"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.