Centerfield

In the present context, I am not sure I would argue against the current trend of the military advocating strategic positions. For years, the Democrats claimed that the military was silenced regarding Iraq. Given the 29% approval rating of our Commander in Chief, perhaps the only way Americans will consider the merits or demerits of the Democratic position of withdrawal (and other issues), is for the military to speak directly to the public. The concept of neutrality is based on the reality of a media environment that is balanced in reporting. Already, the media is spinning the yet to be released report on the Surge, in the most negative way. If the military is certain a particular policy will fail, they have the responsibility to go public. Despite suggestions that Iran was busy subverting Iraqi progress, the media down played such military remarks. Given the new reports of Iranian nuclear facility building, who will advocate policies that can stop Iran from getting a bomb? China under reports its military expenditures. Russia hides the attack sub sales to Chavez. Democrats down play arms pouring into Hizb'Allah under the UN's nose. I think there is a point where the DOD has every right to do what it takes to provide reasonable debate. Instead of allowing the political impasse to continue, perhaps the military can outline what is at stake. I did not see ANY on the Left denouncing the military's take on GW. One must place military comments in political context.

I thought I might add the following. There was much said about the Silencing of the Generals in 2003. The country has been fighting over Iraq policy for four years. I understand why the DOD has stepped back in the past from advocating policy, but I don't see how, in light of political polarizations which miss the issues, the military doesn't have a responsibility to speak up. A weak President and an antiwar Congress doesn't a sound security argument make to the American people.

Original policy in Iraq seemed bound to enable AQ infiltration as well as support for Shiite militias from Iran. The idea the Left and Right advocated in 2003 was to have a Kurdish/Shiite alliance for federalism while Sunni Batthists and Saddam’s circle were hunted and/or denied participation in government while the military was disbanded. This was not divergent from what intellectuals and present critics of the administration suggested. What actually was needed to prevent Sunni insurgents was a working army and an alliance between Kurdish and Sunni nationalists. It made sense for them to be united in a rejection of “hard line” Batthists, Saddam loyalists and AQ as well as an mutual understanding about oil revenue, an agreed intolerance towards terrorism (PPK and AQ included) and a mutual concern over any Shiite government’s self-auditing and control over military/security forces. Until the central government carried out the law, a de facto understanding could remain in place between the Kurds and Sunnis despite the years of hostility.

Any legitimate Iraq government would have to control extremist militias of its own ruling sect as well as reject interference from Shiite governments and their proxies. The present government is bound by its Constitution as well as promises to amend it.

The list of failures by the Malaki government is long. It has failed to prevent Iranian and Syrian interference. It has failed to amend the Constitution. It has failed to deploy a competent nationalist army. It has failed to stop Shiite extremists. It has failed to prevent the massing of Turkish troops. It has failed to stop corruption and black market oil and gas sales. The truth is that the Shiite majority has not forced moderation, but rather sits paralyzed while militias, black markets, arms merchants, insurgents and tribal leaders control the ground outside of the green zone. It is ironic that the Democrats blast this intransigence when their former position advocated such a Shiite approach accepting the simple results of an election. To paraphrase Yoda, “Elections, a Liberal Democracy does not make”. The legitimacy of government is bound by the degree it manifests the will of its principles established in a Constitution.

For more than a year, I have suggested we refocus our efforts in Iraq. AQ certainly deserves termination in Iraq and from any country in which it has found sanctuary. America should not lose sight that OBL is the world’s #1 enemy. The adoration of OBL by many is more of a Muslim embarrassment than any direct threat to the West. Iraqis certainly do not adore AQ. It appears reasonable to attempt a Sunni/Kurdish alliance that outlaws AQ and any terrorist attack by one against the other. This would include the PPK. Why cannot the Americans and Turks broker this understanding while providing economic and military support? A US base in Kurdistan with Turkish observers would go along way to defuse more conflict. At the same time the issue of Kirkuk could be worked into this broader framework, which ultimately must consider how a Shiite dominated government, will control militias, control oil and operate a national army.

AQ wants none of this, nor does Shiite extremists including Ahmadinejad. The orders go out for Shiite militias to attack Sunnis and for AQ to hit the Kurds and Sunni Tribal leaders who are also under threat from Shiite bombers. This is what is happening. The surge however, has turned many Sunnis against AQ. We should slow the referendum on Kirkuk and create a dialogue between Kurdish and Sunni nationalists. Kurds can guarantee a percentage of oil revenue and supply for the Sunnis. Under Saddam, the Sunnis had their own pipeline. Once the oil is no longer an issue, the final demographics of Kirkuk can be worked out. For this to work. The government in Baghdad, must inevitably become the culprit if nothing changes. I don’t fault Malaki as much as the general Shiite population that has not demanded a moderate solution espousing a nationalist policy. Those with the most firepower in the South, command the most influence. It is this intransigence the Malaki government cannot stand up to. The present stalemate satisfied Iran, but AQ is getting more desperate. They have declared war on Iran. Meanwhile Turkish troops mass on the Iraqi border. It is hard to imagine that there is no creative solution to the birth of Iraqi federalism with so much money and military investment and the possible introduction of another 100,000 Turkish troops.

An interesting note. In the vacuum of British or American forces, the Kurds have traditionally relied on the Russians to protect them from the Turks. This is the context of the current proposal to pump oil from Kirkuk to Syria with Russian help once the US departs from Iraq. If the Democrats ever wanted to stabilize Iraq or improve our footprint in the Gulf and Middle East, why not present a practical plan? The ISG did not take a radical approach to a solution as outlined above. There was in fact, a false hope that talking to Syria and Iran could change things. A bold move would bring back the Russians and Turks, forge a de facto federalism between the Sunnis and Kurds with international benchmarks for the Shiite government. Again, we could tie missile defense to cooperation in thwarting the aspirations of Iran and Syria. Selling silent subs to Chavez, top aircraft and missiles to Syria and Iran and even being part of NK military export business is not making a case against European missile defense based in the South Eastern flank.

Max,

You are sort of missing the point in your eagerness to point out why we should stay in Iraq for the next fifty years. There is a difference between the joint Chiefs of Staff providing their expert military opinion in the context of civil-military relations and lobbying for specific policies. Bacevich's point is that once the military becomes politicized, where you agree with the particular policy or not, that is dangerous.

You seem a lot more concerned about the so-called "liberal" media "distorting" the story. But your statement that neutrality is based on a balanced media (whatever that is) is just plain wrong. It's based on the concept of civilian control of the military. The founders thought that was important to prevent the proverbial man on the white horse from usurping the republic. And if you look at how politicized militaries in Latin America and South Asia have been, it's not a crazy concern (albeit not likely in the American context).

Bacevich made it very clear that it wasn't the content of the policy that was problematic but the fact that the military was stepping into policy disputes. That's not unheard of; during the fifties, the JCS continually lobbied publicly for more and more nuclear weapons despite the fact that we had a substantial, if not overwhelming advantage over the Soviets. This lobbying had an effect; it allowed Democrats to attack Eisenhower from the right and JFK to run partly on a ticket of building up our defenses. Once he got in office, Kennedy found there was no missile gap but having run on it, he couldn't simply say, oops, so we ended up with a large, and probably unnecessary, increase which, of course, led the Russians to do the same.

Your argument that the military has a "duty" to come out in favor of your favorite Iraq policy because of the "weak president and antiwar Congress" simply exhibits an utter contempt for the concept of civilian control. Now, I acknowledge that there is often a fine line between providing professional advice and advocating policies. But what you seem to want is for the military to take a position (yours, of course)and convince the American people that it is correct. I think that is dangerous. The military exists to serve the American people and its civilian leadership no matter how feckless that leadership may be.

And it's even more absurd to claim, as you seem to, that the LEFT monopolized debate on Iraq. You sound like Fox News. There was NEVER any true debate over whether Bush's rationale for war made sense and, obviously, none over what the intelligence really said.

Marc, I agree with your post. It is imperative that the military stay out of politics on either side, in order to maintain its own credibility. I've been very upset over the past few years to watch all these very recently-former generals come out of the woodwork to skewer the President.

But I think the bad trend started back in the Clinton era, when no firm disciplinary action was taken against a general who publicly called the commander-in-chief a "pot-smoking draft dodger." While I thought it was largely a true statement, it was completely wrong for an active-duty officer to make it, particularly publicly, and he should have been reduced in rank if not fired, promptly.

If Clinton had done that, he would have been attacked as being anti-military, too sensitive, as stifling free speech, etc. by the right. I'm not sure I agree about the retired generals, but I certainly think active duty military should stay out of politics. And,as history shows, their policy prescriptions are often wrong.

Pat, I remember Shinseki advocate more than 400,000 troops being sent to Iraq. The Democrats used this to attack the Bush plan. Although they had zero intention of sending that many troops.. For more than a year Democrats blasted serving generals for not speaking out, while parading retired generals in opposition to the administration. The Democratic position now is absurd. They want to select which former and serving generals and officials who should speak and which ones who should shut up. It is rather partisan, don't you think? Marc has zero evidence than the DOD has refused to obey the will of civilian leadership. Should the DOD really just shut up as media promotes tactics and strategies the military believes are dangerous and threatening to our security? Recently the military spoke out on the topic of NK missiles. Do the Democrats really care? Who shall speak up? Doesn't the military’s role include reporting ground conditions, threats and reasonable action? When the media attacks the proposal to put MDS in Poland, doesn’t the military have a responsibility to explain to Americans why placing the system elsewhere will diminish its effectiveness against rogue missile clandestinely making their way north of a more Southern placement?

I am not hearing any military calling anyone names (except retired ones calling Bush all sorts of things), though I appreciate the opinion on the Clinton Era. I do not approve of such behavior then or now. The military however, has to deal with the Arkins and CNNs of the world. It has no responsibility to follow public polls or MSNBC. Declaring that Iran is involved in Iraq and helping to kill Americans is not being political. It is the Left, fearful of seeing themselves called defeatist or anti-American that has many upset. They want the military to shut up and let the media decided our best course of action by influencing polls and tilting elections. Right now, the military circulates negative things about Hillary. That is being political. Swift boating is political. I do not see how telling it like it is, is being political. I am not talking about attacking the President, which Marc overlooks. It is imperative the military makes its strategic and tactical case without being called partisan. I believe this is what Marc objects to, not the reckless comments we all reject. I remember the military stating that Iran was at work in Iraq. The media blasted the reports and called them political. A year later, and the media quietly reports more evidence of Iranian duplicity in Iraq, which HAS killed US troops. Are you suggesting the military not set the record straight? Are you suggesting the military is wrong to forecast the result of an immediate withdrawal or the consequence of Iran with Nukes?

I'll refrain from taking apart Marc's claims about my attitudes and the history of what happened regarding JFK, Iraq, media and the Democratic positions regarding all these things.

When a person joins the military they don't lose their rights as citizens. As individuals they can still speak, petition, and vote. There are limits though; this seems like a fairly good list. Military Folks and Politics. They seem to be a fair balance in my opinion.

Good link Bernie. Regarding Marc's comments, I am not suggesting the military become partisan politicians. I am suggesting that the military make its case forcefully to the American people and add to a public debate being mauled by media and political bases on the Right and Left. Again, the Democrats demanded that the military speak out against bad planning in Iraq. Now when the DOD tells reporters what they "think" will happen should be pull out of Iraq, the Democrats go crazy. When the DOD points to a link between new missiles, Iran and Chavez and suggest we need to be concerned, the Democrats call this partisan. I am reacting to the game the Democrats are playing, but I do not suggest the military attack political leaders. There is nothing in the code I see that prevents the military from saying they believe a certain strategy will fail, or that a particular strategy is more likely to improve a situation. God forbid the military explain how other nations are advancing nuclear weapons and that we should consider modernizing our own. The military spoke the truth about the Chinese ASAT test and the media declared the military was spinning the test politically to win more money for our own ASAT systems. If the military says nothing, how does that promote an informed debate?

Max,

First of all, READ WHAT I WROTE. I never said the DOD had refused to obey civilian leadership. I also agree that the military has the right and probably the obligation to give their opinion about specific policies. What I said, and Bacevich says (you don't seem to be paying any attention to the article) is that the military shouldn't be out independently advocating for particular policies. Your ranting seems to be entirely based on your dislike of the Democrats. I don't have a problem with the military giving their opinion in the appropriate forum about what will happen in Iraq, eg, during Congressional hearings. They should not, however, be going out and giving speeches independently advocating positions as many of the generals did in the fifties. I don't know what the hell you are talking about with the Democrats "going crazy." The entire point of the post was to say that the military shouldn't be going around lobbying for particular policies. He was specifically referring to groups that were organized to engage in political lobbying. Bacevich never said (or do I) that the military shouldn't have an opinion and should never provide their opinion.

As for the criticism of Rumsfeld by the generals, although I agreed with it, I did have some qualms about them doing it when it occurred. However, once people retire from the military, I think they are on different grounds.

As for the other stuff, I think my comments about JFK are irrefutable if you read any reliable history. JFK criticized Eisenhower for allowing a missile gap to form during the fifites; such a gap did not exist, as Ike knew from U-2 photos but did not make public. As a result, once he got into office JFK embarked on a missile build-up that was unnecessary. We were far ahead of the Soviets at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And given the nature of nuclear weapons, the idea that we needed to have thousands of ICBMs (far more than we ever actually had)--as the military wanted--is pretty ludicrous.

"Your argument that the military has a "duty" to come out in favor of your favorite Iraq policy because of the "weak president and antiwar Congress" simply exhibits an utter contempt for the concept of civilian control."

No, your reading of my post is wrong. If the military believes "their" Iraq policy is right and that a "weak President and antiwar Congress" have led us into an unbalanced debate, putting out their reasoning and warnings is hardly "utter contempt for the concept of civilian control".

As far as the active service generals speaking up when they saw serious problems with policy back in 2003, they had a duty to do what was right. I do not condone the personal attacks or just blasting policy without formulating alternatives. If the generals saw the utter lack of control in Iraq as a serious trigger to insurgency, they had an obligation to come forward and even resign if necessary.

Once again, I must state that I have never voted for a Republican. I moved away from the article, to address the more general public debate brewing for some time now about the "military speaking out problem". I will repeat it once again. The Democrats WANT the generals (retired or otherwise) to object to Bush policy anywhere they want. They do not want the military speaking out with opinions that counter the Democratic line, like, “everything will be better in Iraq once we leave”. Democrats do not want anything which they think is politically inflammatory weakening their position from military assessments of terrorist capabilities and networks to Chinese ASAT weapons or new tunnels in Iran . The military is not one giant groupthink. There are many policy positions within the military. There were back then in the 50s. The American people need to hear the debate and understand how the military views present and possible future policies. There was no problem when the military using the IPCC warned of the GW dangers. There was little problem pushing retired general after retired general onto to CNN and ABC every night to give expert military opinion on everything Bush is doing wrong. Meanwhile we all hear about "fairness" in media and public debate. If the Democrats are going to dress up ex military to run and flood the media with military experts every day calling our DOD foolish, some balance is required. It wasn't the military that advocated Saddam’s WMD in Iraq, it was the CIA. I started by declaring that the military should not be partisan advocates. Civilians make the decisions and advance something called the NSS as a criteria for security policy. My comments were about the numerous blogs and editorials demanding the military to shut up when taking a different line as the Democrats. They detest being called unsupportive of our troops and the military, even if their views sometimes are. They want to control what comes out of media and what comes out of the Pentagon. And I say this as someone who knows what many Democrats are thinking.

Ludicrous? It was JFK that played with facts and kept the military from revealing that dangerous missiles were placed in Turkey prompting the Soviet response. Rather than recommending removing the missiles, the DOD advocated bombing Cuba. Again, the military was told to shut up about the Turkish missiles and when zero air support was supplied at the Bay of Pigs. I am well aware of the missile gap and the subsequent bomber gap. These were primarily political myths as is the myth of the demise of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the answer to feckless political manipulation is for the military to lay down the facts as best they see them regardless of the politics. This is what I advocated, not generals becoming politicians while in uniform. That is why Washington resigned his commission. We have politicians silent on the ICBM plans of China with the military about the only one talking about the new Chinese strategy. You bring up JFK, which only supports my case for 1. Civilian “control” (which generated and averted disaster in 1962) and 2. More military discussion of facts and consequence to the American people, which may have prevented the 1962 missile crisis in the first place. As a more Liberal mind, I find what is really ludicrous is the histories of JFK, LBJ and Carter pushing faulty reasoning while keeping the military's mouth shut and now Democrats advocating more poor thinking while wishing only those military talking heads that support them to "speak out".

You obviously do not want us in Iraq and consider it political for the military to take their case about the consequences of departure, as though they were saying this to help the Republicans. I don’t believe that. So Shinseki spoke out in front of Congress. Did the Democrats float a bill to put 400,000 troops on the ground? Civilians make the final decisions, but for the public to debate fairly, the military needs to advocate its reasoning in more forums than do nothing Congressional Committees. Levin dismisses the conclusion of the interim DOD Surge report and sees no progress. He fails to see that by pushing certain benchmarks he stalls the effort we have been successful at in getting Kurds and Sunnis to fight AQ. By pushing the Kirkuk referendum, AQ scored sectarian points by hitting the Kurds. Levin’s “change policy” means to get out. He offers no other solution. One reader at Defense Tech put it like this:

“If we are going to pull out of Iraq in 2008, fine, lets start now. But could we please not use euphemisms like "responsible redeployment." If we are going to make full scale civil war, a possible regional war and ethnic cleansing (possibly even genocide) very likely scenarios, can we at least admit that to ourselves and to rest of the world?

I do not share the same pessimism about Iraq that seems prevalent across the country. I also do not expect much change in 08 or 09. When has nation building ever been a five year project? Did anyone outside the Bush administration expect this to be done in two years?

I hate seeing our troops being maimed and killed. I also hate seeing people in general being maimed and killed. If we withdraw prematurely, it will be a "responsible redeployment." It will be a redeployment responsible for carnage that will dwarf what we have seen so far.

For all those people that bemoan the damage Iraq has done to the image of the United States you might want to consider that and what it says to countries around the world and far into the future about how we handle our responsibilities.”

Now who do you think Marc will be called back to repair the damage? I think the DOD owes it to their troops to prevent their future bloodshed on a scale more vast than today’s carnage. We are talking about serious points of irreversible consequence, which the DOD is paid to consider in terms of our self-interest and security. They can speak out in apolitical terms sticking to facts and strategies, but speak out they must.

Max,

As I have tried to point out, whether I think we should be in Iraq or not is not the point. You seem to completely ignore what I write and the article I cited. I think the military has the right to have opinions and to vote (although there used to be a tradition in the military that active duty offices did not vote). The article specifically addressed instances where active-duty military had organized groups to push for specific policies. I think that is wrong. I do not think it is wrong for the military to give their opinion when asked.

You may well be right that the Democrats, being polticians, want the generals to speak up when they agree with them and shut up when they don't. But that's irrelevant to the argument.

As for JFK, again, you are digressing from my point. I blame Kennedy in large measure for precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis by supporting the Bay of Pigs (although Ike has responsibility for that too) and trying to oust Castro. To the extent the military was at fault, it was for not being more explicit with the civilian leadership that the plan was flawed. But it would have been wholly inappropriate for the military to go out and publicly expose the operation. But once the crisis started, it was the military that was pushing for much more aggressive action. In any event, your argument that the administration told the military to shut up about the missiles in Turkey seems highly unlikely since the military would have been unlikely to object to the missiles in Turkey. I am not aware of any objections that the military had to those missiles.

As for Iraq, I partially agree with you. Now that Bush has blundered in there, I think we have a responsibility not to leave behind a mess that leads to slaughter. It's the military's role to give its professional advice about the specific military consequences of various actions. I have never complained about the military giving their views in responsible forums. The point I made, which you don't seem to think is important, related specifically to the situation that Bacevich was discussing, which involved active-duty military using the techniques of political activism to advocate for a specific policy. In one of your earlier comments, you said the military should make its point forcefully to the American people. I don't really know what you mean; apparently, you mean that it should do more than testify to Congress. I strongly disagree with that--it simply isn't the military's role to go above the civilian leadership or Congress to advocate for policies, whether I agree with them or not. Being partisan--in terms of Democrat or Republican--is not the issue. That was as true in the fifties as it is today.

1. I don't dispute the objection to active military supporting groups which in turn support particular politicians. Bernie did link up the code. I see no problem with active duty soldiers creating diaries of experiences and thoughts or contributing to public discussions (without violating the law) which unfortunately, may be used by third parties to support their partisan views. As I said, I tried to move the conversation to your last point, which I see as the real disagreement.

2. The history of the missiles in Turkey does not reveal a strong advocacy by the DOD.

The flawed deployment of the Jupiter missile and this article doesn't mention the dangers of keeping these missiles fueled and ready by Turkish operators. One operator remarked how lucky we were not to have had a major accident.

More on the Jupiter Program

JFK's reasoning concerning the missiles in Turkey. There was significant pressure in Congress created by the Killian Report to field IRBMs in Italy and Turkey though the military knew the Polaris and more advanced missiles would be the eventual answer to our nuclear deterrence. Said deterrence did initiate the eventual collapse of the Soviet Regime. Had there been a frank discussion made available to the public about out military strategy and the real threats we faced, Kennedy would not have been under as much pressure to push forward in Turkey with obsolete missiles. One observes the protest of Reagan mobile missiles in Europe and understands the political conflict they had in the Cold War vise. Still, those mobile missiles added to the Soviet crumble in the end, yes? So part of the dynamic in 1962 was about NATO’s possession of nukes in a strategy most Americans did not debate.

3. "In one of your earlier comments, you said the military should make its point forcefully to the American people. I don't really know what you mean; apparently, you mean that it should do more than testify to Congress. I strongly disagree with that--it simply isn't the military's role to go above the civilian leadership or Congress to advocate for policies, whether I agree with them or not."

This is our disagreement and was the point I was drawing out from your original post, though it is not the same issue. (See point one). The control I see remains civilian, but that doesn't mean the debate should be controlled by only civilians. Intelligence and the military play huge roles in deciding upon an NSS. Should Congress be the only outlet? Notice the thrill Democrats got every time an intelligence agency leaked info under pennames.

The Cuban missile crisis does reflect the dangers of civilians controlling policy and what is allowed to become part of the public debate. Civilian control doesn't mean civilian censorship. The DOD was not enthusiastic about Jupiter missiles in Turkey. The Turks wanted them as some deterrence of their own and Turkey was a critical partner in the Cold War. Having the military speak directly to the public through forums like Military.com, Defense Tech etc. delivers more data to the public by which to evaluate whether our civilian government has got its head up its ass. If it was a choice between pulling out the Jupiter (while retaining the right of NATO to have nukes) or starting WW3 in Cuba, the DOD would have quickly picked the former. The errors were selective discussion in Congress over the Killian Report and our deployment strategy in general, the ability of Congress and the Executive to select the information and control its flow while struggling to filter out the misinformation of a growing MIC thirsty for new and expensive missions to supply.

Internal DOD politics threatened to can the Warthog. Groups in the military spoke up and the Warthog lives to protect ground troops in ways, only it can. Of course, a reasonable amount of vetting must follow policy recommendations from the DOD. They do not always speak with a single voice. Without understanding the strategic thinking behind present posture and development, how can civilians spot mistakes? How can WE spot pork from the necessary? Trust our representitives to trim the pork and understand long and short term threats?

The DOD had radar, but failed to use in properly in defending Pear Harbor. I advocate upping the information and policy discussions from the DOD. Civilians can weigh the merits and question the inconsistencies. I do not think a select group of representatives should be the only forum whereby Americans question and learn about military policy and strategy. Without sufficient lobbying efforts the DOD alternative energy programs would be languishing. Already commercial aviation is looking into synthetic military aviation fuel. I do not see the dangers of the military going around Congress in an apolitical fashion to make its case for missile defense, new technology, threats abroad, nuclear and WMD proliferation, the critical technologies required for future security and the health of our present alliances. Civilians still control the process and can marshal their evidence as counterweight to military bias. Active military are citizens and have the right of free speech and a right to participate in public debate as long as it does not advocate partisan politics. Today's blog world would have dealt more effectively with the bomber and missile gaps than did Congress or media. If an active general tells CNN that Iranian agents killed some of his soldiers, I see no harm in that. And when an active general disparages gays in a public forum, he is likely to be retired. It works both ways, don't you think? And civilians remain in control.

And to make it interesting, here are two examples

1. A commercial by Boeing depicting an imaginary crisis. A missile is fired from "somewhere". The information is relayed to an Air Borne laser platform. Zap and the missile become an orange flash below the 747 in the night sky. The commercial ends with the slogan "Boeing, building tomorrow's security." (Media Matters will have a good time with this)

2. PBS has a forum including active military who discuss global threats and American responses. Guests also include Senators, Professors, Diplomats and CEOs from the defense world.

What is wrong with these examples of going around Congress?

One more: A DOD recruiting commercial depicting technology presently being researched such as IED protection, missile defense, better armor and non-lethal weapons.

Of course, I was originally talking more about interviews, informational blogs and even public release of multimedia providing a view on weapon strategy, force strategies and global threats in something like a DOD CNN format. There is something a bit like this already on cable. Do you object to the military channel? And what if the military channel devoted time to Iraq or Iran? Should any active members contribute in any way to this enterprise?

As for the Boeing commerical, that is a private company and they can do as they want. I have no problem with the military appearing in various forums. But they should do so with the approval of the civilian leadership. A lot of what you say makes sense in theory--having the military give unbiased analyses of particular threats and so on. The problem is that such analysis can get tangled up with various agendas--desire for weapons systems, prestige, orjust out and out ideology. I have no problem with the military discussing general or specific threats or its view of military issues. But I am concerned when the military starts advocating for particular policies, whether it's staying in Iraq or leaving Iraq. Obviously, I have no trouble with the Chair of the JCS telling Congress his opinion of what would happen if US forces pull out of Iraq. I would have problems with him going around the country without permission from the civilian leadership trying to build support for a particular policy.

Obviously, the issue of missiles in Turkey involved a lot of factors, including NATO alliance politics (ie, Turkey wanted those missiles, in part for the economics). I agree with you that there were a lot of dangers in having those missiles there and perhaps the military could have spoken to those. But I am not aware of any specific objections that the military had to stationing those missiles there. If so, it would have been appropriate for the generals to testify to that in Congress. I still think it would not have been appropriate for the military, on its own, to go over the head of the President and Sec of Def to the country.

Yes. 1962 was a different time. Even the NYT back then listened when a President asked them not to publish sensitive information. Look how pissed Kennedy was that the Soviets made public their objections to missiles in Turkey. “Holy cow Robert, now the whole friggin world knows about our missiles!” Secrecy might have defused the problems more quickly however, but the Soviets had in mind banning NATO from possession.

I wonder if one would object to testimony before Congress in which a general makes a sharp case for a particular strategy. What if an excerpt was then taken by another group and made into a commercial from let's say "the coalition for a particular strategy"? I think this is already the trend because of the poor esteem the country holds of its civilian leadership. Defense blogs have huge viewing and often beat regular news to the punch by weeks if not months.

If Simon is right and the next election will still be about voting AGAINST the worst candidate a person views, then who the hell is responsible for continuity of sensible military strategy given the political polarization of our present process? Our strategic efforts should not become political cycles. That is why we have a DOD. When the sides are in more agreement, bi-partisan NSS takes hold, but as we become more polarized, perhaps our relatively neutral military (minus the MIC filter WE must use) can advocate for the essentials it sees as vital to our NSS. Instead of retired generals on every station towing the pollsters, perhaps we can organize a neutral outlet with real military and intelligence experts beyond the muddy waters of Congress. There is just too much lobbying, too much pork, too much ideology and self-interest to allow Congress to be the sole filter of defense considerations and debate. They are however, the sole decider beside the President on what our policy should be.

The danger in my suggestion is what you have stated. The military is not of one mind on everything, divisions fight themselves, MIC influences opinions as well as lobbying and political pressure/pork. For me, when I see the present media crap and political meltdown in which Reid refuses to answer whether he thinks Iraqis will suffer more when we leave, I would love REAL military experts go around this Congressional politics and explain more directly to we who vote, why a particular approach is more or less dangerous than the present one. It gets down to a matter of trust which, being centrist, means distrust in much of what both sides put out as reality's options. When the military however takes partisan sides because it may be more conservative than liberal, civilian control IS damaged. In that regard, the military owes Americans the ultimate right to elect its leaders and abide by their decisions without using its weight politically to unduly influence the people’s democracy. To enter the political fray injures that right given the power and prestige ALL Americans contribute in some way to our military. My remarks come not from anger over Republican and Democratic butchering of Iraqi policy, but the failure of government, media and even academia to shed better light on the numerous and perilous consequences of our present and contemplated policies.

I don't know if Boeing COULD put such a commercial on network stations. Tully would know if such content violates some regulations on defense contractors who are competing for dollars. And just because a commercial portrays something working, it doesn't mean it will or for how much at the expense of other options. On the other hand, Americans have given Boeing billions towards creating such a missile defense system. Would "fairness" require equal time for those opposed to Boeings effort? I am sure MoveOn could put out a commercial that shows the system failing as the enemy missile flies by with a price sticker of 20 billion rolling across the screen. I don't remember too many commercials by defense contractors. Perhaps they show them only to Congress.

Some links to complete the discussion abiut the Cuban missile crisis:

What Marc said about the missile gap

origins of the Killian Report

more on the history behind the Killian Report, the IRBM programs and the state Kennedy took charge of in 1960. The anxiety of Americans was observable following the Spunik success. Our missile program was not looking great. Snark and Jupiter were Von Braun's V-1 and V-2 on steroids. I guess it shows the NAZIS had a way to go. There was a political moment Kennedy took hold of and the race to the moon was the flip side of the missile gap argument. Despite the more powerful position the American public was uncertain and far less informed than today's blogger.

"However, the American public and Congress had little understanding of industrial and in particular aerospace development projects. After all, if people put up airplanes that crashed and buildings that collapsed more often than not, something was obviously seriously wrong. The fact that all technologies in common use had gone through a rough learning curve of one sort or another in their early days was not obvious to people who took them for granted."

I guess the same can be said for missile defense.

I know, I know, who cares?

I mentioned that a slight end run around Congress the last year or two from within the DOD and across the defense blog world brought the Warthog back from the Bush knife (with the original push coming from the Air Force). I believe active military spoke out on the subject. It seems the Air Force didn't want to risk A-10 pilots in close air support.

"Early this year, with little fanfare, the Air Force sent a squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes - a dozen or more aircraft - to be based at Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq. At the same time it added a squadron of F-16C Fighting Falcons here at Balad. Although some had flown missions over Iraq from elsewhere in the region, the additions doubled to 50 or more the number of workhorse fighter-bomber jets available at bases inside the country, closer to the action."

Here is the larger article about some reported changes in tactics regarding Iraq with one involving the Warthog. The troops seem pleased in the added air support and that the military is again advancing the A-10 program. It is a reiable aircraft, fairly cheap and highly lethal.