As I've mentioned before, civilian control of the military is an important feature of our democracy. I -- and probably most other hawkish writers -- frequently get comments saying that since I'm not in the military I shouldn't be so quick to put our boys in danger. It's the old "chickenhawk" argument, and it's based on several false assumptions.
False assumption 1: Only people in the military are involved in defending our country. This is pretty obviously false, because our military couldn't exist without a vast civilian infrastructure to support it. Someone needs to build the weapons and other tools the military uses, and there's no reason to assume that any individual person would be used more effectively if they were to join the military. Some people are in a position to make a greater contribution to national defense from the civilian sector than they could make if they enlisted.
False assumption 2: People who don't join the military aren't brave. It's likely true that there are more brave people per capita inside our military than outside, but the armed forces hardly have a monopoly on bravery. What about police and firefighters? What about brave women, who aren't very likely to join the military? What about civilian contractors like (*gasp*) Halliburton who perform dangerous jobs that the military isn't equipped to handle? And so forth.
False assumption 3: Only those in the military (or with military experience) are qualified to opine on national security issues. In fact, our founding fathers very purposefully rejected this odd notion when they put the military entirely under civilian control. The Commander in Chief is an elected civilian, and Congress is in charge of declaring war. These office-holders are prohibited by law from being in the active military.
In the modern world, only in tyrannical dictatorships do generals possess autonomous authority to wield military power. The very foundation of democracy is the principle that the public -- made up of civilians, those without hard (military) power -- is the ultimate sovereign of the nation. The military consists of volunteers, and each soldier enlists to serve the interests of his country, as determined by the sovereign majority of civilians.
Each member of this sovereign citizenry has the right encourage their elected officials to exercise the powers of government in the way most desirable to that citizen. No one demands that those who have too little income to pay taxes stop lobbying their represetnatives on monetary matters. Just like taxation and spending, national security is an issue that concerns all the citizens of the country, no matter what their status or position in life. We are all entitled to an opinion, and we're all entitled to vote for leaders who will execute our preferred policies.
In general, I agree with your point. However, I would add that it was mainly people who had never served in the military who insisted on some of the decisions that have led to difficulties now. Such as going into Iraq with a small military force, or disbanding the Iraqi military. Or relying on dubious intelligence. It was primarily people who have never served that insisted Iraqis would be very hospitable to us.
I favor civilians heading the military, but I think we would have done better if we had paid more attention to the advice of the military and less to the advice of the civilians.
For many, false assumption #3 is worse than the version you summarize here. The theory is that it is A-O-K for people who have never served in the military to weigh in on national security issues, as long as they reach the conclusion that going to war is a bad idea. It's not the only issue like that. Another is abortion, where men have no business "telling women what to do with their own bodies" (i.e., opposing abortion) yet are always welcome to protest in favor of abortion rights. And then there's affirmative action, which whites are free to support or oppose as they see fit, while blacks are required to support it.
JT: Perhaps, but we would have had to sacrifice some political objectives if we had kept the Iraqi army around or used a larger force, &c.
I don't know about that. My bias is toward the view of retired general Anthony Zinni, who warned that invading Iraq would simply make that place and the region less stable and more dangerous to American interests.
My view remains that the invasion of Iraq was an emotional and political response by the Bush administration, rather than a logical one reasonably tied to any comprehensive strategic thinking or planning.
JT: The point was to destabilize the region. Destablizing the middle-east may be dangerous in the short-term, but it'll be good in the long run. Like cauterizing a bleeding wound.
Michael,
The theory behind the U.S. encouraging Saddam to arm was to make the region unstable so that it would some day be safer. Did it work?
The theory behind propping up the Shah of Iran was to keep the Arab world edgy. Did it work?
Israel encouraged instability in Lebanon in order to make things better for Israel in the long run. Did that really work?
JT: That's a red herring. According to Strategy Page the US only sold Saddam's Iraq around $50 million worth of weapons. You'll have to talk to the French and the Russians if you want to know their motivation for selling him billions of dollars worth of weapons.
Michael,
It's not what the U.S. sold, it is what the U.S. clandestinely helped Saddam to acquire. Rep. Henry Gonzalez helped to expose the truth about how we helped Saddam acquire weapons through a maze of contractors, banks, and connections to arms dealers.
JT: Right, and we thought nasty thoughts about people, too. I guess I just don't see the point. We sold him weapons, no, we just encouraged him get weapons... from foreign arms dealers... to fight a war he started himself against Iran, who had just deposed a US-backed leader. So what?
Michael,
You're just doing a bait and switch. First, we didn't help him with weapons, then if we did, so what? Well, for one thing, we are telling the world that Germany and France are evil because they helped Saddam.
Your circular argument just makes me dizzy.
How about this? When Saddam killed the Kurds we had almost nothing at all to say about it.
JT: Can't I have it both ways? We didn't help him much, and the amount we helped him wasn't consequential.
But yeah, it was pretty awful how we encouraged rebellion in the 1992 and then didn't support it. Almost entirely due to the pressure of our "allies".
Michael,
I think you are simply wrong in your belief that we didn't help him much. Through BNL and the Commodity Credit Corporation, the U.S. helped Saddam fund a whole lot more than $50 million; more like in the billions. The Bush (I) administration worked feverishly to block Congressional investigation of this, but much of the truth came out anyway.