Who will Guard the Guardians? A Former General as President?

[Scaramouche]

I have not yet decided which Democratic candidate to support yet. But I have some worries about the role of the the military in the political process if we elect Clark. This is not a bashing thread or the start of a flame war. Rather I'd like to discuss the ramifications on our society and possibly the the military if the General become president next year.

Here is a thoughtful, longish article on the changing role of the military in politics. Please read this before commenting on what you see in your cyrstal ball...

http://www.tothebarricades.com/000686.html#more

Who Guards the Guardians?

Since the beginning of the American nation, politics and the military have been intertwined. Many of our leaders - Washington, Jackson, Grant, Roosevelt, Eisenhower - were high-ranking miltary officers. Some active duty officers have been known to dabble in politics, most notably Gen. George McClellan during the Civil War.

In a very thoughtful article on the military and politics, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Juan M. Garcia III notes:

Clausewitz pointed out that war is a "political act," suggesting that at some level the war fighter is inseparable from the policymaker. Many observers have detected a troubling trend in recent years away from the vaunted historical neutrality . If our military surrenders its political neutrality, we risk compromising our public credibility and our mission cohesiveness, two attributes that could be difficult to recover. Over a range of issues, the armed services will be vulnerable to questions regarding their stewardship of the taxpayers' resources, and whether we've joined with "the politicians" in a "conspiracy against the electorate."

Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, military participation in politics has become more overt - and partisan. Anyone with long enough memories can recall the blasting Representative Pat Schroeder received in absentia at many military functions, including a banner reported at one such event describing a certain sexual act be performed on her. We all still remember the partisan sniping from the military during the Clinton years.

The era of the Clinton administration witnessed several "uprisings" that certainly met the technical criteria for Article 88 violations. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) forbids military officers from using "contemptuous words against the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any state," with violations potentially resulting in dismissal from the military and one year's imprisonment. Many observers have written that President Clinton entered office mistrusted by the military because of his draft record. But it was his 1993 proposed relaxation of the ban on gay and lesbian service that unleashed a torrent of disapproval among the ranks. Aided by a then-blossoming technology called e-mail which was quickly becoming a fixture in American homes (as well as ships and submarines), servicemembers roared their disapproval of the Commander-in-Chief in long chain e-mails that quickly blanketed the fleet. The mood among sections of the military brass became so hostile that, in a stunning statement, a sitting U.S. senator, Jesse Helms (R-NC), publicly warned President Clinton that he would be in physical danger if he visited such military bases as Fort Bragg.

<Much More:http://www.tothebarricades.com/000686.html#more>

[leetrisck]

1. The "right wing" of the military

was actually campaigning against Clinton before he was ever elected - they listened to and believed the Repukes every step of the way.

[maha]

2. Full disclosure

... I didn't get past the first few paragraphs.

Frankly, if you want a President who will be circumspect about how and when to deploy troops, the guy you want would be a West Point graduate and war veteran. They are much less likely to use the military stupidly.

You seem to think that presidents can use the military as their private toy; this is not so. In spite of the "commander in chief" monniker, Congress has more constitutional authority (if only they'd use it).

Do you have any honest concerns about politics and the military based on facts? If so, can you boil them down to make them easier to find? Thanks.

[Demobrat]

4. Presidents can't use the military as their private toy?

Gee, you could have fooled me.

[maha]

5. "Gee, you could have fooled me."

I'm sure many have done so.

[Scaramouche]

8. OK maha, a few salient points...

that I took away from the article:

-The military has been politicized mostly by the 'publicans and about 2/3rds of the military leans towards the GOP.

-Morale is down, suicides are up, and re-enlistments will vanish away.

-Between the "letter campaign" and Bushes penchant for using military audiences for campaigning props, there a danger of losing the neutrality of the military in political affairs.

So some of my concerns are based on what could happen to make the military enter into the political fray in the next election instead of staying neutral. Furthermore what could happen if Clark becomes the Commander in Chief?

Would his candidacy cause division within the military?

Would he make promises to the soldiers like "raise your pay" or "bring you home?"

Would a possible draft become an election issue?

If elected would Clark be an Ike or a Caesar?

And by the way I like your blog...

[incapsulated]

12. Was Ike a "Caesar"?

Did he put us all in re-education camps and declare martial law?

What is this paranoia based on? Is the military any more suspect that the rightwing powerbrokers who try to unseat democratically elected presidents and steal elections?

[Scaramouche]

13. Maybe I should have put a comma in there...

I mean that Ike was one end of the spectrum and Ceasar at the the other end.

My thinking is a bit influenced by Colleen McCullough's books on Rome that led up to Caesar's ending of the Republic. According to here he was the best and brightest in his generation. But he was still a dictator.

Ike to my knowledge was a man who loathed what War and Military Spending was doing to this country.

Whatever the future brings I pray there will no "benevalent dictators..."

<one edit: Grammar>

[incapsulated]

14. I understood you..

And that's my point. If this country had a history of the military taking the Presidency and abusing it, then I too would be concerned.

Ike was our most recent General turned President and looks like a saint compared to the Bushes and Rumsfelds and Cheneys. It's not "The Military" we need to be worried about, it's the rightwing, self-described "New Imperialists" wherever they lurk.

[Scaramouche]

15. Sorry, I misunderstood you...

Did you read the part:

.. in a book comparing the political activities of the Philippine Military Academy Class of 1940 to that of 1971:

...Members of the class of 1940, who bonded to one another in PMA training modeled after West Point's, emerged from heroic battles against Japanese invaders with their belief in civil supremacy over the military affirmed. In postwar decades, they actively blocked coup attempts.

By contrast, the class of '71 emerged from the academy to become the fist of the Marcos dictatorship. Their involvement in torture ruptured the academy's socialization and inspired them to launch six coup attempts in the late 1980s....{emphasis mine}

I like Ike, however I'm not from that generation. I am concerned like you about the "rightwing, self-described 'New Imperialists' wherever they lurk," it's just I see them luking everywhere right 'bout now...

[ShaneGR]

3. Go buy Clark's new book

It answers all of your questions.

[displacedtexan]

6. good points!

i've been thinking more and more lately about the upcoming 2004 presidential debate(s)-- that is, if the freak monkey agrees to show up. in the last election, al gore was so much smarter and knowledgeable of the issues, but it didn't matter to enough of the sheeple to make a big enough difference to keep the repukes from cheating us out of our candidate of choice.

as i weigh the strengths and weaknesses (based on perceptions of the sheeple), i wonder if clark or dean can survive the white house press machine (AKA the entire american media) scrutiny. they have no legislative records to stand on; any stance they take on issues would be framed in the conditional tense (like, 'iwould have voted...').

of course, governor dean was elected by the people of vermont, but now he wants his records sealed? i know the shrub did the same thing, but the shrub controls the media outlets which most sheeple turn to for their 'news.'

i'm really worried that the repukes are lying when they say they are afraid of dean; i don't trust anything they say anymore.

as for clark's military experience... why is the gut reaction of the sheeple to annoint a new caesar every single time they feel threatened? i'm just tired of presidents who have to learn on the job! clark and dean have no experience working with the vicious congressional repubes, and dean's comments about cockroaches sound like the freak monkey we're stuck with now. lashing out and threatening congress only makes the situation worse.

[mikehiggins]

11. There are no "sheeple"

There are people who don't agree with you, or vote ways you don't care for, or stay home and don't vote at all (which is a sort of vote in the end, isn't it?). That is their right, and you have no right to simply dismiss them with an offhand label like "sheeple."

As to Republicans saying they are afraid of Dean, they aren't saying that. Rove is reported to be salivating at the thought of Dean as the Democratic candidate.

As far as I can tell, after many years spent in political campaigns and organizations, is that the candidate with the best chance of beating Bush, of gaining voters from the center and from the Nascar dads, and keeping this election out of the reach of the Supremes is Clark. That's enough for me.

This country cannot afford four more years of what we have now.

[pinkpops]

7. Requires some thought

I was anti-war during Viet Nam. Meanwhile, Clark was fighting. Now my friends include veterans and Vietnamese. Every one of us has a unique perspective. That's old news. Hopefully we have learned from experience. Just being from a military background is not a curse. George Junior was apparently not anti-war, just anti-him-going-to-war. At this point, George seems to be entwined with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. Reading what Clark writes is impressive in that he appears to have an intellect, and that is refreshing. So long as he doesn't hide from his past I can support him. But I can support most of the others also.

[Dr Satan]

9. Whats wrong with a military dictator?

The result would be no different than our "Democracy."

[Scaramouche]

10. Smoking too much makes you paranoid...

We're not quite there yet. So there is still time to pull back back from the precipice. Though the vertigo could make us jump in the wrong direction...