InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 133
Posts 200282
Boards Moderated 19
Alias Born 12/16/2002

Re: None

Thursday, 02/08/2018 8:30:41 PM

Thursday, February 08, 2018 8:30:41 PM

Post# of 393
The Military Is Not a Political Prop
By PHILLIP CARTERFEB. 8, 2018

Phillip Carter (@carter_pe), an Iraq war veteran, directs the veterans research program at the Center for a New American Security.

The power of the president, as commander in chief of the armed forces, has evolved over more than two centuries, constrained by congressional action, the emergence of a standing military establishment after World War II and a more complex world.

Some of the most important constraints on presidential power have been shaped in the form of norms of civil-military relations observed from George Washington to Barack Obama. These norms — respect for the military’s culture, its role in society and its separation from partisan politics — have been bolstered in recent decades by a professional military ethic that requires troops to avoid politics and focus on their missions.

Enter Donald Trump, our 45th president. Since taking office, he has shattered countless norms of civil-military relations — for example, by appointing many retired or active generals to high office, by politicking before military audiences and by summarily dismissing military advice on Afghanistan.


Mr. Trump’s proposal for a grand military parade in Washington — conceived in Paris after watching the pageantry of a French parade for Bastille Day — represents one more broken norm. In ordering the troops to march on Constitution Avenue, for no apparent military reason, Mr. Trump further politicizes the military, turning it into both a political prop and an issue to further divide the country in ways that politically benefit him. The march would also send an unmistakably autocratic message to Mr. Trump’s political enemies in Washington: Congress, the courts and the press, who have no armies of their own to parade in such fashion.

It’s understandable why a president enjoying historically low approval ratings would seek cover behind the troops and the public confidence they enjoy. Proposing a parade like this fits a broader pattern for Mr. Trump of using patriotism as a wedge issue. Whether he’s attacking the National Football League and its players for their protests during the national anthem or proposing costly and unnecessary military parades, the net effect is to rally his base and force opponents to choose between appearing to love America and opposing Mr. Trump. Fortunately, our service members (like all government employees) swear their oaths to the Constitution, not to the president.


All of these actions corrode the professional ethic of the military. In asking service members to support him politically, Mr. Trump presents troops with a dilemma: support their commander in chief or follow the rules, regulations and norms of the service. In most cases, this choice falls short of the threshold for disobeying an unlawful order, because it’s not strictly illegal for service members to support Mr. Trump politically or plan a parade for him.

But making that choice leads the military down a dark path that clouds its mission focus, diminishes its bipartisan admiration among Americans and tarnishes its institutional integrity, established over more than two centuries.

In that time, the United States military has evolved from a small, irregular force of wartime volunteers to a sprawling permanent establishment, with the greatest change happening during and after World War II. As this occurred, the apolitical professional military ethic took root within the senior ranks of the military. Gen. George C. Marshall epitomized this ethic, going so far as to not even vote; Gen. Douglas MacArthur stood out for his frequent flirtations with domestic politics that ultimately contributed to his downfall.

The apolitical, professional ethic is codified today in military criminal law that prohibit officers from speaking ill of political officials and regulations that proscribe service members from most political activity.

For at least the past seven presidential election cycles, candidates on both sides have sought to use veterans, military leaders and the military itself to validate their credentials as potential commanders in chief. In 1992, Bill Clinton received the endorsement of retired Adm. William Crowe, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each election cycle has escalated this use of veterans as stage props, or useful attackers, such as in 2004 with the deployment of Swift boat veterans to attack John Kerry. To some extent, this politicization of the military has carried forward into office, with presidents from each party carefully using military audiences or imagery to frame policy statements or political activities.

But there is a difference between giving a speech on Afghanistan in front of a military audience and what Mr. Trump has done during his first year in office. He has appointed more active and retired generals to serve as political appointees than any president in recent memory. In a public speech shortly after his inauguration, Mr. Trump delivered a blistering attack on the press before an audience of intelligence officers at the C.I.A. headquarters.

Seven days later, Mr. Trump used the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes, with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis standing by, to sign his controversial travel ban. Last February, he politicked before a crowd of troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., the home of the military’s headquarters for Middle East operations and special operations. In July of last year, during the commissioning of the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford, Mr. Trump told the assembled sailors that “I don’t mind getting a little hand, so call that congressman and call that senator and make sure you get it,” referring to his budget, adding, “And by the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care.”

Vice President Mike Pence followed the president’s lead last month in a speech before American troops in Jordan, on the border with Syria, attacking Democrats in the middle of a budget fight that caused a brief government shutdown.

Mr. Trump’s proposed parade fits this pattern of politicizing the military and using it to further his political interests — not those of the military or the nation.

Our service members have better things to do than march in Washington, at a time when we remain committed in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and face increased tensions with Russia and North Korea.

But beyond the costs and distraction of a parade, we should be wary of its long-term corrosive effects on our military, which must continue to serve and defend our country long after the Trump presidency ends.


Phillip Carter (@carter_pe), an Iraq war veteran, directs the veterans research program at the Center for a New American Security.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/trump-military-political-prop.html?

Simon Schama, the British historian, recently tweeted: “Indifference about the distinction between truth and lies is the precondition of fascism. When truth perishes so does freedom.”

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.