that now.....since the Democrats are going to take over the White House next January.
I wonder sometimes.
Traditionally the military always supports whichever party is in the White House. That is the nature of the beast. If the top brass does not, then they are replaced with someone that will.
Hulk @ 19:
"Hey guys, don't talk about politics OK?...we need to be 'neutral'" wink, wink.
"Oopsie! I just sorta kinda violated my own advice! How ####### clumsy of me!"
It would be nice if the miltary could be above the idioicy of politics, but unfortunately for them, they must unquestioningly obey whatever edicts are spewed forth from politicians that seem to not realize military realities, only political ones. While this is certainly nothing new in how the world works, it is still sickening. And there will always be officers whose concern for their career may outweigh the concern for reality, but this too is nothing new in the history of how decisions are made, and wars are lost.
dosido @ 21:
And of course one of the characteristics of armies overseas involved in 'wars' is that they are career and empire building opportunities for ambitious officers.
War war is good for the likes of McWarhero and Betrayus, loadsa brass of the medal and loot variety (think pallets of stolen bills) up for grabs.
Senator Obama should go to Iraq and to all the military bases in the world. He should meet with all the NCO's and low level officers. Not all the blow boy generals.
My guess is that he would be received as the new, honest, commander-in chief. A far cry from the dickless wonder we have in that job now and a far cry from the failed pilot the right wing wants us to believe as a leader,
McSame better be careful with all his macho BS.
The troops are not going to vote for him. They are more intelligent than that.
Joe
The military has always been political. To think otherwise is naïve . The generals would now like to distance themselves from the disaster of Iraq with faux neutrality but they were winger chearleaders and dem detractors in the leadup to the war. They lobbied for an almost doubling of their budget while they ignored the wellbeing of the troops. Now they, like McTellin and other admin lackies want to make sure the fingers only point to tinpot and chainy. Horseshit!
He said their questions included, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?”
I wonder if a proper response might have been "Ummmmm, you'll fucking get to go home"?
Know why they don't ask what would happen if a Republican wins? Because the next eight years digging the sand out of your crack in Iran isn't too much different than in Iraq.
On the one hand - people in uniform are required under the UCMJ to NOT speak out about politics.
Sir Mullen has violated that already by his remarks about troops asking what will happen if a Dem gets elected.
Many active dute and recently retired (still in the reserves) officers have violated that by being media shills for the administration.
Lowly soldiers don't often get a chance to voice their opinions because they are...lowly soldiers. A guy shaking hands with some politician who shows up is not necessarily expressing an opinion - they are being courteous - which is also a requirement of being in the military and that congresscritter is their "boss" too.
Soldiers can express their opinions, just NOT in public venues like op-eds, on YouTube, or in press interviews. They can VOTE their opinions, or discuss among themselves but that is it.
People in the military give up the right to absolutely free speech when they enlist - so for those of you who don't know that....well, you haven't been in the military. There are lots of things you give up when you go in.
And for that comment that the soldiers volunteered for this so therefore they don't deserve any sympathy or anything else - you are full of it. A very large portion of the "volunteers" went in the military because in this economy and with poor education and lack of currently marketable skills - the military is often the only so-called choice they have. There are volunteers, and then there are "volunteers". In any case, we need to honor them and take care of them - never mind what you think about why they went in. It doesn't matter - they are serving - you are not.
I sure wish there was a draft again - with NO exceptions. This war would be over in less than 24 hours.
Comments are closed on this entry