The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

At ease, soldier: America must loosen military grip on foreign policy

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Ryan Greenfield:

• YouTube debate almost progress (November 28, 2007)
• At ease, soldier: America must loosen military grip on foreign policy (November 14, 2007)
• Vouchers don't solve MPS woes, but incentives can (October 31, 2007)
• Gas tax hike would keep America's engine running (October 17, 2007)
• Holistic admissions necessary for minority progress (October 3, 2007)

Related Stories:

• Anti-war, pro-troops (September 21, 2007)
• 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
• Madison dumps partisanship for vets (November 18, 2005)
• Vote "No" on war referendum (April 4, 2006)
• Column distorts troop funding bill (April 11, 2007)

by Ryan Greenfield

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

"Support the troops." This is one of the most prevalent cliches in America today. We repeat it without even thinking about it. We join Facebook groups honoring the armed forces so our friends know we're patriotic. We slap yellow ribbon magnets on our cars proclaiming our support for our troops so strangers on the road know we're not with the terrorists. Americans support the troops internally as well. The military is the most respected institution in American society, edging out organized religion and far and away above the government and the press according to a June 2007 Gallup Poll.

But when we say we support the troops, what do we really mean? Are we sending them care packages? Are we taking shorter showers, driving less and planting victory gardens? Usually the answer is no. We're a "nation at war," but most people seem to be very well insulated from any of the consequences. Our taxes haven't gone up to pay for the war, and no one is subjected to the draft. Our benevolent corporate media even shields our delicate sensibilities from being offended by pictures of coffins and gravely wounded soldiers coming home from the Iraq war.

So there is a disconnect.

We say we support the troops, but we actually do precious little to support them on a daily basis. Politicians constantly use the troops as a political football, accusing those who don't support their particular policy positions of not supporting the troops, or worse, giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy — basically, treason. The troops have become a rhetorical pawn, a wild card sure to arouse strong emotion, waiting to be pulled out by desperate political adversaries. By politicizing the military, we elevate the power of soldiers and generals to an unhealthy level and give them special authority to determine our foreign policy.

One recent example of this is the media furor surrounding Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress. This summer when the debate was raging in Washington about whether to start pulling our troops out of Iraq, all the politicos who want to keep us in Iraq would keep the political pressure at bay by saying something like, "We all just need to wait for the very respected Gen. David Petraeus to give his report in September, and we'll go from there."

This report, treated by the media like a decree from God himself, was to give us the "way forward" in Iraq. Yet everyone knew what the report was going to say. The report was basically a political hack job, commissioned and written by White House staff — designed to show how "progress is being made" but that there's still more work to do — to provide political cover for the fact that we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon. But because the name and face of a respected general was attached to the report, it was treated with undue reverence.

Americans assume that those who have done military service are in some way uniquely qualified to resolve our political disputes. In fact, both the Democrats' and Republicans' campaign committees seek out soldiers to run for political office, knowing it'll give them an advantage over potential opponents who lack military records. Democrats in particular know military service gives one the standing to criticize the Iraq war that lifelong civilians don't have.

But this is potentially dangerous. The Founding Fathers put the military under civilian control for a reason, realizing the potential for abuse if foreign policy were to be determined by professional military officers. As Samuel Adams said, "Even when there is a necessity of military power … a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it.” Military officers have built-in incentives favoring war. This is not to say the military is universally pro-war. In fact, it seems the only time an anti-war voice attracts media attention is when it's coming from a former military officer.

But the consequences of increasing military politicization are clear. Mr. Petraeus was recently ranked the second most influential American conservative by the Daily Telegraph newspaper. His official spokesman, Col. Steven Boylan, has sent belligerent e-mails to bloggers he disagrees with and writes for the conservative website Human Events. Many of the original mistakes of the Iraq war were made because important responsibilities for reconstruction were given to people with little practical experience beyond their neoconservative or Republican connections.