What are they all so afraid of?

Warning notice-rambling post follows:

A recent post over at Lex’s place kind of set me off. I’m not sure if it had to something to do with being accused of Bush derangement syndrome for the 100th time, or whether it was just the fact that I cannot accept the premise that Admiral Mullen was choosing to dredge up an issue that had died a long time ago.

The post was one praising this line out of the speech Mullen gave at the Naval Academy to graduating midshipmen:

“We give our best advice beforehand,” he said. “If it’s followed, great. If it’s not, we only have two choices — obey the orders we have been given, carrying them out with the professionalism and loyalty they deserve, or vote with our feet.

“That’s it. We don’t get to debate those orders after the fact. We don’t get to say, ‘Well, it’s not how I would have done it,’ or, ‘If they had only listened to me,”‘ he said in Annapolis, Maryland. “Too late at that point and too cowardly.”

 

All the usual audience is applauding loudly and praising Mullen to the rooftops. In the process they take yet another opportunity to lambast those general officers who have had a change of heart about the whole wretched business of the Iraq war or the overall defense policies of the Bush administration in general.

Nice words admiral-but I did not exactly see you turning in your resignation when Vern Clark was driving the US Navy over a cliff in terms of its procurement policy, the Navy was bending over backwards to support an utterly ludicrous policy about “diversity”-promoting women soley on the basis of the fact that they are female- and oh yes, allowing the service to betray its personnel repeatedly by sending them to do jobs that another service was supposed to be doing. Or while you were NAVEUR, you allowed Admiral Ulrich to hack and slash the organizations in the Sixth Fleet beyond the bone-you allowed him to create one of the most kluged up organizations ever seen.

Do I think Mullen should have resigned over any of the above? Not really. ( I do think he should have fired Ulrich though). Because I would submit that in every one of those cases, it was never one clear black and white, right versus wrong moment, where it was time to lay the shoulder boards on the table. Life does not work like that. Especially when you have worked a long time to achieve success in a difficult career, that required many times subordinating your opinion of what was right. You only get to resign in protest once-the issue better be a good one. Besides, that idea has been gone from the military for some time now. Otherwise a whole host of flag officers would have resigned when the Combat Exclusion law was repealed-if ever there was a reason to be angry at a betrayal of the military, that was the issue. No one resigned in protest and the present “diversified” era gloomily dawned.

I’d like to turn the question around the other way: “What is it that you, and all the others are afraid of, when these retired flag officers exercise their right to voice an opinion?” An opinion by the way, that 70% of the country agrees with, and is in many cases supported by documented factual evidence that the civilian masters of the Pentagon willfully disregarded the advice and the plans put up to execute a defined political objective. Point is, that if, the objectives are so correct and if the plans are so good-they can stand the scrutiny of retired professionals both pro and con.

Furthermore there are plenty of flags speaking up publicly in support of the administration. No one calls them unpatriotic or cowardly.

Guess it all depends whose side you choose and when you choose it.

There has been little heard from any of the dissenting generals for many , many, months-save for some passionate support of the new GI bill, which-to its credit-the Senate passed this past week over the objections of Dr Chu and other Bush administration hacks. ( Like John McCain who sounds like he got his talking points straight from the office of Dr Chu). So why does the Chairman make these remarks in front of midshipmen, when they are clearly directed at a different audience?

It is interesting too that Mullen’s remarks come at the same time as an article is scheduled to be published in Joint Forces Quarterly magazine where the CJCS exhorts the serving members of the military to remain “apolitical”:

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.”

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president,” Admiral Mullen wrote, “we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.”

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Admiral Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting military personnel around the world. He said their questions included, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?” and, “Do you think it’s better for one party or another to have the White House?”

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

He noted that “part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests.”

Such warnings are not new, however it is unusual to see it put into print. Normally it is put out back channel and given verbally from higher leadership-because no sitting Chairman wants to be seen having to state that which should be self evident to members of the military. It should make you wonder why, the senior military leadership has so little faith in the ability of the members to seperate professional duty from private opinion.

I think it is just wrong and does a huge disservice to those serving in uniform. This is not the 30’s any more. The cross section of the military represents the type of educated voter that should exist in the rest of society. Also these folks have a direct stake in the outcome of the election this year. An election that has real importance, not just because it involves electing a president in a time of war without end-but one where control of Congress is a toss up. They get a say in something that affects their lives. They will obey-even if they don’t like it. The military actually did so during previous unpopular administrations. Or has everyone forgotten that?

And what about those folks who spoke out during the Clinton administration? many of them were hailed as truth tellers then. What has changed?

Nothing. Except it is 10 years later and the armed forces are now engaged in a war that no matter who wins the election will have gone on longer than any other conflict. There is also the interesting paradox of the fact that the current administration, for all its good sounds to the contrary, is actually on record as repeatedly opposing earned increases in veterans benefits. As is shown by the Presidents threat to veto the new GI Bill. Who supports the troops? Not the current occupant of 1600 PA avenue. He just wants more blood from the turnip.

So ask yourself this important question. Why, when the military is at the best quality in its history, does its senior leadership have so little faith in allowing active and retired folks the rights under the Constitution they swore to serve? Misplaced fear if you ask me.